Congrats, Bush Administration: NY Debt Clock out of Digits

I remember when Bush was elected, the Conservatives went wild, calling for Bush to be on Mount Rushmore.
Not so great now, is he ? His approval rating is 31%. The same level as LBJ during the Vietnam war.

As for it being a cycle, even you have to admit that the graph is damning evidence of a failed presidency and policy.

Link: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/19/bush.poll/

Well if Clinton had his way and didn't have a republican congress blocking him, his debt would have been a lot higher.

And yeah Bush has spent like a drunken sailor, but neither party has acted responsibly. They all want their earmarks.

First, opinion polls are about as meaningful to me as your false sense of entitlement.

Second, it is evidence of failed policy, but pretending it all happened in eight years and laying it at the feet of one administration is just shrill partisan idiocy.

I have a plan to deal with that.

Isn't this thread a Repost?

Raise the roof!

We're gonna need a new sign.

I don't know about everyone else, but boy I'm glad Pres. Obama () put a stop to former Pres. Bush's irresponsible spending.
Pres. Obama's () completely insane, economy-killing spending is so much better for the country!

For every chart the dems throw up, the GOP and can another sign up. Suffice it to say, bush spent a shitload. But one must also admit that Obama is as well, and when only 50 billion of a nearly 800 billion stimulus has been spent, and there are already calls for another stimulus, the total funds i might add outrun the cost of the Iraq war, there is something wrong there.

Now, now, boys and girls, deficit spending is bad when there is an R by the president's name, but it is holy and just when there is a D by the president's name.

Everything is proceeding as I have forseen.

Lanz send Cass a email telling her she's not let in but that we are still laughing at her nonsense.

BearTM disagrees: QUIT USING THE FUCKING BABAGRAMMAR!

I blame liberals.

As usual, someone forgets that the power of the purse belongs to the congress, not the president. As far as I'm concerned, neither party has anything to crow about. Both parties are quilty of overspending and anyone that tries to lay the blame at the feet of one or the other is just being a partisan hack.

The primary debt metric is percentage of GDP. That's what really tells you how many years of productivity would be needed to pay off the debt because it accounts for population growth, inflation and productivity gains.

In such real terms, toward the end of Bush's term we were at around 1985-1986 levels, maybe 23-24% IIRC. Try to remember that the economy survived the 80s pretty handily.

Bush did break out, though, with the TARP bailouts in particular. But that's nothing compared to what's been happening since, under Obama.

For a clearer comparison, between Bush and Obama, look here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5yxFtTwDcc

We're gonna need a whole new clock when Obama leaves office

Hell, click on the U.S. debt clock in my signature, it's already spinning faster than Clark Griswold's electric meter in Christmas Vacation!

The Reagan-Bush dynasty has ensured that our nation will never again achieve a balanced account sheet.

You do realize that the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania is planning trillion dollar deficits for years, right?

You're not following proper history. Obama, our messiah, inherited this terrible economy that George Bush left for him. Therefore all those billion-dollar deficits are George Bush's fault.

Don't let it happen again.

Corrected.

Corrected yet again.

I guess that makes what I said okay, then.

You mean Cass was wrong?

Wait a minute.

I distinctly recall all our friends on the left telling us ad nausium that "Clinton balanced the budget"

Were we decieved?

Balancing a budget for a few years doesn't eliminate your debt overnight, nor does it prevent someone else from coming along and undoing everything you've accomplished.

Actually, yes. Clinton's "balanced" budget relied on a lot of smoke-and-mirrors accounting tricks and some unrealistically rosy predictions for the out years. To his credit, his budget(s) were on track towards balance and surplus, he just never really actually got there.

It's still better to have money go to helping people keep their jobs than for the money to go to bombing innocent people in third world countries. Something sensible people can agree on.

With unemployment at it's highest in years, and with all that "helping money" going out, exactly which jobs have people been able to keep again? What was the net gain on that?