Gingrich takes lead nationally

It was a recession created by the dot com bubble. Lower interest rates "fixed it" and kicked the can down the road to the housing bubble.

Yet the debt increased 2 trillion in his first term and 4 trillion in his second term. So what significance does the deficit have when the overall outcome is a 6 trillion dollar increase in the debt over his 2 terms?

 

Like the recession in 2008 it was a normal business cycle with a bubble on top of it. We were due for a recession both times after the long periods of growth. It's what was done about that counts.

I can't make it any clearer, in order to lower the debt you have to lower the deficit and then create a surplus. Bush and the Republicans were doing that, they had lowered the deficits down to a TENTH of where the Democrats later took them. Had the Democrats not shut down Bush's efforts to reform Social Security MORE could have been done. But the fact remains the 52 months of sustained growth and increasing revenues lower the deficits and we had full employment.

My what we would give to have that back!

 

Dont mention Clinton...

Anyways. Clinton didnt cheat during his election campaign, so your reply is null...

 

Did you know, Bush is a Nazi...

so by saying you support Bush, You are saying, you support the Nazis...

 

You are intentionally or unintelligently posting MISINFORMATION.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway

National Debt 01/19/2001
$5,727,776,738,304.64

National Debt 01/20/2009
$10,626,877,048,913.08
Difference
$4,899,100,310,608.44

NOT "over 6 trillion" as you erroneously claim.

That is an average of $51.032 BILLION PER MONTH

National Debt under b.o.
1/20/2009
$10,626,877,048,913.08

11/17/2011
$15,039,350,324,589.25

Difference
$4,412,473,275,676,.17

THAT IS AN AVERAGE OF $133.711 BILLION PER MONTH.
He is only $400 billion short of equaling what Bush did in 96 months. But b.o. has done that in 33 months.

At his present insane rate of spending, if b.o. had the same 96 months Bush had,,,,,,,,,b.o.'s increase in National Debt would be $12,836,285,892,876.13

Another way to put that is he would increase the national debt by $2 TRILLION MORE than all previous presidents combined.

These figures are from TREASURYDIRECT.GOV

AND,

You had the misfortune to say,
"How can you claim he did any good with the deficits when the debt increased by 6 trillion ($12 TRILLION) over his tenure. Please help me to understand how that is a good thing."

Perhaps, long slow cooking with many and powerful spices will help you EAT those words.

b.o. is and has been spending at a rate exceeding all previous presidents.

If you want any respect, try posting FACTS instead of loony liberal propaganda bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

Easy sparky, I am willing to admit that my source for the 6 trillion was off, but if you want to get all fired up and name call I would be glad to take you to economic school. Either way, 4.8 trillion is in no way shape or form a good thing. Bush's last budget increased the deficit from 162 billion the previous fiscal year to 455 billion in the 2008 fiscal year. I am merely pointing out the fact that using Bush as an example of what should be done fiscally is just flat out stupid.

 

Good post..............

 

I completely agree that $4.8 trillion in 8 years is a BAD thing. I have said many, many times that Bush was BAD, b.o. is much, much worse.
Bush $4.8 trillion in 8 years
b.o. $4.4 TRILLION in 33 months!

And to continue to correct your misinformation. FY 2007 deficit was $161 billion, not $162 billion and the Congress was controlled by Republicans, both Houses.
FY 2008 deficit was $458 billion, not $455 billion and both Houses of Congress were controlled by the Democrats.
And so was
FY 2009 deficit $1,412.7 TRILLION
FY 2010 deficit $1,293.5 TRILLION
FY 2011 deficit $1,298.6 TRILLION
That is $4,462,8 in DEFICITS in 4 years, compared to Bush's $4.8 INCREASE IN NATIONAL DEBT IN 8 YEARS.
So that you understand the difference in deficits and National debt.
Bush increased the National Debt $4.8 trillion in 8 years, Democrats ran up deficits of $4.46 TRILLION IN 4 YEARS, resulting in an increase of the National Debt of $5,727,788 TRILLION IN ONLY 4 YEARS!

IF BUSH'S 8 YEAR $4.8 TRILLION NUMBER IS BAD,,,,,,,AND IT IS. HOW BAD IS THE DEMOCRATS $5.7 TRILLION INCREASE IN HALF THAT TIME?

The Democrats INCREASE exceeds the national debt accumulated by ALL PRESIDENTS from Washington through Clinton.

One more time!

Bush was bad, b.o. is much, much worse!

 

During his election to Governor, President and reelection he even cheated when he was on trial for sexual harassment with a subordinate worker.

Your response is specious.

The left has no leg to stand on when it comes to Gingrich and his personal life.

The standard was set, personal life has no bearing.

 

Is hyperbole the best you got? Name calling. How juvenile.

 

That was a Democrat budget, Bush's was dead on arrival. Bush's last budget with the Republicans had brought the deficits down to $161 billion the Democrats took them to $160 TRILLION.

Face the fact.

 

You do realize that government budgets run on a fiscal year correct? Bush's budget ran all the way to Oct. 30th 2009 even though Obama was inaugurated in Jan of that year. Obama's first budget did not take effect until Oct. 31 2009.

Face the fact.

 

Yes that is why I am talking fiscal years.

You do realize you are grasping at straws now.

 

So now you are blaming Congress for a budget that Bush signed? Gotcha.

 

OH I see, it is Bush's fault because he didn't stop your side from passing their budget.................ROFLMAO

The fact is the Democrats have not passed a budget in over 920 days and have just been passing increased spending allowing automatic increases to continue and refusing to cut any spending nor do anything to fix the mess we are in, in fact they have made it worse.

Keep digging your hole.

Oh and did you vote for Republicans to support any Bush veto?

 

My side? You assume I am on the left? Have you seen my avatar?

 

You are the one defending the Democrats not me.

 

Congress passes or doesn't pass a budget. The president sends them HIS budget proposal. They vote on it and pass or reject it and each House comes up with a budget of their own. Those 2 budget are reconciled, or not and sent to the pres. IF he doesn't sign that means we are operating without a budget. AS HAS BEEN THE CASE SINCE 10/01/2009. Since then we have been operating on "Continuing Resolutions." b.o. send his proposed budget to Congress in Feb as required. The new Republican House rejected his budget but passed their own budget and sent it on to the Democrat Senate. The Senate voted on b.o.'s budget back in Mar. They rejected b.o.'s budget in a bi-partisan manner 97-0. But they neither passed one of their own or ever brought the House budget to the Senate floor. So when FY 2012 began 10/01/2011 we were agaim operating without a budget.

So YES! Congress is always to blame for the budget. Altho the president collects the bulk of the grief. The president really only has strong budget/spending influence when his party controls both Houses of Congress.
And b.o. had that situation since day one in office.

 

I just pray that my good Republican friends will see the light and vote for Newt and Herman for the Republic ticket. Please do the right thing and put the very best forward for 2012! The budget and all these other issues are not that important, the main goal is to defeat Obama, remember that!

 

A vicious hypocrite and a senile fast food guy?

If you want to beat Obama get behind Huntsman.

 

And in fact there is not "a budget" there are 13 different spending appropriations that make up "the budget" they are passed separately.

So when people say Bush should have veto'd "the budget" they are making a specious statement.

It kinda reminds me of Democrats trying to blast Reagan for deficits and then when you point out that he requested lower spending than the Congress passed they blame him for not vetoing the spending THEY supported.

 

No, I disagree, go for Newt and Herman! Please!!!!!

 

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/04/03/congress-passes-35-trillion-budget-in-the-dark/

When Bush proposed his FY 2009 Budget (3.1T4), expected Federal income was thought to be 2.7T$, however when passed by a Democratric Congress, having added admendments grew to 3.5T$ and was signed by Obama...not Bush...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget

 

Even Republimussen shows Gingrich trailing Obama by 6.

Rasmussen Reports11/19 - 11/20 1000 LV4640Obama +6

 

Republican still floundering around for the "not Romney" candidate.