The national debt has increased by a whopping 58% ($3.33 trillion) during Bush's time in office. Most of that increase ($2.83 trillion) occurred when Republicans were in control of both Congress and the White House. Bush used his veto exactly one time (on a stem cell issue not directly related to general budget spending levels) while the Republican Congress ran up this bill. That is an increase in federal debt of nearly $10,000 for every man, woman, and child in the United States. Bush also happily signed the largest expansion of entitlement spending in decades, the Medicare Drug Benefit. In fact, the Bush White House consistently low-balled the anticipated cost of the program during the Congressional debate on its passage (originally estimating the program's ten-year cost at $400 billion, then admitting after approval that it would be closer to $1.2 trillion).

 

Bush's lack of spending discipline will cripple this country in the next few decades. You'll see.

Bush bad. Liberal Democrats good. Got it. :lol:

 

If you are saying that most spending on domestic social welfare programs should be eliminated, then I am with you. If you are saying that liberal Democrats with a liberal president in the White House would be any more fiscally responsible than Bush, then call me skeptical.

Bush bad. Liberal Democrats good. Got it. :lol:

 

Never said that.

 

If you are saying that most spending on domestic social welfare programs should be eliminated, then I am with you. If you are saying that liberal Democrats with a liberal president in the White House would be any more fiscally responsible than Bush, then call me skeptical.

 

Never said that either. I merely stated a few facts to illustrate why Bush is one of the worst presidents in U.S. history.

It has?

 

During Bush's administration the Real GDP has only grown at an annual rate of 2.5 percent; far below the average growth from 1949-2000. Unemployment rose more than 2 percent during his presidency. As of August, Bush was preciding over a $9 Trillion dollar deficit. When he came into office, we had an $86 billion surplus. Household incomes have been flat while the poverty rate has greatly increased.

 

Mix that in with fast rising tuition, gas, and enegry prices and I don't see how you can even say the economy under Bush was even fair, much less held up "quite well."

You're quoting things that a president has absolutely nothing to do with.

 

The way you view it, the economy has been much better under Bush for me. Our company struggled severely under Clinton and his pathetic leftist decisions. Under Bush, we have flourished.

 

My household income has increased regularly under Bush, I had to work two jobs under Clinton.

You're quoting things that a president has absolutely nothing to do with.

 

The way you view it, the economy has been much better under Bush for me. Our company struggled severely under Clinton and his pathetic leftist decisions. Under Bush, we have flourished.

 

My household income has increased regularly under Bush, I had to work two jobs under Clinton.

 

The president has nothing to do with the economy? The house market and poverty rates are huge indictators of the shape of the economy as a whole - which I am pretty sure the president has a huge impact on.

 

If you are doing well economically - you are in a vast, vast minority.

The president has nothing to do with the economy? The house market and poverty rates are huge indictators of the shape of the economy as a whole - which I am pretty sure the president has a huge impact on.

 

If you are doing well economically - you are in a vast, vast minority.

I bolded what he has nothing to do with, but here they are again. Tuition, gas, and enegry prices.

Seems most people I know are doing very well also.

I bolded what he has nothing to do with, but here they are again. Tuition, gas, and enegry prices.

Seems most people I know are doing very well also.

 

I too, am doing better since Bush came into office. Do I agree with him on every issue? Certainly not, but in my view he has been a breath of fresh air compared to the previous Clinton administration . . . not to mention the debacle that would have ensued if Gore or Kerry had been elected. JMO though.

I bolded what he has nothing to do with, but here they are again. Tuition, gas, and enegry prices.

Seems most people I know are doing very well also.

 

You must live in a bubble, my friend. To say that most people are better off now than when Bush came into office is not only scewed its near ludicrous. While we are wasting billions of dollars fighting a war we had no business fighting - we have an economy that is in all probibility headed toward a recession.

 

I understand we live in conservative, close minded Kentucky - but open your eyes, man. The economy is not near as good as it was under Clinton. Clinton left a surplus in the billions - Bush has us now in a deficit in the trillions. THE TRILLIONS. Do you comprehend that?

I too, am doing better since Bush came into office. Do I agree with him on every issue? Certainly not, but in my view he has been a breath of fresh air compared to the previous Clinton administration . . . not to mention the debacle that would have ensued if Gore or Kerry had been elected. JMO though.

 

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

You must live in a bubble, my friend. To say that most people are better off now than when Bush came into office is not only scewed its near ludicrous. While we are wasting billions of dollars fighting a war we had no business fighting - we have an economy that is in all probibility headed toward a recession.

 

I understand we live in conservative, close minded Kentucky - but open your eyes, man. The economy is not near as good as it was under Clinton. Clinton left a surplus in the billions - Bush has us now in a deficit in the trillions. THE TRILLIONS. Do you comprehend that?

I think that you are confusing the budget deficit with the national debt. Clinton did not erase the national debt and the budget deficit under Bush is not in the trillions - not even close. Bush's spending record is bad enough without grossly exaggerating it.

The National Debt was in the trillions all through Clinton's reign.

The National Debt was in the trillions all through Clinton's reign.

 

Was it?

 

Was it?

Yes, it was. You are still confusing the annual budget deficit and the national debt. They are not the same. It is a fact. Look a little closer at the chart that you posted. The deficit under Bush has never been in the trillions as you asserted in your earlier post.

All your little chart shows me is that during the Clinton reign taxes were to high because the government had more of our money then it needed.

I bolded what he has nothing to do with, but here they are again. Tuition, gas, and enegry prices.

Seems most people I know are doing very well also.

 

 

I would disagree with the bolded. The President's policies have certainly had an impact on energy prices. His invasion and occupation of Iraq and continued threats toward Iran have unquestionably destabilized the middle east and added a substantial risk premium to the price of a barrel of crude. And documents came to light in 2005 indicating that Dick Cheney's closed door "energy task force" meetings in 2001 were attended by representatives of the big oil companies, who reportedly gave detailed energy policy recommendations. The minutes from these meetings (and indeed even the fact that the major oil companies were a part of the discussions) have been a closely kept secret by the administration and the oil companies themselves. It is also well known that the Bush family has close ties to the Saudi royal family--it's not at all implausible to think that the middle eastern oil producers could have had input into these meetings as well.

 

Should anyone be surprised that the price of crude oil has risen steadily from about $25 a barrel when Bush took office to its present price of over $96/barrel?

All your little chart shows me is that during the Clinton reign taxes were to high because the government had more of our money then it needed.

 

 

If we had no national debt, I would agree with you. However, piling on more and more debt each year is far worse than running a surplus and actually paying down the debt.

 

So-called conservatives who are not outraged by the GOP's fiscal mismanagement of our government's finances during the Bush presidency are either not real conservatives or have an extremely deficient understanding of basic finance principles.