wrote in message
ups.com...

NOYB wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

NOYB wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...



Under Bush the Second, the national debt has risen from 57% of the
GNP
to 65% of the GNP. As a percentage of the GNP, he has run up the
debt
as a percentage of the GNP to as high a humber as we have seen since
Bush the First was in office, and almost as high as when Eisenhower
took office and we were still paying off WWII.


Nice try, Chuck. But Debt as a percentage of GDP peaked in 1995 and
1996,
when it was 67.2 and 67.3% respectively.


My example was very accurate, as it was comparing the debt each
president inherited from the previous administration with the debt the
president left behind when his term was done. When Clinton took office,
the debt to GNP curve was going darn nearly straight up. Yes, it took
him a couple of years to get it turned around

You mean...the time period when there was a Democratic Congress?

but when he left office
the debt as a percentage of GNP was, indeed, *lower* than the debt he
inherited from Bush the First. You may not like that fact, but it is a
fact none the less.

Just curious:
What effect do you believe the change in control of Congress had on
lowering
the debt? Or do you think that Clinton did a 180 in his economic
policies
after 1995 and deserves all of the credit?




What effect do you believe that having a Republ


I assume you stopped typing in mid sentence just as you were about to
ask, "What effect do you believe that having a Republican congress had
on the reduction of national debt (as a percentage of GNP) during the
Clinton administration?"

You probably quit because you realized that I would point out we have a
Republican congress now, and have had during the entire BUSH II
administration, while our national debt has climbed from the mid- 5
Trillion range to a couple of bucks below 8 Trillion.

There are extenuating circumstances right now. Namely, a war in Iraq.


Apparently, the Republican congress argument doesn't hold water.

I will grant you this: having the congressional majority and the POTUS
from different parties does tend to create some "gridlock" in
government.

I'll agree with that assessment as well.

For fans of smaller government and restrained government
spending (that would include little liberal ol' me)a smaller, less
invasive government restraining spending and operating within fiscal
reality would be preferable to the mess we have now.
In a perfect society, the POTUS and the congressional majority would
never be of the same party- just another one of the "checks and
balances".

In a perfect society, there'd be no Democrats.

On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 16:00:48 +0000, NOYB wrote:


There are extenuating circumstances right now. Namely, a war in Iraq.

Oh please, the War in Iraq accounts for $200 billion. What about the
other $2.3 *trillion*?

Face it, fiscally conservative does not apply to modern day Republicans.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 16:00:48 +0000, NOYB wrote:


There are extenuating circumstances right now. Namely, a war in Iraq.

Oh please, the War in Iraq accounts for $200 billion.

The war in Iraq accounts for $200 billion...which is almost half of the
yearly deficit. The increased spending on Homeland Security accounts for a
big chunk of the remaining deficit.

"NOYB" wrote in message news:QMS0f.9129
In a perfect society, there'd be no Democrats.


and that perfect society would be call Shangri La ; )

The Edmund Fitzgearld & the National debt
 

On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 18:41:04 +0000, NOYB wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 16:00:48 +0000, NOYB wrote:


There are extenuating circumstances right now. Namely, a war in Iraq.

Oh please, the War in Iraq accounts for $200 billion.

The war in Iraq accounts for $200 billion...which is almost half of the
yearly deficit. The increased spending on Homeland Security accounts for
a big chunk of the remaining deficit.

Boy, you sure do play fast and loose with facts. That is $200 billion
over the course of the war, not per year. We were talking a $2.5
*trillion* debt, that this Republican has saddled us with. According to
the Whitehouse site, Homeland Security costs roughly $100 billion per
year. I'll throw in pre 9/11, so that makes 5 years @ $100 per = $500
billion. Add the $200 billion for the war, and we are at $700 billion.
Leaving $1.8 *trillion* in debt. The biggest extenuating circumstance is
Republicans are no longer fiscally conservative.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/book/sect5.pdf