Who is really to blame for federal debt

[Stalin]

Is this graph correct ?

Comrade Stalin

 

[Little-Acorn]

No, because it does not show who controlled the House of Representatives for those years. You know, the one where "all spending bills must originate" according to the Constitution?

Put that on, and you will see an accurate picture of who is to blame.

 

[Apathy]

No, because it does not show who controlled the House of Representatives for those years. You know, the one where "all spending bills must originate" according to the Constitution?

Put that on, and you will see an accurate picture of who is to blame.

Does not matter the president always has had veto power.

 

[Rick]

Amazing that this cornball thing keeps making the rounds on the net. Reagan had to ramp up the military to counter the aggression set loose by carter's appeasement policies. Clinton was held in check by a GOP congress.

 

[dahermit]

Amazing that this cornball thing keeps making the rounds on the net. Reagan had to ramp up the military to counter the aggression set loose by carter's appeasement policies. Clinton was held in check by a GOP congress.

Nevertheless, the sitting president must sign all legislation. There has not been much history of sitting Republican presidents causing a problem by refusing to sign (except Ron Reagan's Line Item Veto stuff), spending bills. Or maybe I was asleep all those years?

 

[Apathy]

Amazing that this cornball thing keeps making the rounds on the net. Reagan had to ramp up the military to counter the aggression set loose by carter's appeasement policies. Clinton was held in check by a GOP congress.

So he had to get into a "my dog is bigger" fight with russia? What about all the domestic spending? Reagan was a fraud.

 

[Rick]

So he had to get into a "my dog is bigger" fight with russia? What about all the domestic spending? Reagan was a fraud.

Reagan in fact brought about the demise of the soviet union (not "russia"), a result of tremendous benefit to the world, but incomprehensible to those ignorant of history.

 

[Rick]

Nevertheless, the sitting president must sign all legislation. There has not been much history of sitting Republican presidents causing a problem by refusing to sign (except Ron Reagan's Line Item Veto stuff), spending bills. Or maybe I was asleep all those years?

You were asleep. Reagan cast 78 vetoes, more than any of the nine other presidents since Eisenhower.

 

[Apathy]

You were asleep. Reagan cast 78 vetoes, more than any of the nine other presidents since Eisenhower.

Numbers do not lie rick, he made carter seem like a fiscal god.

 

[Gipper]

It is most amusing when libs complain about spending. They are so cute when they do this. They never met a spending bill they could disagree with except of course, funding the hated military.

Libs would have spent us into oblivion decades ago if they had their way. And now their Messiah is doing just that and yet, they complain about Reagan's spending.

Hypocrites!!!!!!

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Does not matter the president always has had veto power.

no only Dems do, Reagan and Bush had no option in his world

 

[dahermit]

You were asleep. Reagan cast 78 vetoes, more than any of the nine other presidents since Eisenhower.

If Reagan vetoed so many spending bills, what the hell did he spend all that money on to increase the national debt in his tenure? Oh, I remember...invaded Granada and spent like a drunken sailor increasing the national dept.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics

Reagan very significantly increased public expenditure, primarily the Department of Defense, which rose (in constant 2000 dollars) from $267.1 billion in 1980 (4.9% of GDP and 22.7% of public expenditure) to $393.1 billion in 1988 (5.8% of GDP and 27.3% of public expenditure); most of those years military spending was about 6% of GDP, exceeding this numbers in 4 different years. All these numbers had not been seen since the end of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War in 1973.[14]

Evidently he did not veto spending that originated on the Republican side. Gosh, I wonder if government spending would be good for our economy?

 

[BigRob]

If Reagan vetoed so many spending bills, what the hell did he spend all that money on to increase the national debt in his tenure? Oh, I remember...invaded Granada and spent like a drunken sailor increasing the national dept.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics


Evidently he did not veto spending that originated on the Republican side. Gosh, I wonder if government spending would be good for our economy?

Let me guess... you supported Obama's stimulus package? How ironic that you attack "government spending" under a Republican as worthless, and then turn around and think Obama's stimulus helped the economy.

Government spending is government spending... if government spending worked to stimulate the economy, military spending would be a huge boom to the economy.

 

[dahermit]

Let me guess... you supported Obama's stimulus package? How ironic that you attack "government spending" under a Republican as worthless, and then turn around and think Obama's stimulus helped the economy.

Government spending is government spending... if government spending worked to stimulate the economy, military spending would be a huge boom to the economy.

I am just asking the question: Does or does not government spending stimulate the economy? If it did, ala Reagan, How ironic that you attack "government spending" under a Democrat as worthless, and then turn around and think Reagan's military spending helped the economy. Let me guess... you do not support Obama's stimulus package?

 

[Apathy]

It is most amusing when libs complain about spending. They are so cute when they do this. They never met a spending bill they could disagree with except of course, funding the hated military.

Libs would have spent us into oblivion decades ago if they had their way. And now their Messiah is doing just that and yet, they complain about Reagan's spending.

Hypocrites!!!!!!

You should get your labels right before you start pigeon holing people. You are making yourself look quite foolish.