Crossing the $15 trillion debt threshold

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The Treasury Department announced yesterday that the national debt surpassed $15 trillion. Take a guess what Republicans had to say in response to the news.

Republicans are seizing on the occasion to pin the blame on President Obama…. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) pointed out that $4.4 trillion in debt had been added since Obama took office.

"Our skyrocketing debt burden is not just bad luck; it is the predictable outcome of President Obama's policies," Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) said.

I have no idea whether these folks believe their own rhetoric, but it's worth taking a moment to appreciate just how little credibility Republicans have on this issue. Watching GOP officials whine yesterday about the debt is the equivalent of watching arsonists complain about fires.

In early August, I ran a timeline of events, taking a little stroll down memory lane. Perhaps now would be a good time to revisit this.

1980: Ronald Reagan runs for president, promising a balanced budget

1981 - 1989: With support from congressional Republicans, Reagan runs enormous deficits, adds $2 trillion to the debt.

1993: Bill Clinton passes an economic plan that lowers deficit, gets zero votes from congressional Republicans.

1998: U.S. deficit disappears for the first time in three decades. The debt clock, which hadn't been programmed to run backwards, is unplugged.

1999: The country begins paying down the national debt for the first time in more than three decades.

2000: George W. Bush runs for president, promising to maintain a balanced budget.

2001: CBO shows the United States is on track to pay off the entirety of its national debt within a decade.

2001 - 2009: With support from congressional Republicans, Bush runs enormous deficits, adds nearly $5 trillion to the debt.

2001 - 2009: Congressional Republicans throw caution to the wind, approving tax cuts, two wars, Medicare expansion, and a massive Wall Street bailout. They add every penny of the costs to the national debt.

2002: ####### Cheney declares, "Deficits don't matter."

January 2009: Barack Obama inherits $1.3 trillion deficit from Bush; Republicans immediately condemn Obama's fiscal irresponsibility.

December 2009: Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) describes the previous eight years as an era in which Republicans believed "it was standard practice not to pay for things."

2009 - 2010: Congressional Democrats unveil several domestic policy initiatives — health care reform, cap and trade, DREAM Act — which would lower the deficit. GOP opposes all of them.

September 2010: In Obama's first fiscal year, the deficit shrinks by $122 billion. Republicans again condemn Obama's fiscal irresponsibility.

October 2010: S&P endorses the nation's AAA rating with a stable outlook, saying the United States looks to be in solid fiscal shape for the foreseeable future.

November 2010: Republicans win a U.S. House majority, citing the need for fiscal responsibility.

December 2010: Congressional Republicans demand extension of Bush tax cuts, refuse to consider paying for them, demand that the costs be added to the national debt.

March 2011: Congressional Republicans declare intention to hold full faith and credit of the United States hostage — a move without precedent in American history — until massive debt-reduction plan is approved.

July 2011: Obama offers Republicans a $4 trillion debt-reduction deal. GOP refuses.

August 2011: S&P downgrades U.S. debt, citing GOP refusal to consider new revenues. Republicans rejoice and blame Obama for fiscal irresponsibility.

October 2011: Working through the so-called super-committee, congressional Democrats offer Republicans several plans to reduce the debt by trillions of dollars. GOP officials not only refuse, but counter with alternatives that make the debt worse.

November 2011: The national debt tops $15 trillion. Republicans, hoping Americans ignore the previous 30 years, blame Democrats.

If this is too complicated for Republicans, perhaps some images can help explain this to them. There's this one:

And this one:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

[Obama 2012 1,714]

glad to see that idiots are still pushing the lie that Tax Cuts have a "cost" with them. Supreme idiocy at its finest.

United States had greatest revenue year ever in 2007.

The problem? SPENDING. Doesn't matter who the ** the President is, it's the SPENDING.

Obamacare doesn't reduce shite. and the "DREAM" Act doesn't do jack either other than reward criminals who bring their kids over.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

There you go again trying to impress with facts. That shite don't fly with the right.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

There you go again trying to impress with facts. That shite don't fly with the right.

[웃 910]

The problem? SPENDING. Doesn't matter who the ** the President is, it's the SPENDING.

Any democrat would have been running surpluses all day during the years of 2001 to 2007.

Edited November 17, 2011 by Lord Infamous

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Any democrat would have been running surpluses all day during the years of 2001 to 2007.

You can't say anything like that for sure. The elimination of the line-item veto changed a lot after Clinton. Also you don't know what would have happened post-9/11 either. Remember Bill Clinton also cut some of the same taxes that Bush did as well...

[Ban Hammer 14,364]

[slim 1,533]

Any democrat would have been running surpluses all day during the years of 2001 to 2007.

That's BS.

Al Gore would've ran this country into the ground attempting make us "green" and reduce our carbon footprint (all the while profiting from the new regulations.)

[웃 910]

That's BS.

Al Gore would've ran this country into the ground attempting make us "green" and reduce our carbon footprint (all the while profiting from the new regulations.)

No it's not. $5 trillion in debt vs. a projected $6 trillion surplus. That is a difference of $11 trillion.

And it is Republican ideology that made that difference.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

No it's not. $5 trillion in debt vs. a projected $6 trillion surplus. That is a difference of $11 trillion.

And it is Republican ideology that made that difference.

Not exactly.

Alan Greenspan's ideology is what happened. Despite the political rhetoric, both parties hold a lot of blame on their shoulders.

The economic collapse that ultimately led to a much higher 'debt' is the direct result of policies put into place (or taken out of place mind you) from the 80's until the end of the 90's. If you want to blame Republicans, blame Reagan for choosing Greenspan to head the FED. Other than that though, both parties let the "economic genius" run wild.