Not too likely

Ok, maybe we could just start with a couple solid hand shakes and few muted grunts as not to compromise anyones masculinity

OK, I may be a bit slow, but if you look at the national debt calculator, there wasn't a day in the Clinton Administration that the national debt didn't increase. With the surplus shown in the chart, how does that happen? Clinton inherited the biggest debt ever, increased it and passed a bigger debt to Bush, and Bush will pass a bigger debt to the next president. I don't know if it will ever end!

Kumbyaa boys. Now back to the bickering!!

You are correct. But it's in style to say Bush has the biggest of all time. It was growing during the last three pres or more. Keep in mind the gas was going up during the Clinton Admin as well and he had the IT Boom.

It maybe in style to say Bush has the biggest of all time but it is true.

I just looked at the graph, from 1982 to 2002 there was steady increase each year to the dept. then 2003 came then huge spike and every year after that more spikes averaging 75% to 100% more increases than the years past. Though in his first years in office Bush did have lower increases.

Clinton had lower increases at the end of his term. Though, before that his increases average the same as previous administration since 1980.


Hopefully we will get a president that will control his and congress's spending in relevant
to the amount of money coming in, and fixes the trade deficit so we have more money staying in this country.

Ok, maybe we could just start with a couple solid hand shakes and few muted grunts as not to compromise anyones masculinity [/quote]

Now that is more like it

The national debt is different than the annual budget deficits.

Clinton achieved an annual budget surplus. That money could have been used to pay off the national debt, or whatever.

The national debt continues to increase as we owe interest on it that continually accumulates.

What is the national debt?
What is the value of this country's assets?
From there you go and find our debt to asset ratio. I bet it is very, very small. That is what the top dogs look at I'm sure.
So think of it as a corporation. Most large, healthy companies have debt to asset ratio of 1 or 2 to 5. I bet this country's is about 1 to 1,000.
Maybe I'm totally off the mark here, but that is how I've always looked at the national debt issue. It is what it is, but in the grand scheme of things, it gets blown out of proportion. Just my opinion

Just to put some hard numbers to the debt discussion. (from various sources)

America has a total debt of $53 Trillion; the highest debt ratio in history.

That's $700,616 per family of 4 which is $33,781 more debt per family than last year.

Last year’s debt increased $4.3 Trillion, 5.5 times more than GDP.

Our debt to foreign countries increased $2.2 Trillion;

80% of total debt was created since 1990

And, this does not include un-funded pensions and medical promises.

Maybe we can get it to be forgiven, like we have with many other nations in the world. I think the term is call "odious debt." Debt accrued as part by a government that was not working on the behalf of the governed, therefore the governed should not be responsible.

A little more clearly:
"When the US conquered Cuba in 1898 to prevent it from liberating itself from Spain (what is called "the liberation of Cuba from Spanish rule"), it cancelled Cuba's debt to Spain on the reasonable grounds that the debt had been forced on the people of Cuba without their consent. That doctrine, called "odious debt," was later upheld in international arbitrarion, with US initiative."

Furthermore:

"The current debt crisis can be traced back to policies of the IMF and World Bank encouraging lending/borrowing to recycle petrodollars in the 1970s. Their very confident recommendations that this was just great for all concerned continued up to the moment of the Mexican default in 1982, when the system threatened to crash, and the same institutions stepped in to socialize cost and debt. Another factor was the sharp rise in interest rates in the US under the late-Carter/Reaganite policies of a form of "structural adjustment" here, undertaken with no concern, of course, for the fact that this would impose a crushing burden on third world debtors, as it did."

I guess if I quote Buckley, it seems fair that I can quote Chomsky as well.

I wonder. Is it really fair to compare the national debt of one presidential term to another? The past two administrations had totally different circumstances to deal with. One, the previous, served during a time of generous growth while the other has had to deal with almost continuous war. War is expensive and therefore the debt is increasing. What is really in question is, why did our debt continue to rise despite enjoying one of our most rapid and long-term periods of economic growth in history? It was probably one of our best opportunities to reduce our national debt and we failed to do so.

Bob

Ah the one war we are having is a war that need not be and with out it the the increase would not be there. And could have focussed more on the war that was pushed aside untill lately.

Those are circumstances that could have been avoided. In my opinion we would not be sitting where we are now.

It is fair.

The great thing about the late '90's, when the deficit actually faded into a surplus for a time, was the magnificent case of gridlock (GOP Congress vs. Clinton). Which meant that neither side's nutty ideas could be easily enacted & they actually had to compromise (see: welfare reform).

When Bush & the GOP Congress took over, all h*ll broke loose; there was nobody around to rein them in. If you look at Chode's nice charts, the % of GDP difference between taxes & spending is beginning to narrow in the past few years - gridlock, again.

I anticipate that if Obama & gets to work with a DFL Congress, the deficit is going to get out of control again. No checks & balance & the DFL will be able to run out every wild spending idea the GOP has held in check. But the reverse is true, too. McCain & a GOP Congress, according the CBO, would make the deficit even worse through a combo of tax cuts & spending. Anybody who derides the liberal "tax & spenders" as making the deficit worse hasn't read enough about McCain's plans.

And hey upnorth, since I'm a raving liberal. I don't have any masculinity to speak of. I'll take a big hug.

Maximmum you make a good point there. There needs to be check and ballances that is why we have inforce the "croixflats agenda"
For more on the "croixflats agenda" stay tooned to your local independant news.
Or for a minimal fee of $29.99 you may purchase my guide to becoming wealthy and sticking it to the man.
just in case, I agree with what you said