As I caught this headline, U.S. debt jumps a record $328 billion — tops $17 trillion for first time, I recalled hearing a politician once call huge increases in debt unpatriotic.
Just found the clip on Youtube:
Twenty months ago today, CBS News reported that the “national debt has increased more under Obama than under Bush“:
The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office.
The latest posting from the Bureau of Public Debt at the Treasury Department shows the National Debt now stands at $15.566 trillion. It was $10.626 trillion on President Bush’s last day in office, which coincided with President Obama’s first day.
The federal government has added an additional $1.509 trillion in debt since the date when the debt accumulated under Obama exceeded than accumulated under Bush. And the Democrat has not yet completed a full five years in office. George W. Bush served for eight full years.
The mistake is in anyone assuming we Tea Party Conservatives were OK with the massive debt increase under Bush, we were not. Conservatives fought against the Prescription Drug Entitlement and against TARP (which was passed by a coalition of Democrats and GOP “moderates” by a Democrat-controlled Congress, and authored by aDemocrat Secretary of the Treasury.)
Bush was not a conservative. The GOP has not nominated a conservative for president since 1984. Their electoral history since then is a reflection of that reality.
Clearly, his issue with Bush 43 wasn’t about the debt rising, but rather that the debt didn’t rise enough.
I think “unpatriotic” understates the problem – “lethal” is closer to reality.
Once in a while, I attempt to engage libs in comment threads about the explosive growth in debt. They respond the usual dreck about the evil rich, greed, racism, tea-baggers, Bush, etc. It’s futile – a waste of time and my patience.
I guess it’s a tribute to our educational system that so many people cannot understand a simple graph:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=nx1
Expressed as an index (2007 = 100), it shows the trend in our recognized debt (debt held by the public). Off-the-books liabilities would be truly scary to see on a graph.
The trend started upward in the early 80s. To Newt Gingrich’s (and Bill Clinton’s – I guess) credit, there was a brief pause in the rate of growth in late 90s.
When GWB (and the GOP) gained control, the curve takes a disturbing turn northward… and when BHO and the Dems assumed control, the curve bends almost vertical.
As Mark Steyn has noted, we are not capable of any meaningful course correction.
Bill O’Reilly’s 10/18 Talking Points Memo is amazing…
http://commoncts.blogspot.com/2013/10/talking-points-memo-bill-oreilly-rails.html
Typical Leftist — do as I say, not as I do. Didn’t this lying shill also talk about wanting to lead not just Red States, not just Blue states, but the UNITED States?
And yet he never misses an opportunity to attack the political opposition …
KCRob you are too kind:” I guess it’s a tribute to our educational system that so many people cannot understand a simple graph:”
Our high schoolers and college types are subject to watered down material. A Simple graph is heady stuff for them. Ask them about the faults of America and they will be able to tell you.
50-years of Marxist trade-unionism in education shows that it isn’t working…in-spite-of massive cash outlays, especially in the larger cities.
In Newark NJ , the State of NJ spends nearly $38k per student with an abysmal graduation-rate and poor basic skills. Thirty-five years ago I graduated from a middle-ranked New Jersey high school with a 99% graduation-rate, with decent class-wide core skills for $1300. per year….call it $6000. in today’s-dollars.
If I had kids, I’d seriously look at these charter-schools that use individual-use computers and resources like the Khan Academy for pure-academics, one-on-one tutoring, and that concentrate on teacher-lead group activities for socialization and sports.
Where’s the leadership?
Where’s the reform?
What we need is not a “conservative”-movement…what we need is a structurally-progressive reform movement with conservative values. A true “Reform Party“, not just a tea party….it’s the 21st-century!!