meuhl: "From the end of 12/31/2009 to the end of 12/31/2011(three years)"

Wrong: looks like that is two years

meuhl: "From the end of 12/31/2001 to the end of 12/31/2008 (eight years)"

Wrong: looks like that is seven years

You're welcome for the correction.
I will do my own math on the figures there.

we haven't recovered from the debacle of G.W Bush. The sorry state of the economy started with his policies and any attempt to get back on course have been largely stonewalled by Congressional republicans. Yes, I know cons hate to be reminded but when historians write the epitaph for this once great nation, they'll mark the beginning of the end at the year 2000.

Watching the Party of NO! in action is like watching a roofing crew at work where half the crew does everything possible to ruin the job. When they hand you a shingle they tear it first. When they hand you the nailer they make sure it's only got 3 nails.

Then they sit around and point fingers wailing that you haven't fixed the roof leak.

If the Party of NO! had let even some of the Obama administration ideas get a fair trial and THEN they failed there would be legitimate argument that it didn't work. But they undermined every effort so nothing was ever given a fair trial.

It's time the GOP started to think about what they are doing to Americans for a change.

(I'll use the new Dutchman format).

Obama wants to spend more...
This will create more jobs...
But spending will increase the debt...
This is a necessary thing (cayenne, mouthie, et.al.)...
But when considering GWB spending...
This was a bad thing...
Spending on AIDS prevention did not create jobs...
A ballooning federal education department did not create jobs...
A ballooning Homeland Security did not create jobs...
Apparently only "green" jobs are true jobs...

I think it's becoming clear now(?).

When Bill Clinton's last budget expired on Sept. 30, 2001, the debt of the U.S. was $5.7 trillion. When George Bush's final budget expired on Sept. 30, 2009, the debt stood at $11.9 trillion. About $200 billion of Bush's 2009 budget funded Barack Obama's stimulus package, which means the total increase in debt attributable to the Bush administration was $6 trillion (it doubled in eight years).

The numbers for intergovernmental debt were $2.4 trillion after Clinton and $4.3 trillion after Bush.

It's important to recognize that an incoming president doesn't have the luxury of starting with a clean slate. The cost for defense spending, social security, medicare and veteran's benefits increased by a total of $770 billion annually since Clinton's last budget. And that doesn't count the cost of the wars, which added roughly $1.5 trillion to the debt.

I thought at the time, and still believe today, that Bush's tax cuts were irresponsible given the two wars and impending retirement of the first wave of baby boomers. Those tax cuts reduced federal revenues by an estimated $1.6 trillion.

The truth that few Conservatives will admit is that 75% of our current national debt was accumulated under three Republican Presidents since 1980. Ronald Reagan and the two Bush's hold the blame, not Obama!

Not only are they to blame for our current financial woes, the evidence suggests they did it on purpose! The strategy is called "Starving The Beast", and Grover Norquist has admitted that is precisely what the GOP policies are designed to do.

From Wikipedia: "Starving the beast" is a fiscal-political strategy of American conservatives to cut taxes in order to deprive the government of revenue in a deliberate effort to create a fiscal budget crisis that is intended to force the federal government to reduce spending (rather than restore tax levels). The short and medium term effect of the strategy has increased United States public debt rather than reduced spending...Economist Paul Krugman summarized the [Norquist/GOP] strategy in February 2010: "Rather than proposing unpopular spending cuts, Republicans would push through popular tax cuts, with the deliberate intention of worsening the government’s fiscal position. Spending cuts could then be sold as a necessity rather than a choice, the only way to eliminate an unsustainable budget deficit. Republicans insist that the deficit must be eliminated, but they’re not willing either to raise taxes or to support cuts in any major government programs. And they’re not willing to participate in serious bipartisan discussions, either, because that might force them to explain their plan—and there isn’t any plan, except to regain power." You can read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast

Here is a recent quote of Norquist's which tells the tale: "My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."

What's really "scary" to me is not the fact that we have a black President, but rather the fact that the radical elements in the modern Republican Party are willing to destroy our government for the sake of putting a few more dollars in their pockets.

If Conservatives don't want a Federal government, let them move to Somalia, or some other country where anarchy reins. We CAN put our financial house in order, and it's time we get started!

We need to cut spending (including defense) AND increase revenues by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire and by closing corporate tax loopholes (2/3's of U.S.corporations currently pay NO taxes). It is estimated that the Bush tax cuts alone will account for 40% of the deficit over the next ten years! Anyone who says they can reduce the deficit by only cutting spending and not addressing tax rates is lying. Period!

The strength of this country is the middle class. The key thing to realize is that the capitalism we enjoyed in this country from 1946 to 1980 is NOT the capitalism we have today. The "social compact" which allowed the middle class to grow for generations has been taken away. The rich have gotten MUCH richer, while the wages of average Americans have stagnated. Capitalism can not survive unless ALL Americans are vested in it's success. "Rigging" the system to favor one class of people is a disaster. We MUST return to a more equitable system like we had in the 50's & 60's.

Here are some startling FACTS that conservatives don't want to acknowledge:

Back in the 70s, the top 1 percent earned about 8 percent of all income. Today, they earn about 21 percent of all income.

The wealthiest 1 percent of all Americans own more wealth than the bottom 95 percent combined.

According to Forbes, the 400 wealthiest Americans have more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans combined.

The poorest 50 percent of all Americans collectively own just 2.5% of all the wealth in the United States.

Median household income in the United States is down 7.8 percent since December 2007 after adjusting for inflation.

The top 0.01% of all Americans make an average of $27,342,212. The bottom 90% make an average of $31,244.

In 2010: 37 percent of all income gains went to the top 0.01 percent of all income earners. 56 percent of all income gains went to the rest of the top 1 percent. 7 percent of all income gains went to the bottom 99 percent.

If you had trouble paying your bills, would you continue to buy expensive gifts for your wealthiest friends? Of course not. Yet that is exactly what the Federal government is doing for big corporations and the richest Americans.

Congress needs to get busy and come up with a budget that incorporates reasonable spending cuts to entitlements & defense, and tax reform that will close loopholes and end subsidies for big corporations and the wealthiest 3% of Americans. Shared sacrifice is the key to controlling our national debt, and compromise is the only way forward.

Sorry DiscipleofSin, I was wrong it's OVER 2/3's of corporations pay NO taxes (see link below), and as far as the 50% of ordinary citizens who don't owe taxes, it's because UNLIKE corporations, they don't MAKE enough income to owe taxes! Let me re-state one of the FACTS I listed in my previous post to help you understand: "The poorest 50 percent of all Americans collectively own just 2.5% of all the wealth in the United States."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/10/corporations-pay-no-tax_n_11968...

Fair share? A good start would be to allow the Bush Tax cuts for the wealthy to expire at the end of this year. That would return tax rates for the top 3% to the levels that existed during the Reagen administration, AND reduce our deficit by 40% over the next 10 years. The Bush Tax cuts were never intended to be permanent. They were instituted to refund the surplus accumulated under the Clinton administration, and we simply can't afford them any longer.

As far as reforming corporate tax rates, and eliminating loopholes/subsidies are concerned, even some Republicans have admitted this is LONG over-due.

Like I said before, we also have to institute spending cuts for entitlements (Medicare & Medicaid), AND defense. I believe we can easily cut 25% from defense spending, simply by closing cold-war bases and allocated our forces more efficiently.

year end numbers. If we do that Bush added about $4.8 trillion to the debt in eight years, and Obama added about $2.8 trillion in three years. And here's another little tidbit for you, the debt per capita $20,067 at the end of 2000, $35,153 at the end of 2008, and $48,358 at the end of 2011. Clearly, thrifty, Obama is not (nor was Bush, but Bush did have 9-11 to contend with).

It's nonsense to talk about Bush doubling the debt and not be concerned that Obama is poised to add as much to the debt as Bush did in half the time--and what's even scarier is that he wants even MORE money.

...you must be counting on people not understanding the concept of pass-through income. When income is passed through to shareholders the shareholders pay taxes on the income rather than the corporation. I suppose you'd love to see S-corporations pay taxes on their income at the corporate level and then pass the reduced income to their owner/shareholders and have the those shareholders pay income tax again on the same (reduced) dollars that had just been taxed, but to act like the money made by those corporations is not being taxed is [filtered word]. It's simply being taxed at the owner/shareholder level, not at the the corporate AND the owner/shareholder level.

Also, wealth is not what is being taxed, income is. Perhaps they should tax wealth, then people like Buffet, Gates, Soros, the Rockefellers, etc., would pay a lot more than the poor slob wage earners.

I absolutely agree with your last paragraph ("Also, wealth is not what is being taxed, income is. Perhaps they should tax wealth, then people like Buffet, Gates, Soros, the Rockefellers, etc., would pay a lot more than the poor slob wage earners."). I would like to point out that if you tax income heavily enough (in the 1950's it was as high as 90%) for the top earners, their wealth will be reduced over time.

the government won't spend any extra money that is collected from tax increases, and instead use it to lower the deficit, is definately an escapee from a mental institution of some kind. Or a government propaganda minister.

It is being honored at the opening ceremonies of the Olympics!

where the panel authorizes pain pills to help you die painlessly so that the more productive people can get the treatment you need faster.