9 trillion dollars in debt - almost all of it from Republican administrations

[Tactical Progressive]

There was a little less that one-trillion dollars in total debt throughout US history up to Reagan. Two hundred years of history, including the Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam and the very expensive Cold War. Not to mention all the bridges, dams, highways, federal buildings, airports, Navy fleets, ..., ..., ...

Ronnie took that from $1 trillion to $6 trillion when all was said and done. It actually took through Bush Sr and even a little into Clinton to do that, but I don't fault Bush Sr, let alone Bill Clinton, for any of it because Bush:

1) never believed in 'Voodoo Economics' as he aptly named 'supply-side' economics, and was not instrumental in its implementation.

2) had the political integrity to put the brakes on deficit spending right after the Gulf War, halfway through his term. His breaking his "No new taxes" pledge played a large part in costing him the 1992 election to Bill Clinton as his greedy, sniveling base didn't show up in the polls because he had betrayed them with the modest tax increase that had started to slow the runaway deficit train down.

In both principle and practice he did pretty much the right thing. Clinton continued and accelerated the responsible economics, refuting supply-side scamonomics. So I give ALL the responsibility for the $5 billion debt of the 1980's through the mid-1990's, where they finally slowed it down and reversed it, to Reagan.

As a side-note, Americans rewarded the Clinton administration that had sacrificed political power to do what they did, by kicking Al Gore to the curb. Why? Because they deserved the Clinton economy AND a tax cut. The lesson here is trenchant: America is a thoroughly greedy and self-entitled citizenry that only cares about how much they can stuff into their pockets tomorrow. It's a lesson from both Bush Sr and Clinton>Gore re-elections. Progressives would do well to understand this completely.

Now Bush is up to $9 trillion and it will be close to $10 trillion before he leaves office in about fifteen months, and with the structural deficits these Republicans have built into the economy, the debt will probably reach $11 or $12 trillion before it can even start coming back down.

That's:
$1 trillion -- all of American history
$5 trillion -- Ronald Reagan's trickle-down scam
$5 trillion -- GW Bush (projected)


I wanted to point all of this out, and you can argue the very round numbers, as prelude to this point: For eight years you haven't heard the media so much as squeak about all the money that Republicans spend on their policies; primarily tax cuts for the upper end of the economic scale, along with a trillion-dollar ("pay-for-itself") war. They report the numbers with a serious look on their face, and that's it. They haven't brought any Republican to task for any of it.

NOW YOU WATCH, as, and assuming, a Democratic administration assumes power: there won't be one single thing that the media isn't going to claw the Democrats about over how much it costs. Anything and everything is going to be turned into an accusation of 'How much is this going to cost the American people?'. Deficits and the debt will be THE paramount consideration, and there won't be so much as a hint about where most all of the debt has originated for the past twenty-eight years. They let Republicans spend whatever they want, for whatever they want, without a peep.

This is one big part of how the media is so very insidiously and hugely supportive of the right-wing and at the left's throat. As far as I'm concerned they should be supporting HIGHLY PROGRESSIVE tax increases to pay off the $10 trillion of Republican debt, AND THEN, if they can get their $10 trillion worth of Republican policies paid off, there should be an additional $10 trillion dollars in Democratic programs that should be funded the same way, just to be fair.

You won't see anything like this. All you're going to see for the next Administration is the media at Democrat's throats about every single penny, and acting like it is the Democrat's fault that it's that way.

[On the Road]

1. In 1998 and 1992 the Deficit Was a BIG Political Issue

They were the dominant theme of candiates like Perot and Tsongas.

I am truly shocked at how little play this has gotten as the debt has gotten worse year by year.

[Tactical Progressive]

8. It just isn't a concern for the media while Republicans are spending

trillions. It's a note to be passed on in their 'reporting'. "We reported that! It's not our fault if the American people didn't care!"

But don't worry about how little play it has gotten. That's just about over. The only thing that's going to be shocking is how quickly the media turns on a dime to where the debt is so important that every three-thousand dollars a Democrat spends is tantamount to treason.

The issue is about to be Dems spending money. It's all they'll be talking about in their little 'mainstream' pundit fests, and a major issue in every presser.

[SpiralHawk]

2. "Smirk, smirk, smirk" - Commander AWOL

"You mean you were really expecting competence and integrity from a Connecticut preppy AWOL deserter pretend-Texan coke-sniffer, WMD-liar and his cabal of corrupt republicon homelander cronies? Bwaaaa ha ha ha ha. Smirk, sirk, smirk."

- Commander AWOL

[OzarkDem]

3. You are so right

Remember how they incessantly hammered Clinton and the Dems in Congress as they worked to get the deficit down.

[Tactical Progressive]

9. Yup. Deficit this and debt that, throughout Clinton's tenure.

He expended the political capital to bring it down, helping if not initiating the 1994 takeover of Congress by Republicans. And when it started working and the deficits, and later even the debt, started coming down, the Washington press corps changed the 'conventional wisdom' to:

Presidents don't have much to do with the economy.

[MNDemNY]

But. but...the Democrats are the big spenders!!

[formercia]

4. The GOP are borrow and spend administrations.

They have spun the "tax and spend" mantra for too long.

[Quantess]

7. Borrow and spend...

...and spend and spend.

[HughBeaumont]

12. More like "Borrow and Waste".

Since sometimes "spending" produces an attributable result.

[formercia]

14. The are highly skilled

at throwing money down a rat hole.

[onelittleindian]

5. spending

All spending bills originate in the house, not exec. When Reagan was pres, Tip O'neil ran the house and every time an exec budget was submitted Tip shot it down. Tip would stand in front of the press and claim that reagans budget was dead on arrival. After the press was gone, the good old boys of both parties would go into a back room and make deals. These deals were not for the benefit of the taxpayers but for the benefit of the politicians of BOTH parties. Until this system is changed the politicians will always help themselves first. It is moronic to say that dems do not spend, look at hillary's 1 million dollar woodstock museum.

Our system worked fine for the founding fathers but not in modern america when both parties are made up of self promoters. Maybe term limits or no pension. Whatever it takes to take the greed out of these people. Maybe Cynthia McKinney or Ralph Nader can shake up the system but sitting in front of the computer and saying that ( it's all the republicans fault )
while watching all politicians pat themselves on the back will get us nowhere.

I am hoping that John Edwards get elected because he only had 6 years in this corrupt system and he is not financially beholden to it.

[Tactical Progressive]

11. They're all just about the same, huh?

You know who that argument is really good for? Excusing people who do bad things. They like to spread the blame around.

Well, it always seems to be Publicans that run up the big deficits when they've got control of both the Executive and the Legislature, when Democrats can't stop them. Probably just a coincidence.

And your example is very convincing. Hillary spending $1 million is roughly equivalent to about five minutes of Bush's war or two minutes of his tax cuts for the wealthy. Minute by minute, hour after hour, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, with interest payments due probably for decades. I think that's well past a thousand-to-one; into the range of five million-to-one. But a few more frivilous-Dem-spending anecdotes like that will probably add up.

Now of course it's not all being spent by or on Publicans. Just most of it. So I guess everybody is equally to blame by that reasoning.

Tell you what. How about we institute a highly progressive tax to pay off that eleven trillion dollars, no matter who it benefitted. Then we keep the highly progressive tax to pay off another eleven trillion dollars of Democratic Executive + Legislature spending, no matter who that benefits? Sound fair?

And since my post was primarily about the media, let's have American journalism promote it and protect it by inferring in editorials, talkshow guest choices, topics and general tone, that anyone not fully supporting such a progressive-tax debt-paydown scheme is hurting America unconscionably? Let them do THAT relentlessly, instead of the way they're going to be attacking Democratic spending.

Then it really doesn't have to be any one party's fault, like you say it already isn't. Can we agree on that?

[LSK]

18. I got 2 words for you

Iran Contra.

[Hydra]

6. This is really our fault

The Grand Ol' Perverts get away with calling themselves the party of "fiscal responsibility" and "family values." We need to be hammering them on every issue that they prove this to be untrue on(and there's press on that EVERY DAY).

They understand that if they say it often enough, it will become true in some people's minds.
Let's try and get this meme out: "The War on Terror is Bullshit and so are the people pushing it! Responsible foreign policy and responsible economics!"

[Orrex]

10. One statement is true above all else re: the Presidency and the economy

The economy is cyclical and as such can't be credited to any one President unless:

A: The economy is strong and the President is a Republican

or

B: The econmy is weak and the President is a Democrat


A corollary to A: is that any uptick in a weak economy can be credited to a Republican President (e.g., "Clinton's economic growth is a direct result of Reagan's policies")

A corollary to B: is that any downturn in a strong economy can be blamed on a Democratic President (e.g., "The economy is bad now because Clinton was weak on military spending.")

[nealmhughes]

13. And the GDP was less than 14 Trillion in 2006 . . . things that make you go hmmm.

n/t

[lovuian]

15. C O R R U P T I O N how do you spell Republican

thats how its spelled

[DeepModem Mom]

16. K&R!

[Tactical Progressive]

17. Anybody think my debt-paydown proposal in the OP and Post #11 is fair?

Towards the end of the OP and right after 'Tell you what' in post #11.

This thread is about:

1) Publican economics, which we already know. I put that in for context.

2) Media reaction, which is just going to start being evident as they begin to completely change postures, exposing their extraordinary bias towards the economic ideology of the right wing after eight years of complicit and supportive silence about Publican spending.

3) What I consider the only proper, that is, practical AND principled, economic policy. Anything else fails on both counts from my point of view.


There haven't been any comments on either 2) or 3), which I think are most important - the upcoming media assault supporting Publicans and the only honest solution as I see it.

[Quantess]

19. This story should be on 1st page

until everyone gets to see it!