60 minutes = $188 million in new debt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onmyknees

Trish....Give it up....Not only is your continued reliance on "Blame Bush" in the absence of any substance.... lame, it's factually incorrect...

---

How could you fix your mouth to say such a thing, when Bush inherited a budget surplus and left with a record deficit (1.3 trillion). He also left a net minus of millions of jobs, and a financial crisis, that saw US household wealth drop by 23% (median) between 2007 and 2009.
(http://money.cnn.com/2011/03/24/pf/f...come/index.htm)
What about the human impact of 1 million home forclosures?
Its like people like yourself, try to pretend these things never happened. So I suppose that's why you can make the statement you did. And if some of you do recognize these things happened, then it was all some accident that had nothing to do with Bush policies. Yet every thing that happens during Obama's term is entirely his fault, and not based upon any past policies. Like Bush's tax cuts had nothing to do with the deficit. It's just a coincidence, you say.

I give Bill Clinton all the credit in the world for his spending restraint, but lets not let the surplus term muddy the waters.

Bill Clinton increased the national debt by $1.63 trillion in his 8 years in office. George W. Bush increased the debt by $4.36 trillion. Barak Obama has increased the debt by $3.81 trillion in just 2 1/2 years.

Everyone together, "Can we please have Bill Clinton back?"

Debt by US President

$198.53 billion borrowed since this thread began 44 days ago...

http://kupax.com/files/14271_zs5v6/c...n-tear65p1.jpg

That reminds me__have you really paid attention to this:

Nope.. Have you seen this?

http://www.popbitch.com/home/wp-cont...manbearpig.jpg

I see you're still an anti-science buffoon.

This belongs here too.

YouTube - ‪The Truth About the Economy‬‏

Well then we must have..

Barney discusses the economic future of America

I can remember reading an article in a uk paper called the guardian some 12 years ago which said how the uk treasury could not account for where 9billion pounds worth of money had gone they did the books and it supposedly was not there and they supposedly could not say where this money was yeah ok.

These books and figures are so large that things can easily be cooked one way or the other so when its convenient (candidate trying to get into the whitehouse attacking the president) hey presto he knows the figures and when its not convenient (president under attack) he will say he has got his figures wrong thats not true blah blah, at the end of the day if they conclusively knew all there figures then there could conclusively be no arguing as the facts would be there in black and white.

The figures are constantly changing and some will not even be showing up, its too big to know, i think in reality they can't possible know all the figures so where they don't they guesstimate to help create whatever picture suits but its not conclusive it just what suits whose agenda who is in charge at given time

Strictly speaking it was not 'missing' it was a decision that Flash Gordon made over two years not to allocate £5bn in each years for capital expenditure. If you really think that HM Treasury could not account for £9 or £10bn then you need to drink a glass of water and lie down -its precisely the incompetence of HM Treasury dealing with what they do know that is at the heart of the paralysis of decision-making on our economy that has led us, like some weird GPS system, over a cliff...or was it that politics was in command of economic policy, and that whatever the Treasury mandarins said to Gordon Brown, he just didn't care...??