Why do people blame bush for the national debt?

Question

The National Debt is shrinking, why do people ignore the facts and still blame Bush for something that isnt even happening on his watch? The budget deficit now stands at about 1.4 percent of the nation's GDP, well below the 2.3 percent that's been the norm since 1970, according to economist Michael Darda of MKM Partners in Greenwich, Conn.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0221/p01s03-usec.html

Answer 1

Because they are obsessed Bush haters. These people refuse to accept any kind of good news cause this would reflect good on the president so they won't hear it. Then there are those of these same people who revel in any bad news concerning the nation and will not acknowledge anything positive cause- and that I have no answer! Besides, if they blame Bush then they don't have to take any action themselves, or blame!

Answer 2

Under constant personal attacks from the right, Clinton still managed to get the growth of the debt down to 0.32% (one third of one percent) his last year in office. Compare to Bush 42's 11% yearly increase and Reagan's 17% per year increase. If the Clinton economic policy of pay-as-you-go had been continued for ONE MORE YEAR, the debt would have been reduced for the first time since the Kennedy administration.

Answer 3

They failed Government class in school.

Answer 4

We blame bush for the national debt because he has created almost half of it.  The U.S. owed about $5.3 trillion in debt and had a budget surplus of about $200 billion per year when he took office.  The national debt will hit $10 trillion the day he leaves office, and the government will have to borrow at least another $500 to $700 billion in the coming year.  



We're not ignoring any facts.  You are confusing debts and budgets.  You really should learn basic math so you can understand the difference between a budget and a debt.  A budget is what you use to figure out how to spend your paycheck.  Your debt is the amount that you owe.  An example:  You have a balance of $9,500 on your credit card and a $200 paycheck.  You owe $50 in interest; that's the minimum payment that you have to pay.  You send the check for the $50 but you spend another $500 on it.  Then you spend the rest of your paycheck on rent and utilities.  You've balanced your budget, but you haven't shrunk your debt. In fact, you increased from $9,500 to $10,000.  

That's what President Bush has been doing.  He borrows the difference between the amount that he takes in and what he spends.  Over the last 7 years, he's borrowed over $4 trillion dollars in additional debt. He's averaged borrowing about $700 billion per year for the last 6 years.  His first year in office, he just squandered the budget surplus that President Clinton had left him with.

The GDP is about $14 trillion, the national debt will hit $10 trillion the day Bush leaves office, so we will owe about 71.4% of the GDP, not 1.4%.  In the future, a pocket calculator could prevent mistakes of that magnitude.

One other thing to consider.  Think of this about like the hands in the cookie jar.  The reason why the national debt is rising by more than the amount of the deficit each year is that, after the budget is submitted, there are a lot of "off-budget" expenses that aren't counted, like two wars, the CIA, various other off-budget projects, etc.; the government still borrows the money.  It still spends it.  It just doesn't include it in the official budget.  Kind of like if you have a second credit card that you bought some new shoes and a jacket with, but didn't tell your significant other about.

If you want accurate economic data, you should read the trade journals and listen to Alan Greenspan, not read the CSM and listen to Fox news.

Answer 5

He has created more debt than any administration in history.

Answer 6

he's using some funny numbers on the defict... like not including the price of the war... notice that's a separate expenditure if you look at Bush's numbers...

you see what he's really done when you do look at the debt though... he can't hide those numbers...

EDIT: Bush is clearly using Clinton's math... and hey... it worked for Clinton...

Answer 7

try again jack. You are comparing deficit spending vs GDP and calling it National Debt vs GDP. Try focusing on one thing or the other. Clinton did have a spending surplus, or the debt vs GDP would not have dropped. That isn't saying there was not debt, it is only saying the debt would have been knocked out, over time, at that rate of spending.

Whats funny, is you think the debt will disappear when the war spending vanishes from the GDP, causing it to maintain the same level when war spending ceases.

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdeb...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2...