So I did some math with the debt.

[Dhampir Kampf]

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm

During Bush's 5 years in office, the national debt has gone from:
2001: $5,807,463,412,200.06
2006: $8,270,020,560,975.99
Total: $2,462,557,148,775.93 (In only 5 years)

During Clinton's entire office, the national debt went from:
1993: $4,411,488,883,139.38
2000: $5,674,178,209,886.86
Total: $1,235,689,326,747.48 (roughly one-half of Bush's gain already)

Now, I'm not saying that even Clinton's one trillion gain was a good thing, it's bad. But just to compare the two. And, I also recognize that Congress has so much to do with those figures.

Also notice that, all this debt, came from a republican dominated congress.

[LynzM]

1. Zounds, brain

FYI, I think 'debt' and 'deficit' are usually defined differently - I think you're talking here about debt, not deficit, right?

[Dhampir Kampf]

3. Yeah, sorry.

I've been hearing the term deficit so much recently, it was stuck on my mind.

I corrected it.

[LynzM]

5. No problem, dude

Just wanted to point it out before you got jumped on, as is common :eyes:

It is SCARY how much money we owe... there's no way that's all ever going to get paid back. And then what? And BushCo's got 3 more years to tack that much more on... :scared:

[madokie]

2. explain good thing

[Dhampir Kampf]

4. Good thing, as in

..it benifits America.

No debt benifits America, therefore, Clinton's 1 trillion gain, was NOT a good thing.


However, Bush's roughly 2.5 trillion gain, is even worse.

[FloridaPat]

6. If you go back even further to Reagan and Bush 1, the figures

are even worse. The national debt was less than a $1 billion when Reagan took over.

[JohnnyRingo]

7. Wow! ...nice job on the crunch

My calculator doesn't have that many commas.
Sad isn't it?

He's spending money so fast technology can't keep up.