[teejers1]

You can't use GDP and debt percentages because the tax ratios and receipts have changed.  Those changes led to the government collecting less money, while putting things it didn't have the money to pay for, on the credit card that constantly increases the debt.

And 76, here's the fact-based story on U.S. debt: https://www.cbpp.org/research/getting-th...s-straight

When President Bush took office in January 2001, the federal budget was on a more promising course than any President had inherited in decades. The budget had run surpluses for three straight fiscal years (after running deficits for nearly 30 years in a row) and was on course for a surplus in fiscal year 2001. More importantly, both President Bush’s Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that if the policies in place when President Bush took office remained unchanged, the budget would generate surpluses that would total $5.6 trillion over the next ten years[2] — more than enough to pay off the entire outstanding federal debt held by the public.

But President Bush and Congresses changed those policies sharply (and the economy did not perform as well as anticipated), and, as a result, large projected surpluses turned to large deficits. For fiscal years 2001 through 2008, the last full fiscal year before President Bush left office, the $3.5 trillion of surpluses that CBO had projected for these years turned into deficits of $2 trillion. [3] A look behind these numbers is revealing.

You may be too young to remember this, but GWB actually tried to tackle Social Security reform -- the topic of the preceding thread -- and he didn't exactly get much support for that from Democrats.  As for your "fact-based story", let me know when you have a source that's not comprised mostly, if not entirely, of former Carter, Clinton, and Obama administration folks.

So if Carter, Clinton, and Obama administration folks say 2+2=4 you aren't going to accept it as truth? 

These are actual facts based on actual numbers, with assumptions agreed on by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office and George W. Bush's own Budget Office. What difference does it make who publishes them?    

These aren't policy debates. They are independently agreed on budget and debt payoff projections. The fact is when GWB took over the Oval Office, the United States was on a trajectory to be debt free by 2011.  People may not like this. They may now want to believe it, but no matter how much they stomp their feet, hold their breath, bury their head in the sand, click their heels like Dorothy, or stick their Democrat voodoo doll, this fact isn't ever going to change. It will always be the truth. Denying it is the behavior of baseless conspiracy theorists.

And OMG, SS cuts didn't need to be made to have a budget surplus.  I mean, again, "if the policies in place were followed" (and this means keeping SS and Medicare contributions the same as when GWB took office), we would be able to pay off the debt by 2011.

Remind me, was that "trajectory" caused by the Internet Bubble I?  C'mon now . . .

[teejers1]

You can't use GDP and debt percentages because the tax ratios and receipts have changed.  Those changes led to the government collecting less money, while putting things it didn't have the money to pay for, on the credit card that constantly increases the debt.

And 76, here's the fact-based story on U.S. debt: https://www.cbpp.org/research/getting-th...s-straight

When President Bush took office in January 2001, the federal budget was on a more promising course than any President had inherited in decades. The budget had run surpluses for three straight fiscal years (after running deficits for nearly 30 years in a row) and was on course for a surplus in fiscal year 2001. More importantly, both President Bush’s Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that if the policies in place when President Bush took office remained unchanged, the budget would generate surpluses that would total $5.6 trillion over the next ten years[2] — more than enough to pay off the entire outstanding federal debt held by the public.

But President Bush and Congresses changed those policies sharply (and the economy did not perform as well as anticipated), and, as a result, large projected surpluses turned to large deficits. For fiscal years 2001 through 2008, the last full fiscal year before President Bush left office, the $3.5 trillion of surpluses that CBO had projected for these years turned into deficits of $2 trillion. [3] A look behind these numbers is revealing.

You may be too young to remember this, but GWB actually tried to tackle Social Security reform -- the topic of the preceding thread -- and he didn't exactly get much support for that from Democrats.  As for your "fact-based story", let me know when you have a source that's not comprised mostly, if not entirely, of former Carter, Clinton, and Obama administration folks.

So if Carter, Clinton, and Obama administration folks say 2+2=4 you aren't going to accept it as truth? 

These are actual facts based on actual numbers, with assumptions agreed on by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office and George W. Bush's own Budget Office. What difference does it make who publishes them?    

These aren't policy debates. They are independently agreed on budget and debt payoff projections. The fact is when GWB took over the Oval Office, the United States was on a trajectory to be debt free by 2011.  People may not like this. They may now want to believe it, but no matter how much they stomp their feet, hold their breath, bury their head in the sand, click their heels like Dorothy, or stick their Democrat voodoo doll, this fact isn't ever going to change. It will always be the truth. Denying it is the behavior of baseless conspiracy theorists.

And OMG, SS cuts didn't need to be made to have a budget surplus.  I mean, again, "if the policies in place were followed" (and this means keeping SS and Medicare contributions the same as when GWB took office), we would be able to pay off the debt by 2011.

Remind me, was that "trajectory" caused by the Internet Bubble I?  C'mon now . . .