Unfortunately, this means nothing to Obama fans as they lookforward to next stimulus, next tax & cap, next healthcare, next bail out, next printed dollar...

You all have kids just like I do.  And you should all be shamed of your selves for putting the burden on our kids for our selfish entitlement behavior.  But, the libs here will continue to ignore and hope the problem doesn't exist as they continue to seek governement money.   Did I hear the estimated cost for healthcare is now up to 1.2 trillion dollars?  Does this mean anything to anyone?

Unfortunately, this means nothing to Obama fans

Means a lot to us.  Half of it came from Shrub, remember, and we got *NOTHING* for it.  It costs *BIG* money to clean up after Republican incompetence.

The fact that the government *CAN* go into debt like this is the only thing keeping the country afloat at the moment. 

As for the debt level, we've survived worse levels before.  As for the healthcare reform, that'll *SAVE* money that otherwise would be pushing up this number still higher.

But it's more complicated than a bumper sticker, so the run-of-the-mill Republican just stares at it, slack-jawed.

Working in constant dollars, calibrated to year 2000, the national debt remained fairly constant at 1.75 trillion dollars from 1950 to 1981.

During the Reagan “tax cuts “ administration, the national debt more than doubled to 4 trillion dollars. The USA went from worlds biggest creditor, to worlds biggest debtor nation.

Don’t remember much crying over the  kids burden back then.

Bush 1   The 4 trillion debt rose to 5.75 trillion.

Still no concern for the  kids.

Clinton    Debt declined slightly to 5.5 trillion. A surplus was realized.

Screw the  kids, Bush promised more tax cuts.

Bush 2   Debt climbed to almost 10 trillion after huge tax cuts.

Where was the concern for the  kids for the last 25 years?

I like low taxes too, but you have to cut expenditures before you cut taxes, unless of course the  kids don’t matter.

Actions speak louder than words.

Ya.  Its Bush's fault because he didn't spend more money, like Obama, Harry and Nancy are doing..

Ya.  Its Bush's fault because he didn't spend more money,

No, it's Shrub's fault because he started a war we didn't have to, having abandoned one we actually may have had some moral justification for starting, and did it all on borrowed money because he'd given away half the treasury to his buddies while looking the other way as big corporations stole the rest.

Now, do you actually understand the chart you posted?   Of course not.   Would you like someone to explain it to you in little words?

Ron. It does no good to talk to RF. He just continues to make it up as he goes along or use info from far left progressive web sites.  Truth or facts have little meaning to RF.

You mean I make you look silly.   Exactly.

I *WON'T* be explaining it to you, then.   I really don't think you could understand anyway.

I don't *HAVE* to make stuff up.  The truth about the Shrub Administration is bad enough.

Horse feathers! I was not a happy cheer leader for George Jr. he was TOO liberal for my tastes but  you Obama lovers need fo start taking the blame for Oscama's lies and actions. The honeymoon is OVER!

At 57 percent approval rating, the honeymoon lives on.  I am impatient but have hopes that Obama's second term will *REALLY* p*ss you guys off.

But don't feel ashamed of your ignorance.  Most people on your side can't explain what you posted in error, thinking it proves your point.

Don Mason nailed it. Thanks, Don!

Rf. If brains were gun powder you could not blow up a fly. Just hold on to your idiotic thoughts.  You will be eating crow after the 2010 elections.

If brains were gun powder you could not blow up a fly.  LOL! that was funny!

Clinton    Debt declined slightly to 5.5 trillion. A surplus was realized

HUH?

A surplus of debt?

  That's right, Nancy.

Jr. did not realize that the  237 billion surplus left to him by the Clinton Administration was not free, nor did it belong to him to redistributre to his friends as he did.

He must have been absent from home economics class when that unit was covered .

--virgil