What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
All-time Low Fares for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up. Nifty all-airline calendar identifies absolute cheapest dates to fly.
511 Comments
- jarrodhunt, on 10/10/2007, -11/+335I think its time we elect a fiscally conservative president!
- chase001, on 10/10/2007, -21/+295We had one. His name was Bill Clinton.
- suxmonkey, on 10/10/2007, -4/+265If he's just borrowing it, he's going to give it back right? RIGHT?!?
- patbenetar, on 10/10/2007, -6/+175Bush...most depressing American in history
- grr74, on 10/10/2007, -2/+129No, you (as a taxpayer) gotta give it back.
- daniel2e, on 10/10/2007, -25/+132Look, I'm not going to argue that the administration isn't fiscally irresponsible, maybe even catastrophically so. However, when citing statistics such as these: Adjust for inflation OR DON'T F-ING BOTHER.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -5/+94And the real kicker is, he gave most of that money to his already rich buddies so they could be a lot richer. Its called the shifting of future wealth that would have been created by hard working people over the next fifty years, into the pockets of the super rich who simply want it now.
- wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -5/+82No, your children and children's children will pay it back. Too bad they cant vote eh? Good long term planning conservatives, screw your kids out of a future.
- obliviousfool, on 10/10/2007, -1/+67Other presidents have borrowed a trillion dollars? If you're trying to be funny, it's not working.
- rick777, on 10/10/2007, -9/+73He may have borrowed all that money, but just think of all the money we're saving at the gas pumps now!!!!!
- supaklaw, on 10/10/2007, -2/+66But... but... but... Democrats "Tax and Spend"®
- johnrf, on 10/10/2007, -0/+57If we are going to overspend couldn't we at least spend the money on something that benefitted our citizens?
- schroeder, on 10/10/2007, -3/+59And with a debt this large some people still seem to think that a war in Iran is plausible. Imagine Iran winning a war against the US because they ran out of money, soldiers, and destroyed their economy.
- a6n28f, on 10/10/2007, -1/+57Noah, that doesn't even make sense. Read the 911 report for starters, which contradicts you on this point. It is public record how much funding Clinton got to fight terrorism and how more much was denied by Republicans. Those you honor for fighting "terror" (Cheney, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, Rice, Armitage, and Bush during '98, '99, and '00) are literally the same exact people who repeatedly stated publicly that it was a waste of time and money during the 90s. Bush didn't hold a single cabinet level briefing on terrorism in the first 9 months of Bush's administration (until 911) despite having access to the same intelligence that made Clinton so proactive and despite Richard Clark's on the record pleadings to do so. In Clinton's own words (paraphrased) "I failed. But at lease I tried. They [Bush republicans] not only didn't try, they mocked us for even trying and actively tried to stop us."
It's a matter of public record. Read it in Fox New's own reporting if you like:
http://thinkprogress.org/clinton-interview
We can certainly debate the merits of the response to 911, but there is no credible way to even insinuate that Clinton did any less than leave Bush dire warnings and ample covert action programs already in progress. Clinton created the CIA group dedicated solely to finding and killing UBL. Bush disbanded this unit. Read the 911 report (unlike Giuliani), read Dick Clark's book, read Powell's book, read Bob Baer's books, even watch the factual content of FOX news, but for God's sake stop making up scenarios in your head with no basis in reality. - chase001, on 10/10/2007, -7/+59And of course they will hope this doesn't come back to bite us in the ass while a Repug is in office and if it does when a Dem is in office it will be all their fault. Or there's always the ever popular "It was Clinton's fault".
- Rustbelt, on 10/10/2007, -2/+53Could your rants please include just a smidgen of truth? Please?
- CheckPlease, on 10/10/2007, -0/+49I think Bush has been pegged as "very money driven" and "incompetent" only because of his apparent drive for money and his outstanding incompetence.
- 8bitflu, on 10/10/2007, -18/+66I love how the inflation comments are being buried. People complain they don't get the whole truth, when it is questioned - people bury it. Morons.
- Loonacy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+43And Republicans "Borrow and Spend"
- InetRoadkill, on 10/10/2007, -7/+47Don't forget the $30B he just donated to Israel.
- harksaw, on 10/10/2007, -1/+40I'm no expert, but isn't the massive borrowing a big part of the reason we have inflation?
- weaksnyc, on 08/14/2009, -1/+38Firstly... this article is based on the financial irresponsibility of Bush. Period. You're diverting the attention with this garbage.
Secondly... Clinton is remorseful that he did not kill Bin Laden, but he did go after him, including bombing his hideout with a full military assault. As for your links, here is an article written on the subject from a bit more reputable source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/ .
Third. How can you sit there posting links about Clinton not getting Bin Laden, yet not mention anything about 9/11 and the events that happened after. One of the reasons from Clinton not capturing Bin Laden was to prevent war. Bad decision. However, here we are, days after the 9/11 strikes, with a SOLID, CONCRETE reason to go after Bin Laden. Bush's response? Attack Iraq. Why, why, why, why did we not go after Bin Laden RIGHT THEN?? Which mistake was more costly?? Honestly, your logic astounds me. - TarikofGotham, on 10/10/2007, -2/+39Bush could've prevented everything we blame Bush for too.
- XopherMV, on 10/10/2007, -3/+40Clinton launched 75 cruise missiles at Al Qaeda's camps in Afganistan in the middle of 1998. That was called Operation Infinite Reach, which you can read more about here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Infinite_Reach
Unfortunately, that occurred in the middle of the Lewinski scandal. Clinton's attack of Al Qaeda was viewed as a "Wag the Dog" scenario and interpreted as a means of distracting from the affair. Clinton was forced to stop his attack of Al Qaeda to deal with Republican attacks on his Presidency.
If conservatives had not been so lustful at attacking Clinton, he could have finished Al Qaeda in 1998. However, conservative Republicans wanted Clinton's blood, which distracted Clinton from finishing the job. If anyone is to blame for Al Qaeda surviving up until 9/11, then it is those same conservative Republicans who were distracting the president over a relationship with an intern. - Piedramente, on 10/10/2007, -17/+54I believe it is CONGRESS that has the power of the purse.
- Tiak, on 10/10/2007, -2/+38Wait... You're saying a comment about Clinton being bad with foreign affairs (despite the fact that he was pretty much universally loved), and bad at national security (he came WAY closer to taking out Bin Laden than Bush ever did) is buried because we know you're right?... You even seemed to attempt to imply he was worse at Bush, who has created the biggest foreign affairs nightmare in the last 20 years, and made our country less secure rather than more... Buried for idiocy.
- Hungryhaney, on 10/10/2007, -3/+36Worst case he took OBL as serious as our current, incompetent administration. But he didn't start a war with the wrong country just because he wanted to play soldier (could have done that during his time in the Air National Guard, but was too busy partying/scared he might die).
- drakethegreat, on 10/10/2007, -1/+32Transation "I'm sure this article is false because I"m a total idiot who doesn't want to believe the truth about another idiot that I support"
- 10001110101, on 10/10/2007, -2/+33I think you forgot "Oh wait.."
- InetRoadkill, on 10/10/2007, -3/+33The White House sets the budget. Congress can refuse to fund his budget, but then again, we've had a rubber stamp congress for the last 6 years.
GOP != fiscal conservatives - GRANDPAMUNSTER, on 06/11/2009, -0/+30Just remember this when voting in '08'. This is what you get when you vote for someone who cares more about corporations than people.
- enki25, on 10/10/2007, -5/+35OMFG, free republic says Clinton had the chance to get Osama? Why isn't this on the front page of every newspaper!? Oh yeah, that's right, because you people are full of crap.
- videolab, on 10/10/2007, -11/+41Even if they did not adjust for inflation, it is more than EVERY PRESIDENT COMBINED. Bush has destroyed the value of our currency during his term largely because of our mountain of a deficit.
- Obscenewords, on 10/10/2007, -1/+29Exactly, The revolution took place, Now the Rich are completely secure and can continue to destroy the economy until we are all reduced to beggars and thieves. in such an environment they can manipulate poor people to forcibly control other poor people. "Your either with us, or against us" regardless of where you were born.
- nwoantibody, on 10/10/2007, -7/+35Still some dumbasses think this guy is conservative.
some folks believe just about anything they're told... - jtbndy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+27Clinton actually ran a budget surplus when he was in office.
- InetRoadkill, on 10/10/2007, -1/+26The federal govt doesn't earn the equivalent of the economy. It's a ***** yardstick designed to sugar coat the size of the deficit by attempting to make it look smaller by comparison. That fact remains that the US govt is spending roughly 20% more than its available revenue and is not paying down existing debt.
- TeatimeGrommit, on 10/10/2007, -1/+25That's actually how we beat the Soviet Union. Reagan borrowed money, talked like the USA was building the strongest military since Alexander the Great, and the Soviets spent themselves bankrupt trying to keep up. Sad that we're now going to be beaten by the same tactic.
- enki25, on 10/10/2007, -1/+24Yeah but don't you know how trickle down works? All of those super wealthy bastards will take 1% of that money and give us jobs. That way we can work our asses off to earn our tax dollars back.
- Azriel7, on 10/10/2007, -1/+24Well, to be fair it looks like we will have a rubberstamp congress under the democrats too. :(
- enki25, on 10/10/2007, -0/+22RTFA
- Vermifax, on 10/10/2007, -1/+23Does this mean that Clinton borrowed over a trillion dollars?
Also, who was PoTUS and CIA director when the CIA was training OBL and his friends to take on commie Russians?
Was the Clinton family business partners with the bin Laden family for the past 35+ years?
Why did the DoJ (under Gonzo) close down the 'Hunt for OBL" division?
Why did "Chainsaw" Cheney flip-flop on his 1994 assessment of the prospect of invading Baghdad? (I'm thinking $1.1T!)
"My Pet Goat"......?
Now, Dubya wants to trash Patraeus' report and submit his own to Congress. The goalpost is moved further down a few yards.
$1.1 trillion dollars. The Bush twins aren't even serving in the Armed Forces. You think they would've enlisted since Saddam "tried to kill" their Granddaddy.
Now, Cheney is pulling his pants down and wants to grab-ass Iran.
Sith-Lord Rove is leaving to stock up on brimstone & treacle.
Mr. Williams, cue the "Imperial March" theme from Ep. V. - XopherMV, on 10/10/2007, -1/+22Clinton launched 75 cruise missiles at Al Qaeda's camps in Afganistan in the middle of 1998. That was called Operation Infinite Reach, which you can read more about here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Infinite_Reach
Unfortunately, that occurred in the middle of the Lewinski scandal. Clinton's attack of Al Qaeda was viewed as a "Wag the Dog" scenario and interpreted as a means of distracting from the affair. Clinton was forced to stop his attack of Al Qaeda to deal with Republican attacks on his Presidency.
If conservatives had not been so lustful at attacking Clinton, he could have finished Al Qaeda in 1998. However, conservative Republicans wanted Clinton's blood, which distracted Clinton from finishing the job. If anyone is to blame for Al Qaeda surviving up until 9/11, then it is those same conservative Republicans who were distracting the president over a relationship with an intern. - breadbin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+20No, apparently social programs in the US are better handled by "faith based groups" and in the mean time Bush borrows and spends billions every month to "help" the people of Iraq. It's okay to fritter away all your tax dollars on a failed foreign (and national security) policy of monumental proportions but suggest a universal health care system that could improve the standard of living for millions of Americans and all those "fiscal conservatives" start screeching about giving away their hard-earned money to those who won't help themselves. It's pure ***** hypocrisy.
- andrgo, on 10/10/2007, -5/+25Goddamn the 110th congress sucks balls. Their idea is: "Oh we're *not* going to impeach, he's *too nice* of a guy even though we don't like him destroying America." These people in congress need to wake-the-*****-up, seriously! This administration is the most wasteful, hateful, and unamerican of all time. It disgusts me that no one is doing anything about it, except for Kucinich and a few others.
Oh, and guess who's going to have to pay it all back. Not Bush, not his daughters, not his grandkids, not his oil companies, not his buddies' oil companies, but US -- and MANY future generations. - migbike, on 10/10/2007, -0/+19Nah.. I think the people who voted for him and still believe in him take that award.
- Godlike, on 10/10/2007, -1/+20This neocon BS has no business in this thread. This is not a clintonomics argument. It is about Bush completely screwing us for decades to come.
- yellowsnowcone, on 10/10/2007, -15/+34not defending Bush, however, this is inaccurate ... you have to looking at borrowings as a percentage of the economy ...
- lpmiller, on 10/10/2007, -6/+25it is the president that sets the agenda and has the veto power. It is the president that didn't veto the vast majority of spending bills by a republican congress. So...your point is?
- weaksnyc, on 08/14/2009, -1/+20The 3000+ people who were killed or injured in the attacks was a terrible tragedy that was the result of failed intelligence across the board. Blaming the trade center bombings on Clinton is an extreme and unprovable accusation. That's not to say that mistakes were not made. In contrast, sending our sons and daughters into Iraq without a plan and ignoring warnings about the inevitable chaos that we are now in the middle of was a preventable, catastrophic mistake. And we still don't have Bin Laden, in case you forgot.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 512 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is