Well.... actually:

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

In 1981 (beginning of the Reagan presidency) the debt was $997 billion. By 1989 it had risen to $2.8 trillion, an increase of nearly 200%.

In 1993 (beginning of the Clinton presidency) Clinton inherited a $4.4 trillion debt (hmm, Republican president before him) and left with a $5.8 trillion debt. An increase of 31% - nothing to scoff at, but not even remotely close to 200% under Reagan.

Again the issue with the last 4 or so Republican presidents we've had is that they all seem to have this idea that if you reduce spending a little bit, that will somehow even out massive tax cuts for the rich. But as we've seen over and over and over, this just isn't true. You need to pay for your tax cuts with something.

Before you say something like "But Obama is going to increase spending and put us into even more debt..." that's true, his plans WOULD increase debt to $5.7 trillion over the next ten years. But McCain's plans, though they involve less spending, would increase the debt $7.9 trillion in that same period.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411749_updated_candidates.pdf

Again it would be nice, in a perfect world, to give tax cuts to everybody and somehow still take in government revenue, but the fact of the matter is that even under widely-respected presidents like Reagan with presidencies considered to be successful, debt WILL increase dramatically when you do that. Just something to keep in mind.

Last edited by Andrew Aversa; 10/04/08 01:18 PM.

http://www.zirconmusic.com/ - Award-winning music/albums for video games, film and TV!

Impact Soundworks - Cutting-edge sample libraries for Kontakt