Bush Borrowed More Than All Previous Presidents Combined, Group SaysBy Melanie Hunter
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
November 04, 2005

(CNSNews.com) - President Bush and the current administration have borrowed more money from foreign governments and banks than the previous 42 presidents combined, a group of conservative to moderate Democrats said Friday.

Blue Dog Coalition, which describes itself as a group "focused on fiscal responsibility," called the administration's borrowing practices "astounding."

According to the Treasury Department, from 1776-2000, the first 224 years of U.S. history, 42 U.S. presidents borrowed a combined $1.01 trillion from foreign governments and financial institutions, but in the past four years alone, the Bush administration borrowed $1.05 trillion.

"The seriousness of this rapid and increasing financial vulnerability of our country can hardly be overstated," said Rep. John Tanner (D-Tenn.), a leader of the Blue Dog Coalition and member of the House Ways and Means Committee.

"The financial mismanagement of our country by the Bush Administration should be of concern to all Americans, regardless of political persuasion," said Tanner in a press release.

Earlier this year, the Blue Dog Coalition unveiled a 12-step plan to "cure" the nation's "addiction to deficit spending." It included requiring all federal agencies to pass clean audits, a balanced budget, and the establishment of a rainy day fund for use in emergencies specifically a natural disaster.

"No American political leadership has ever willfully and deliberately mortgaged our country to foreign interests in the manner we have witnessed over the past four years," said Tanner. "If this recklessness is not stopped, I truly believe our economic freedom as American citizens is in great jeopardy."
------------------------------------------------------------------
Conservative my ass.

Hasn't he never vetoed a spending bill as well?

I'm sure the next president after him will break that record. The endless cycle...

I can't say that I know what the hell is going on. If there is some plan here, please cue me in, because I'm fucking lost.

only if we are fighting 2 wars

It wouldn't be nearly as spectacular if it was adjusted for inflation, but I don't doubt that it'd still be extraordinarily high. I wouldn't mind so much if we were spending like mad with some sort of vision or goal, but we seem to be just running around willy nilly with both our foreign and domestic policies. Anyone want to start a happy Libertarian paradise with me? We could probably buy something in the Carribean.

He lied to his supporters about giving a shit about this nation after his term is up. He's a politician. If he's talking, he's f**king lying.

He also had to find a way to implement the largest increase on the size of the federal government ever (Department of Homeland Security) without raising taxes (political suicide, see his poppa). The only way to do this is to enslave our future generations to our trading partners. Our saving grace is most of the worlds economy is dependant on America's inability to do anything finacially or socially responsible.*

*One of the reasons a China-Iran-South America coalition is so dangerous to our future, as they wouldn't need us.

Fiscal responsibility, beotches!

So, what W is saying is that if Cuba had a better economy that wold be our friends?

We should end the wars now because the government's going to go broke and then we'll all be in trouble.

Sometimes borrowing money makes sense. Did you pay for you house in cash or did you borrow money to pay for it?

Sometimes borrowing money does not make sense. Like borrowing money for a house that doesn't exist.

Mortgage is a huge fucking scam, if you have a high enough interest right then you actually pay twice for your house, so sometimes borrowing is stupid

That is the most assine argument you can make for fiscal irresponsibility. It's like saying it's good to have credit card debt because it enhances your credit rating. The fact remains national debt and huge borrowing from foreign banks is an albatross on the economy and a harbinger of doom. Not only does it make us have to be nice to the foreign banks, but it also prevents us from doing better things with the money than borrowing money to make the interest payments on the money we borrowed to make the interest payments on the money we borrowed to make the interest payments. Never mind about the stupid principal! The fact remains, what happens to people when they mortgage a house to the hilt and for whatever reason default on the loan or worse, if the bank goes bad and recalls the loan? It's called bankruptcy.

is this statistic adjusted so that both the amounts borrowed are in 2005 dollars? for example, to say that lincoln borrowed $25,000 in 1862 maybe be equivalent to bush borrowing 2 billion in 2005.

i will keep my comments to myself for now.

Yeah its stupid to keep this economy rising buy borrowing money. Money makes money, right? When new jobs are created it puts money back into the system.

Why do we have to be nice to foreign banks? China's monetary system is tied to our dollar.

I wish I knew, somebody get on this.

Well I'd hate to see your checkbook if you operate that way. And it's awful hard to negotiate trade deals and take a hard stance when we need Chinese or Korean or Japanese banks to give us new loans or extend our credit. Your money making money argument is bogus when those jobs are outsourced to India and the jobs left in America are paying less. Face it, you're not going to win the argument here. If it were a short-term measure to re-invest in our economy, I would listen, but the national debt has become a systemic problem. Even libertarians who tend to be on the far right political spectrum will agree with this view. Federal spending has run amok and is a drag on our economy. You argument is only a quick fix and not long-term thinking.

Here's your problem. You are listening to politicians instead of economists. Are you going to tell me that politicians know best for this economy? We've been borrowing money since the 1960's in times when the economy hasn't beens strong. Have you seen the increase monetarily per capita since the 1960's?