J. Duncan: Republicans bankrupted nation

President Barack Obama has been accused of running up trillions of dollars of debt, increasing the national debt to $15 trillion.

The House of Representatives is where all spending bills originate and it is a Republican-run House that has added trillions to the national debt.

The George W. Bush administration added $4 trillion to the national debt with undeclared and unpaid-for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In 2000, before Bush, the Navy had four super aircraft carriers; there are now 10 super carrier battle groups. When you add up the cost of the carrier, their power plants, weapons systems, aircraft, missile cruisers, destroyers, frigates, three nuclear submarines and support ships, each battle group represents a cost of $1 trillion. The six battle groups added since 2000 added another $6 trillion to the national debt.

The Bush administration started the bailouts of banks and investment institutions. The Bush tax cuts obviously did not stimulate the economy and have cost the treasury trillions of dollars.

We have $4 trillion for unnecessary wars, $6 trillion for aircraft carrier battle groups, trillions in tax cuts and trillions in stimulus packages adds up to about $15 trillion wasted by the Bush administration that went directly to the national debt.

Republicans have intentionally bankrupted this country in an attempt to make it look like we cannot afford Social Security, Medicare and other social programs.

Today's Republican Party is the rising of the new Confederate States of America and it is carrying out the goals of that despicable rebel movement.

Judson Duncan, Monmouth

What do you think of this story?

Login to post comments

In order to make comments, you must create a subscription.

In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must hold a valid subscription allowing access to this website. You must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your SunJournal.com profile. To subscribe or link your existing subscription click here.

Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned from posting comments.



F.E. Stacey's picture

Major flaw in your reasoning

None of those recent spending bills, initiated in the house, became law without the President signing them into law.. President Obama is the one responsible for most of our huge debt.

Democrats voted for the bail outs as well as a few Republicans.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

The republicans are no more

The republicans are no more responsible for bankrupting the country (which it isn't yet), then the extinction of storks would be responsible for a drop in the rate of unwanted pregnancies.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Typical case of when you

Typical case of when you can't come up with anything positive that oBAMa's done; rag on Bush.
By Mr. Duncan's own admission, oBAMa has added 11 trillion dollars (275%) to the national debt in less than 4 years whereas Bush added his 4 trillion to the debt in 8 years. In his 8 years, Bush dealt with two catastrophic events that oBAMa, thank God, has not had to confront; September 11, 2001 and Hurricane Katrina.
The rest of Duncan's letter is not much more than Kool-Aid hangover.

Jason Theriault's picture

Wrong Pirate

MARK GRAVEL's picture

I like the disclaimer -

I like the disclaimer - “Projections”!

Perhaps you’re missing some line items in the right column or perhaps this is the lie you want to believe.

Under Obama, the debt increased from $10.7T in 2009 to $15.9T to date (and still growing).

We all know that you like to blame Bush, but let’s face it, Obama owns the pen that signs the checks from 2009-2012. Let’s hope his ownership of the pen ends this November. Moreover, the lack of an Obama budget does not abrogate his budget responsibilities, it actually heights them.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Good for you. Another blue

Good for you. Another blue star on your slate. You should be making Mr. Duncan aware of your findings. His letter was the genesis of my post, or were you not paying attention?

Jason Theriault's picture

Blue star? Sweet!

I updated my image to reflect my blue star.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

You may paint yourself blue

You may paint yourself blue on the outside, but you are still pink on the inside.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Pretty cool. I like it. It

Pretty cool. I like it. It started out I was gonna use a red star, but the parrot said it would have been too Communistic.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Yea, I can see the parrot now

Yea, I can see the parrot now doing the MC Hammer dance while squawking – “don’t touch that”.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

He's even got a raven suit he

He's even got a raven suit he puts on for the occasion.

Zack Lenhert's picture

The letter never says that

The letter never says that Obama is responsible for $11T of the deficit... It sites a $4T figure for the cost of the wars then goes on to list other expenses that Bush was responsible for. Me thinks you just skimmed the letter and came to own conclusions, then you claim others aren't paying attention.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

And you also, get a nice blue

And you also, get a nice blue star for your slate. In fact you get to sit in the front row beside the water cooler for the next week. Well done.

RONALD RIML's picture

Not that I'm any fan of Dubya......

But you better recount the number of ships and carriers, no matter how you group them.

Nine of the ten Nimitz class 'Super-Carriers' were 'laid down' before Bush was President, with eight of those previously being in commission.

I refer you to - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz_class_aircraft_carrier

Bush bankrupted the country, but it wasn't with the 'Bird-Farms' he loved to prance about on - try the tax-cuts so we had to borrow the money to pay the crew and operate them.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

More miss information. The

More miss information. The Bush tax cuts reduced federal government revenues by about $1.3 Trillion dollars over 10 years. That equates to an average of $130 Billion a year.

You better find more reasons than just a tax cut Ronald. One hundred and thirty billion does not $1.5 Trillion budget deficit make.

RONALD RIML's picture

There goes your argument

for not raising taxes.....

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Before we raise taxes, I need

Before we raise taxes, I need to see a concerted effort to eliminate government waste, which is about 300-500 billion a year in the budget, and a concerted effort to reduce spending.

Until those two conditions are satisfied, forget about it.

I remain perplexed why you stay fixated on repealing the Bush tax cuts when we both know it will do little to solve the real problem – overspending. There needs to be an emotional factor behind your position since it is not backed up by the numbers. Why focus on the small fruit when there are larger and lower hanging fruit to pick?

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Another dimension to this

Another dimension to this issue that requires some thought:

Why would one want to give more money to a government when that same government has little interest in eliminating gross waste? Those people who are pushing for tax increases before insisting on cleaning house has a hidden motive in my opinion.

A motive built on gain, greed, perhaps envy, or all of the above.

RONALD RIML's picture

The Bush tax cuts were originally 'temporary'

And so they should have been.

Why are you so intent that they be extended???

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Because I generally believe

Because I generally believe that taxes are too high as is, so why make them higher. First, we need to force spending discipline; that is the only road to salvation, not tax increases.

Think before responding – Bush tax cuts are only but a small fraction of the budget deficit. Raising taxes takes the pressure off Washington to cut spending. History shows, that we will get higher taxes, but no cuts in spending. The time is now to force spending cuts across the board.

Good enough answer?

RONALD RIML's picture

You've always got an excuse.

Not an iota of compromise in you.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Wait; there is a point of

Wait; there is a point of compromise.

When Romney is elected president, I’ll lobby for no new tax cuts.

Keep taxes stable, and cut spending.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

After 40 plus years of failed

After 40 plus years of failed attempts to balance the budget and a debt equal to our GDP, NO, there is no longer any compromise to be had.

We need to break the government’s fixation with spending. Giving more revenue to the government just gives them the opportunity to kick the can further down the road.

Following the same failed policies as Greece, Italy, …, etc, will only produce similar results.

The time is now to teach the government how to spend within its means. It is our obligation to take a stand to protect future generations.

 's picture

Compromise got us into this mess.

It will not get us out of it. Neither will the typical lefty excuse: We inherited this mess.

RONALD RIML's picture

Then both of you will sink in this mess.

Have a nice, hard-headed twilight.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

P.S.S. To capitalize on your


To capitalize on your Maritime analogy, if the ship cannot be salvaged, then sink it at sea.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

P.S. Your soft-headed


Your soft-headed approach (aka stick head in sand) got us to this fiscal point by ignoring the most important contributer to the debt - SPENDING

MARK GRAVEL's picture

We have been taking on water

We have been taking on water for the past 4 decades.

Your generation is not capable of solving the problem. It is time for your generation to step aside and let others fix the mess your generation left us.

Lead, follow, or get the hell out of congress.

RONALD RIML's picture

I learned as a Cop

that one can't reason with crazy folks and drunks.

Your side has pledged allegiance to Grover Norquist. I need say no more.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Ronald, I would think that


I would think that you knew me long enough to know I criticize both R and D (and other parties) for getting the US to this point. I’m not Republican. However, on this issue I stand firm that we need to quite going to the taxpayer to solve a chronic spending problem.
Repealing the Bush tax cuts only adds about 135 billion to the government’s payroll; this is still dwarfed by the 1.3-1.6 Trillion dollar budget deficit.

Focus must stay on spending cuts. Raising taxes diverts that focus and just kicks the can down the road. If you where a triage Doctor, you would lose your patients for not focusing on the most life treating injury – spending.

Instead of saying I’m unwilling to compromise, perhaps you should say, like a triage doctor, my attention is laser focused on the most important issue, spending, that is necessary to save my patient. The rest can wait!

RONALD RIML's picture

The last Federal Tax Increase....


was in 1998.

Too much spending - too many tax cuts. Your statement "we need to quite going to the taxpayer to solve a chronic spending problem" is a fable - government's been withdrawing from the taxpayer with numerous cuts.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

“The Bush tax cuts obviously

“The Bush tax cuts obviously did not stimulate the economy and have cost the treasury trillions of dollars.”

More miss information. The Bush tax cuts reduced federal government reviews by about $1.3 Trillion dollars over 10 years. That equates to an average of $130 Billion a year. This is very different from “Trillions”, but then that sounds more dramatic.

This all sounds a lot like just another 911-denier crowd, or do you blame Bush for that also?

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Good try at partisan

Good try at partisan mudslinging. Your numbers simply do not add up. You first quote that Bush added $4 Trillion to the national debt, which is true. You later say that Bush added additional size battle groups adding another $6 Trillion to the national debt. You throw out a lot of big numbers that, when summed, greatly exceed $4 Trillion – the actual debt increase under Bush.

I think you let you hatred for republicans and Bush to get cloud you logic. Go back and rework your math.

Over three and one half years into the Obama administration and the whiners are still blaming Bush for what are now Obama’s responsibilities and failures.

Hey, I saw a punching bag with a picture of Bush’s face on it in the local sports store. This may be therapeutic for you.

One parting question for you: When did the Obama administration pass its last budget?

Mature adults understand the debt issue was a collaborative effort between all parties. Moreover, arguing who is to blame is avoiding the problem.

Better living through smaller government.

Jason Theriault's picture

Intresting read

Intresting piece in the NY Times

David Stockman was the director of the Office of Management and Budget inside of Reagan's White House, and crafted the "trickle down" theory.

He admits they did it purely to put pressure on COngress to disassemble new deal programs.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

There is a partisan tilt to

There is a partisan tilt to this article since both R & D were responsible for the economic decline over the past 40 years, not just republicans.

That aside the author agrees with my prescription. Cut, Cut, Cut spending – “ ...stringent domestic belt-tightening is the only cure... liquidation and downsizing...”

Like I have been saying all along – better living through smaller government, a second opinion concurs.

Jason Theriault's picture

Nooo, the author partially agrees with you.

Yes, we need to cut now. But the author also states how the trickle down model doesn't work, and that now we need to raise revenues with taxes.

It's gotta be some of A, some of B. Some cuts across the board, including medicaid, medicare, social security and DoD. And some tax increases, especially on those who can absorb them easiest(the upper class).

Everyone is going to get hit, some worse than others. But the only other option is to inflate our way out.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Hmm, when the author says

Hmm, when the author says “...stringent domestic belt-tightening is the only cure...” I take all the gibberish about raising taxes as solely your opinion, not that of the author.

Jason Theriault's picture

Try reading the WHOLE piece.

Try reading the WHOLE piece.

You'll see stuff like "This debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party’s embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don’t matter if they result from tax cuts."

and "But in the end it was a new cadre of ideological tax-cutters who killed the Republicans’ fiscal religion."

"But when, in the following years, the Federal Reserve chairman, Paul Volcker, finally crushed inflation, enabling a solid economic rebound, the new tax-cutters not only claimed victory for their supply-side strategy but hooked Republicans for good on the delusion that the economy will outgrow the deficit if plied with enough tax cuts"

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Let’s not forget the fact

Let’s not forget the fact that spending always has outstripped tax cuts. That being there would still be a structural budget imbalance if no taxes were ever cut.

Somehow I feel, with great confidence, that we would still have a grandiose debt even without tax cuts. This will continue to be the case until we address spending before all else.

We need to stop acting like all would be well if we just didn't cut taxes.

Jason Theriault's picture

Two different subjects.

While they are mentioned a lot in the same argument, the effectiveness of tax cuts and deficit spending are two different points. I guess the reason they are tied together is that one(tax cuts) was paid for with the other(debt)

I don't think we should be deficit spending, and I would even support a Constitutional amendment saying so.

I also don't think that trickle down economics works. I understand people thinking that raising taxes on job creators stifles growth, but I don't agree that there is a relationship. Job creation is tied to demand, not taxes.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Supply and demand curves need

Supply and demand curves need to be treated as independent variables and one should not be used to influence the other.

Higher taxes simply inhibit a company’s ability to grow. Moreover, an uncompetitive tax structure simply pushes jobs offshore. Taxes are a cost to doing business and redistributes capital that would otherwise be used to grow and meet new demand.

Higher taxes mean a company as to reduce costs in other areas, such as in lobor costs; hence, offshoring or automation.

Jason Theriault's picture

You know

Since "Corperations are people", they should face the same rules as people due in regards to income tax.

So, they should be taxed on all income, REGARDLESS of which country they earn it in.

That would end alot of this off shoring nonsense.

Joe Morin's picture

A little secret Jason

When conversations occur between fiscal conservatives that are talking about honest solutions to our debt issue we are receptive to tax increases but the fly in our ointment is the spending. Why would anyone willingly throw good money at bad? The kind of tax increases necessary to cover our current spending are irrational if not impossible and would completely cripple our economy. We need to curtail deficit spending and use any form of increased revenue to pay down our debt. We are running 5 mph in the wrong direction on an escalator going 8 mph. Whenever we talk about compromise the taxes start now and cuts are 10 years down road. I will not willingly advocate any tax increases when that money will be wasted. Why doesn't Washington take the unspent remainder of tarp, stimulus, whatever and drop it on the debt??? Washington is a leach and we need to sprinkle a little salt on it. Shrink it up a bit... know what I mean? This whole turkey in every pot politics is ruining our country. The American dream turns into the American promise every time an election occurs.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

“Whenever we talk about

“Whenever we talk about compromise the taxes start now and cuts are 10 years down road.”

If ever… 10year budget plans are a copout. It is a way to push any results past the administrations first term and perhaps second term.

Budgets should be on 4-year cycles, so we can measure and judge results in a timely fashion.

Results matter.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Unfortunately the world does

Unfortunately the world does not operate under those same rules. A corporation can open a wholly owned subsidiary in a different country to avoid those taxes; in fact, it is done today to keep profits overseas and untaxed.

There are always ways around the issue, so why not embrace it and try to get as many businesses to do business in the US, even if that means zero corporate taxes for US manufacturing. Instead, we asymptotically try to close tax loopholes and make it more complicated to do business in the US and making it more attractive to offshore.

 's picture

Republicans took over the House ...

... less than two years ago. From 2006 through 2010, Democrats controlled the House and the Senate - and the Presidency, over the last two of those years. Mr. Duncan seems to believe some nefarious Republican cabal is really pulling the strings. Have there been any black helicopter sightings in Monmouth recently?

Maybe he's right. Congress has been in gridlock and the President has been campaigning for more than a year. Nobody is minding the store, and the fifth column of White House czars is busy fundamentally changing the store into a non-profit.

RONALD RIML's picture

And Mitch McConnell controlled the Veto

While stating that his #1 priority was making Obama a 'One Term President' - never mind the good of the country......

MARK GRAVEL's picture

One term sounds good!

Obama a one term president – I’ll vote for that, really I will.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

oBAMa is unlikely to be a one

oBAMa is unlikely to be a one term president. There are too many lemings out there with IQ's below room temperature who believe they are better off today than they were four years ago. The scary part? They outnumber guys like you and me by a margin of 3 to 2.
Winter is coming, my friend; winter is coming.
By nature, the Pirate is an optimist, although the benevolent aspects of well placed pessimism are not to be trivialized. If you are correct; you are looked upon as a sage. If you are wrong; something good has probably happened.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

“who believe they are better

“who believe they are better off today than they were four years ago.”

In a crude sense, they are correct because Obama has promised them giveaways, where a republican president is less likely to do so. The promise of a chicken in every pot is better than none although we can afford none of it.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Given today's social climate,

Given today's social climate, a little pot in every chicken would be more welcome.

Joe Morin's picture

It scares me Pirate..

.. It's my generation that grew in utter prosperity and can't deal with adversity. We have become a victim of our own success. Whole generations that don't have a clue what real "Hard Times" are. The United States is the richest, most powerfull country in the world. I can't see why we can't.... you fill in the blanks.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Those who grew up during WWII

Those who grew up during WWII remember and will never forget what real hard times were. If you were poor then, you stayed poor. There was no food stamps, medicaid, welfare. People got by on their own, or those who were able, found jobs. How can the last two generations have any frame of reference to hard times when everything is being handed to them by the government? If today's national mindset had prevailed during WWII, we couldn't have defeated Fascist Italy, and we'd all be speaking German or Japanese.
And, as you say, we may be richest, most powerful country in the world, but the current regime that occupies the White House is doing everything they can to unravel the very fiber of what America is. More than half of us believe they're better off today than they were 4 years ago. Can you freakin' believe that?


Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...