Skip to main content

quote:
The federal government is now $13 trillion in the red, the Treasury Department reported Wednesday, marking the first time the government has sunk that far into debt and putting a sharp point on the spending debate on Capitol Hill.


quote:
At $13 trillion, that figure has risen by $2.4 trillion in about 500 days since President Obama took office, or an average of $4.9 billion a day. That's almost three times the daily average of $1.7 billion under the previous administration, and led Republicans on Wednesday to place blame squarely at the feet of Mr. Obama and his fellow Democrats.


I'm having a hard time seeing how the progressive liberals can blame this on Bush.

Run Sarah Run

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

I think the National Debt surpassed the money supply a few years back. IOW, if every man, woman, and child in the U.S. gathered up all the cash in their wallet (or mattress,freezer,backyard etc. Wink ) and change in their pocket, then went to the bank and could get all their money out of their checking, savings, money market accts. etc, (which they can't do anyway) and sent it Uncle Sam, we couldn't pay 3/4 of what we owe.

This doesn't even take into account the governments various unfunded liabilities (i.e. SS, Medicare etc.).
I think you'll find that as a percent of GNP we are nowhere near as high as during WW11. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...d_States_public_debt However, it is nowhere where it was during the Clinton admin.
During much of the Bush admin, we were spending about a billion dollars a month just on the war in Iraq.
Bush decided to fight two wars (instead of the one we should have been fighting) and instead of paying for them, he put the cost on future administrations, maybe even future generations.
You Bush lovers may be able in your own minds to discount that , but in your heart you know he handed Obama one helluva mess.
Like in the 50's we may be able to grow ourselves out of this mess to some degree, but I think we should NEVER fight a war, especially a war of choice, without asking the citizens for a sacrifice to pay for it. NOT "go shopping".
IMHO Bush should have levied a $1.00/gal tax on gasoline to cut consumption, pay for his war of choice, and take away some of the money the Arab terrorist get from our oil purchase. He missed a great chance.
Now, with the mess in the Gulf, Obama should do the same. He is missing an opportunity as well to push for independence from foreign oil, cause we could drill like hell, and never get enough to provide all our current needs, let alone future needs.
In WWII, the US had a 12.1 million military (second only to the USSR's 12.2 million), a 6,000 plus ship navy (instead of about 300 today) and provided our allies most of their war fighting materiel. All from a population base of 140 million.

Bush's tax cut resulted in an increase in revenue, the largest increase in history -- got that! Its the spending, not the taxing that's the problem.

A $1 per gallon gas tax would harm the economy. However, I would recommend a reasonable tax on oil, not gas, sufficient to pay for the $80 billion or so to pay for the war effort.
Just a question, if Bush's tax cut for the rich produced so much more revenue, why did our budget surplus of a couple of trillion dollars turn into the deficit of more than that in just a few years ?
True, war is expensive, and to make things fiscally worse , Bush paid for them with special appropriations bills, in other words off the books.

With the exception of the bank bail-out (Bush's watch) and the Motown bailout (Obama's watch) I doubt if real spending has increased that much.In fact it may have been started for a decrease with the cancellation of several very expensive weapons systems recently.
Again, just opinion, not gonna research it.

My dollar/gallon was $0.50 for each war. Bush wanted to fight one of them for no reason, he shouldn't have pushed the cost to Obama, and whoever will be next, or next, or next ...
quote:
Originally posted by seeweed:
Just a question, if Bush's tax cut for the rich produced so much more revenue, why did our budget surplus of a couple of trillion dollars turn into the deficit of more than that in just a few years ?
True, war is expensive, and to make things fiscally worse , Bush paid for them with special appropriations bills, in other words off the books.

With the exception of the bank bail-out (Bush's watch) and the Motown bailout (Obama's watch) I doubt if real spending has increased that much.In fact it may have been started for a decrease with the cancellation of several very expensive weapons systems recently.
Again, just opinion, not gonna research it.

My dollar/gallon was $0.50 for each war. Bush wanted to fight one of them for no reason, he shouldn't have pushed the cost to Obama, and whoever will be next, or next, or next ...


Once more, its spending not tax cuts! From 2006:

"The federal government is in the midst of a tax revenue bonanza. Revenue in the first eight months of the fiscal year, October through May, was $1.545 trillion. That's a 12.9 percent increase from the previous year. The budget gap is closing, too. The eight-month deficit was $227 billion, down 16.7 percent from the previous year, which itself was a pretty good year. Federal revenue in fiscal 2005 reached $2.15 trillion - the most ever."

http://www.ocregister.com/opin...pending-revenue.html

As to your statement that non-defense spending hasn't increase much! Again, from the same source in 2006:

"In the past five years, nondefense discretionary spending has increased at an unprecedented pace. According to a recent study by the Cato Institute, discretionary spending during President Bush's first term rose an average of 8 percent each year. This is quadruple the rate of discretionary-spending increases under President Reagan and higher than under any president in the past 40 years. Annual federal spending is now approaching $3 trillion."
quote:
Originally posted by seeweed:
Just a question, if Bush's tax cut for the rich produced so much more revenue, why did our budget surplus of a couple of trillion dollars turn into the deficit of more than that in just a few years ?



Do you know the difference between deficit and debt? We've never had a budget surplus of a couple of trillion dollars.

I wonder what Clinton did with that money he claimed as a surplus. He certainly didn't pay down the National Debt, it went up every year he was in office. Maybe it's buried in the backyard of the White House. Wink
quote:
Originally posted by seeweed:
I think you'll find that as a percent of GNP we are nowhere near as high as during WW11. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...d_States_public_debt However, it is nowhere where it was during the Clinton admin.
During much of the Bush admin, we were spending about a billion dollars a month just on the war in Iraq.
Bush decided to fight two wars (instead of the one we should have been fighting) and instead of paying for them, he put the cost on future administrations, maybe even future generations.
You Bush lovers may be able in your own minds to discount that , but in your heart you know he handed Obama one helluva mess.
Like in the 50's we may be able to grow ourselves out of this mess to some degree, but I think we should NEVER fight a war, especially a war of choice, without asking the citizens for a sacrifice to pay for it. NOT "go shopping".
IMHO Bush should have levied a $1.00/gal tax on gasoline to cut consumption, pay for his war of choice, and take away some of the money the Arab terrorist get from our oil purchase. He missed a great chance.
Now, with the mess in the Gulf, Obama should do the same. He is missing an opportunity as well to push for independence from foreign oil, cause we could drill like hell, and never get enough to provide all our current needs, let alone future needs.


What are you driniking dude? Do you know how many months we could fight at a billion a month on 13 trillion dollars? 13,000 months or 1,083 years. I will agree that Obama inherited a mess, but it wasn't just from Bush. Bush inherited a mess too. It's a total failure of our entire government. Spending what you don't have. However, Obama has not stopped or slowed down on the spending. He has accelerated it like no one else before him. Take a look at Europe right now. I hope your not believing the government when they're telling you the economy is turning around. That's impossible given the worlds finances. Do you really think Obama should place another $1 tax on gasoline?
Look, you can be against tax cuts, for more taxes, against war, etc...whatever.

But when you say:

quote:
Originally posted by seeweed:
Just a question, if Bush's tax cut for the rich produced so much more revenue...


"for the rich"...things that are just absolutely, factually, 180 degrees wrong...and easily researched...it's hard to take any thing else you say seriously.

If you want to get your point across you have to at least having a truthful starting point...instead of just repeating political talking points.

Was it Hillary the latest to keep hammering the false "rich don't pay their fair share" point just a few days ago? It can be said over and over but it doesn't make any more true.

It is no state secret...Bush tax cuts were across the board...and the top 10% in income earners pay the vast majority of income taxes...with the bottom 50% paying next to nothing.

These facts are undisputable...You can hold your own opinion what taxes should be and who should pay...that's fine. But when you start your arguement from a falsehood...well it's not really a serious agruement, is it?
A $1 per gallon gas tax would harm the economy. However, I would recommend a reasonable tax on oil, not gas, sufficient to pay for the $80 billion or so to pay for the war effort.[/QUOTE]

I don't remember for sure what the price of gasoline was prior to 9/11, but I seem to remember it was something like $1.50/gal.
Seems it is ok for the gas companies to raise the price by a dollar for their profits, but if it goes up by a dollar to save our country from economic collapse that is a bad thing ?

The oil men wanted to keep us addicted to oil, and did nothing to stop the money from rolling into Saudi Arabia , probably helping to finance the very people we were paying taxes to fight.
'Course, back then the "in" vehicle to have was a 6MPG Hummer, and every woman needed a big SUV to pick up the kids at school to take them the 6 blocks home.
(see, I can make vague generalizations also)
I don't think a lot of people have any concept of exactly how much a trillion dollars is. We've been so inundated from politicians over the years with large numbers, most don't realize how much they spend. Gasoline consumption in the U.S. is less than 400 million gallons per day. A $1 per gallon tax (assuming it wouldn't hurt our economy or reduce consumption, which it most certainly would...and being very liberal with the numbers) would bring in $400 million per day (400,000,000 gallons x $1=$400,000,000). $400 million per day is about $150 billion per year. In the nine years since 9/11 that's about $1.3 trillion dollars. In the same time span the wars in the Middle East have cost us around $1 trillion Reuters , while we've overspent by $7 trillion U.S, Treasury Dept.. So if you take away the wars and add a $1 per gallon gas tax, we're still $5 trillion short.

The percent of GDP is just a political way to attempt to justify our exorbitant debt. It doesn't matter what the percent of GDP is if you don't pay it anyway. Our national debt hasn't gone down in over fifty years so lowering the percent of GDP isn't really doing anything, but it sounds good. Wink
Suppose your neighbor's job paid him $20,000 per year. you loaned him $1,000. Six months later he got a new job paying $30,000 per year. Which would you rather have, the knowledge that the loan was a smaller percent of his income, or the $1,000 ? Wink
Last edited by midknightrider
quote:
Originally posted by mad American:
I would much rather pay extra for profit than taxes. Profit is good, taxes bad for the economy. But what I still cannot grasp is the fact that obama and the rest of the America hating left say they want to do what is right, but fail to support a flat tax rate.


I love my country much more than I like the polluting greedy bunch from big oil.
Sorry you feel differently. In fact, I just can't imagine such a stand so I can't discuss it further.
quote:
Originally posted by seeweed:
quote:
Originally posted by mad American:
I would much rather pay extra for profit than taxes. Profit is good, taxes bad for the economy. But what I still cannot grasp is the fact that obama and the rest of the America hating left say they want to do what is right, but fail to support a flat tax rate.


I love my country much more than I like the polluting greedy bunch from big oil.
Sorry you feel differently. In fact, I just can't imagine such a stand so I can't discuss it further.


Since you feel so strongly about that "greedy bunch from big oil", I assume you do not own a gas powered car and bike to work right?

Try living a week...no a day without the benefits from those greedy guys and then you can be sanctimonious...until then, get off your high horse.
quote:
Originally posted by seeweed:
quote:
Originally posted by mad American:
I would much rather pay extra for profit than taxes. Profit is good, taxes bad for the economy. But what I still cannot grasp is the fact that obama and the rest of the America hating left say they want to do what is right, but fail to support a flat tax rate.


I love my country much more than I like the polluting greedy bunch from big oil.
Sorry you feel differently. In fact, I just can't imagine such a stand so I can't discuss it further.



Seaweed,

Your response makes no sense and contains no logic.

Its simply a knee jerk reaction to the problem in the gulf, not what MA posted.
quote:
Originally posted by elinterventor01:
quote:
Originally posted by seeweed:
quote:
Originally posted by mad American:
I would much rather pay extra for profit than taxes. Profit is good, taxes bad for the economy. But what I still cannot grasp is the fact that obama and the rest of the America hating left say they want to do what is right, but fail to support a flat tax rate.


I love my country much more than I like the polluting greedy bunch from big oil.
Sorry you feel differently. In fact, I just can't imagine such a stand so I can't discuss it further.



Seaweed,

Your response makes no sense and contains no logic.

Its simply a knee jerk reaction to the problem in the gulf, not what MA posted.


To me the logic is quite clear.
>War is not only hell, but it is very expensive.
>Before we are "taken" into war, especially unnecessary war, there should be a plan on how to pay for it, and we should be told what sacrifice each of us is expected to make. (This could actually make us think before we go to war just because some president wants to if we have to actually pay for it)
>Our parents and grandparents wars required much sacrifice. We should not expect to pass the cost of waging war on to future administrations or generations. They should be paid for by the generation that waged that war. Thinking we do not need to do so, and just "go shopping" is just crazy.
>We have two major problems - the war against the terrorist , aka "The war on terror", and our addiction to oil (BTW, a stated fact of every president since, and including, Nixon) which is getting worse every year. We can punch holes all over this country, but the fact is , that we only have between 3 and 4 percent of the known reserves of oil, and the largest reserves in the world are held by people who don't really like us very much. Add to that the fact that we use about 25% of the world supply of oil, and even the village idiot can see that something is definatly out of sync.
> Our primary enemy is Al Queda, and Ben Laden is funded by oil money.
>We are paying for both sides of this war, and the only thing we CAN do is reduce our USE of oil, thereby reducing our dependence.
> These facts lead me to believe that A> a gas tax would reduce useage, thereby cutting down on the amt of money we "give" to Ben Laden, and B> provide a sacrifice of the American people , and C> Provide (some) funds to fight our own war(s) and not borrow money from China to leave a legacy of debt to our children.
D> 'Hopefully' by taxing gasoline for the above reasons, would keep down the demand side of "demand and supply" equation, and the price of gas , from the oil companies, would not rise so fast.

In other words, I would rather pay that extra dollar a gallon to pay for our wars, thereby taking the responsability ourselves of our actions, than provide billions of dollars for the stockholders (of which I may be one ) profits.

I therefore don't consider what I said as a knee-jerk reaction, but a rather rational approach to addressing these two situations we find ourselves in. (actually three if you count the national debt)

I believe one may have an opinion opposing more taxes, but to prefer that we should pay that extra dollar / gal to the oil companies, rather than to attack the 3 problems hearin stated, is NOT the logical step I can accept.
BTW, although I seriously doubt that my suggestion will ever be considered at a nigh enough level to do any good, I would like to ask what would y'all propose to do to attack these problems ? MOre profits to the oil companies ? Do you really think that is the solution ?
The US is still paying off WWII war bonds. The UK finished paying off their about two years ago. Before venting, research to determine if what your stating is true. At $80 to $90 billion per year, the war debt for Iraq/Afghanistan is a small portion of the $13 trillion. Next vent!

True, al Qaeda is a portion of the threat. However, radical jehad is the major threat -- Iran and its twelvers, for instance.

In case you haven't noticed, the entire world is using oil. In Europe, they pay $6 or more per gallon, mostly in taxes and still use a great amount of gas. Try driving in rush hour traffic in Paris or Frankfurt am Main -- both rival LA. Most french cars are death traps, at best. Notice any new citroens or renaults in the US! The muslim youths that burn well over 100 a week in Paris probably save lives!

As to those oil profits, they are taxed, aren't they?

Like I stated, reflex action at the knee!
Seaweed, there is no way to love your country and support what obama and the left want to do to it. You either hate America and want it to be like Sweden or some other utopia in Europe or you love it the way it was before liberals got hold of it. And that goes way back before the great messsiah was even born. Term limits, term limits and a flat tax. Don't even say you want to do what is right for the country unless you support a flat tax.
quote:
We can punch holes all over this country, but the fact is , that we only have between 3 and 4 percent of the known reserves of oil, and the largest reserves in the world are held by people who don't really like us very much. Add to that the fact that we use about 25% of the world supply


Can you provide a link to this?
quote:
You either hate America and want it to be like Sweden or some other utopia in Europe or you love it the way it was before liberals got hold of it.


This makes no sense. So called "conservative" politicians have shown time and time again that they can screw up this country on par with any liberal.

quote:
Don't even say you want to do what is right for the country unless you support a flat tax.


And don't say you want to do what is right for the country if you do support a flat tax.
quote:
Originally posted by mad American:
Seaweed, there is no way to love your country and support what obama and the left want to do to it. You either hate America and want it to be like Sweden or some other utopia in Europe or you love it the way it was before liberals got hold of it. And that goes way back before the great messsiah was even born. Term limits, term limits and a flat tax. Don't even say you want to do what is right for the country unless you support a flat tax.

You have your opinion, I have mine. I can't understand how you can love your country and have supported the direction Bush took it. Needless war without fiscal accountability, no government regulation on any industry , the result is now evident in the Gulf, and pizzing away a financial system that was actually beginning to give us a surplus in the budget which could have been used to start paying down the national debt.
We DID "take our country back" when we elected Obama and a Democratic Congress (although there are too many of the "blue dog" types)
I'm kinda sick of Republicans claiming to be "conservative" and ruining our country.
Time has come for progressive policy to get our country moving again.
quote:
Clinton did have a surplus and Bush went thru it like berries thru a bluebird.


The National Debt from: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/.../histdebt_histo4.htm
Date...............Dollar Amount
09/30/2001...... 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000...... 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999..... 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998..... 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997..... 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996..... 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995..... 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994..... 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993..... 4,411,488,883,139.38

So show me the surplus! It's an old but true adage that the figures don't lie if liars don't figure.
quote:
So show me the surplus! It's an old but true adage that the figures don't lie if liars don't figure.


True, Clinton used an accounting gimmick created by Reagan's administration that allows the SSI surpluses (with are liabilities) to be borrowed by the Treasury and stay off the books. He paid down no debt, and can therefore never truly claim a surplus. Still, the man deserves more credit than Republicans will ever give him. The federal debt grew by less than 5% per year during his administration, making him easily to most fiscally responsible president in the last 30 years. Mr Republican, Ronald Reagan, grew the debt at around 35% per year - hardly fiscally conservative.
quote:
Originally posted by seeweed:
You have your opinion, I have mine. I can't understand how you can love your country and have supported the direction Bush took it. Needless war without fiscal accountability, no government regulation on any industry , the result is now evident in the Gulf, and pizzing away a financial system that was actually beginning to give us a surplus in the budget which could have been used to start paying down the national debt.
We DID "take our country back" when we elected Obama and a Democratic Congress (although there are too many of the "blue dog" types)
I'm kinda sick of Republicans claiming to be "conservative" and ruining our country.
Time has come for progressive policy to get our country moving again.


You're entitled to your own opinions about Bush and Republicans, but not your own facts, lack of fiscal accountability started long,long before Bush. Even without this "needless" war we'd be 12 trillion dollars in debt instead of 13.
We have government regulation out the wazoo, just ask any small businessman. The problems in the Gulf were not caused by lack of regulation, they were caused by lack of enforcement of regulation. More does not always mean better, sometimes less is better. I have seen no calls for "no" regulation of drilling, but we need to prioritize better. An extreme example...we have a devastating oil spill in the Gulf, but we wanna make sure we get the correct amount of "taters" at the farmers market. Wink
If a "surplus" is not used to pay what we owe (which this phantom surplus was not) then it is just more spending money and is a "surplus" in name only. It's only a campaign soundbite.
We're not going to "take our country back" unless we get off the Republican-Democrat lawyer/ politician cycle we've been on since the end of WWII. If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results...we must be insane.
We don't need "income" redistribution, we need "power" redistribution.
quote:
True, Clinton used an accounting gimmick created by Reagan's administration that allows the SSI surpluses (with are liabilities) to be borrowed by the Treasury and stay off the books. He paid down no debt, and can therefore never truly claim a surplus. Still, the man deserves more credit than Republicans will ever give him. The federal debt grew by less than 5% per year during his administration, making him easily to most fiscally responsible president in the last 30 years.


With the exception of a few years in Reagan's time, the unified budget has been used by every administration since LBJ. As for the smaller actual deficits of Clinton's administration, there is this thing called the "Peace Dividend" when the Defense budget was slashed while the pork barrel and entitlement cornucopia continued to flow. Part of the Bush era deficits are due to inheriting a military with cannibalized equipment that needed to be restored to fight the jihadists.

Also one must remember that for six years of the Clinton administration he was opposed by a Republican majority in both houses of Congress. Neither party could spend nor tax without a compromise.
quote:
With the exception of a few years in Reagan's time, the unified budget has been used by every administration since LBJ.


The Greenspan Commission changed the rules in 1983.

quote:
As for the smaller actual deficits of Clinton's administration, there is this thing called the "Peace Dividend" when the Defense budget was slashed while the pork barrel and entitlement cornucopia continued to flow. Part of the Bush era deficits are due to inheriting a military with cannibalized equipment that needed to be restored to fight the jihadists.


$5 trillion worth?

quote:
Also one must remember that for six years of the Clinton administration he was opposed by a Republican majority in both houses of Congress. Neither party could spend nor tax without a compromise.


Historically speaking, when one party is in the White House, and the other controls Congress, government growth is at it's smallest. When one party controls both the White House and Congress, both parties grow the government at about an equal rate.
quote:
Originally posted by seeweed:
quote:
Originally posted by mad American:
Seaweed, there is no way to love your country and support what obama and the left want to do to it. You either hate America and want it to be like Sweden or some other utopia in Europe or you love it the way it was before liberals got hold of it. And that goes way back before the great messsiah was even born. Term limits, term limits and a flat tax. Don't even say you want to do what is right for the country unless you support a flat tax.

You have your opinion, I have mine. I can't understand how you can love your country and have supported the direction Bush took it. Needless war without fiscal accountability, no government regulation on any industry , the result is now evident in the Gulf, and pizzing away a financial system that was actually beginning to give us a surplus in the budget which could have been used to start paying down the national debt.
We DID "take our country back" when we elected Obama and a Democratic Congress (although there are too many of the "blue dog" types)
I'm kinda sick of Republicans claiming to be "conservative" and ruining our country.
Time has come for progressive policy to get our country moving again.


Look I agree with you about the direction Bush took the country...but as pointed out earlier in the thread...or another thread...I don't remember...when you spout complete and obvious falsehoods, it's hard to take anything else you say seriously.

Once again...you either say this purposefully or ignorantly:

"...no government regulation on any industry , the result is now evident in the Gulf, and pizzing away a financial system that was actually beginning to give us a surplus in the budget which could have been used to start paying down the national debt..."


But it is an absolute falsehood.
quote:
Originally posted by dolemitejb:
Historically speaking, when one party is in the White House, and the other controls Congress, government growth is at it's smallest. When one party controls both the White House and Congress, both parties grow the government at about an equal rate.


Kind of interesting:



Just a note...this graph was done at the end of W's term...the 2011 actually is closer to $13 trillion.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/als...bt-presidents-th.jpg
quote:
The Greenspan Commission changed the rules in 1983.


Technically yes, but every administration still counts the surplus.

"However, those involved in budget matters often produce two sets of numbers, one without Social Security included in the budget totals and one with Social Security included. Thus, Social Security is still frequently treated as though it were part of the unified federal budget even though, technically, it no longer is." http://www.ssa.gov/history/BudgetTreatment.html

quote:
$5 trillion worth?


I said "part of" meaning a "fraction of" or a "percentage of". A "part of" the 5 trillion can be blamed on the reluctance of the Clinton administration to treat terrorists as a threat which created the need for the invasion of Afghanistan. A "part of" the 5 trillion is because of the tail-chaser-in-chief's need to "wag the dog" with the bipartisan Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 which made the removal of Saddam Hussein a national policy. Also a "part of" the 5 trillion was because of Bush's and the Republicans own idiotic spending sprees.

quote:

Historically speaking, when one party is in the White House, and the other controls Congress, government growth is at it's smallest. When one party controls both the White House and Congress, both parties grow the government at about an equal rate.


No problem with this statement. I think all presidents and congresses past Calvin Coolidge's time were wastrels.
quote:
Originally posted by midknightrider:
quote:
Originally posted by seeweed:
You have your opinion, I have mine. I can't understand how you can love your country and have supported the direction Bush took it. Needless war without fiscal accountability, no government regulation on any industry , the result is now evident in the Gulf, and pizzing away a financial system that was actually beginning to give us a surplus in the budget which could have been used to start paying down the national debt.
We DID "take our country back" when we elected Obama and a Democratic Congress (although there are too many of the "blue dog" types)
I'm kinda sick of Republicans claiming to be "conservative" and ruining our country.
Time has come for progressive policy to get our country moving again.


You're entitled to your own opinions about Bush and Republicans, but not your own facts, lack of fiscal accountability started long,long before Bush. Even without this "needless" war we'd be 12 trillion dollars in debt instead of 13.
We have government regulation out the wazoo, just ask any small businessman. The problems in the Gulf were not caused by lack of regulation, they were caused by lack of enforcement of regulation. More does not always mean better, sometimes less is better. I have seen no calls for "no" regulation of drilling, but we need to prioritize better. An extreme example...we have a devastating oil spill in the Gulf, but we wanna make sure we get the correct amount of "taters" at the farmers market. Wink
If a "surplus" is not used to pay what we owe (which this phantom surplus was not) then it is just more spending money and is a "surplus" in name only. It's only a campaign soundbite.
We're not going to "take our country back" unless we get off the Republican-Democrat lawyer/ politician cycle we've been on since the end of WWII. If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results...we must be insane.
We don't need "income" redistribution, we need "power" redistribution.

I think we basically agree, but to me lack of enforcement IS lack of regulation. Lets just agree that we need better regulations and implicit enforcement of those regulations.
BeternU kept talking about an acustic valve or something that should have been put on the well now in trouble, but was not . I don't claim to know all that much about oil drilling, and even less about drilling in water, and much less drilling in deep water, but considering the possible damage a runaway well could do , suspenders AND a belt would be a good thing.
Clinton's budget which Al Gore had to break a senate tie to get, actually did produce a surplus in the budget (no relation to the debt, dear Flatus, and it was groing. Black ink for the first time since WW2. I remember the Republican senators swelled up like ole toad frogs and swore that that budget would ruin the country.
Turned out, it gave us the greatest economic expansion the country has ever had. Whatever the surplus was used for, or not used for, Bush managed to screw it up in record time.
You may be too young to remember, but I am not.
I can remember the financial situation of my family all the way back to Eisenhower, and how we faired under each succeding period of time, and I also remember to some degree, the condition of our country back as far as Kennedy. I know when things are good, and when they are bad, and I have a pretty good idea whose feet the blame should be placed at. The best years we as a country had were during the Clinton admin. Just face it.
quote:
Originally posted by dolemitejb:
quote:
So show me the surplus! It's an old but true adage that the figures don't lie if liars don't figure.


True, Clinton used an accounting gimmick created by Reagan's administration that allows the SSI surpluses (with are liabilities) to be borrowed by the Treasury and stay off the books. He paid down no debt, and can therefore never truly claim a surplus. Still, the man deserves more credit than Republicans will ever give him. The federal debt grew by less than 5% per year during his administration, making him easily to most fiscally responsible president in the last 30 years. Mr Republican, Ronald Reagan, grew the debt at around 35% per year - hardly fiscally conservative.


Because of the end of the cold war and the demise of the soviet union, we cut DoD severely, and to a degree, rightly so. That produced most of the lessening in spending.
quote:
Clinton moved the social security surplus under the general budget.


Clinton didn't move anything. Per the 1983 amendments to the Social Security Act, that's where the surplus was supposed to be.

While I think it's certainly fair to point out to all the "Clinton had a surplus!" liberals that the surplus was merely accounting trickery, it's also only fair to avoid using language that insinuates that Clinton invented this trickery.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×