Republican National DebtOct 24, 2014. When did the National Debt go crazy? Why? Who’s to blame? Where is the debt headed? Compared to the US economy, the national debt is smaller than it was after World War II. But, take a look at what could have happened if three presidents had balanced their budgets. [Email the Fact Card]
The National Debt: Voodoo from Wall Street
Oct 24, 2014. What if Reagan and the Bushes had balanced their budgets? How much lower would the debt be now? We’ll get to that shortly, but first, how did we get into this mess? This may just be the weirdest political tale you’ve every heard.
World War II cost a bundle, and the country started out in the Great Depression. It was flat broke. But Uncle Sam was popular and the country patriotic, and people were happy to lend him money. Compared to the size of the economy back then, the debt soon outstripped even today’s debt, and we won the war.
US-national-debt-GDP The data for actual Debt-as-%-of-GDP for 1940-2006 comes from George W. Bush’s OMB Historical Table 7.1 for FY 2008 — download. (spreadsheet) (Why graph Debt / GDP ?)
After the war, they started paying off the debt, and the economy (and its GDP) grew. And for 35 years the debt kept getting smaller compared to the GDP. When it was the smallest (as compared to GDP) than it had been in 50 years, Reagan was elected (1980) and vowed to shrink it even more drastically. But he had an odd theory: Cut taxes and the government would collect so much more money that he could spend more and still pay down the debt. Even before he was elected, George H. W. Bush called this “Voodoo economics,” and so it was.
The result, of course, was that the debt stopped decreasing and shot through the roof, as seen in the graph above. By 1987, even Ron Paul (who loved the tax-cut part) blurted out: “How is it that the party of balanced budgets, with control of the White House and Senate, accumulated red ink greater than all previous administrations put together?” And so it had. Starting with a debt of $1 trillion, in eight years Reagan raised it to $2.8 trillion. Even relative to the bigger economy, this was as bad as it had been 28 years earlier. (And no, the House did not do it to him. The budgets Congress passed were almost identical to what he asked for and on average a tiny bit more balanced.)
Why did he do it?
So how the heck did this happen to the guy that rode to office on complaints of an out-of-control debt that was as big as a stack of $1000 bills 67 miles high? How did he come to add another 128 miles to that stack?
Reagan took some economics in college, and he really did want to reduce the debt. But he got snookered by some Wall Street “economists” (mostly political journalists) who told him he could have his cake and eat it too. They came up with the brand-new theory, mentioned above, that said the government can collect more money by reducing taxes. Wouldn’t that be nice! That’s the supply-side economics that George H. W. Bush called Voodoo.
It was first tested by Reagan. Bush I tried and failed to undo the Voodoo, and Bush II reinstated it after Clinton. Altogether there were 20 Voodoo budgets. And every single time the debt not only went up, it went up faster than the economy grew — usually much faster. Before the Voodoo, 26 of the previous 35 budgets resulted in the debt shrinking relative to GDP. Reagan’s first budget was the turning point.
Debt: Total owed from past and present borrowing. Deficit: This year’s borrowing.
Of course some supply-siders noticed this too, and when Treasury Sect. Paul O’Neil complained that cutting taxes would increase the deficit, V.P. Cheney just replied “You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter.” In fact, many seemed to like the deficits and complain about them only when Democrats were in power. They saw them as helping to “strangle the government.”
So how big is this supply-side / Republican debt?
My answer is not entirely fair, because I calculate it by the Republican method, but it seems fair to hold them to their own standards. And it makes the calculation transparent and understandable. You be the judge. So just what is the Republican approach? There should always be a balanced budget — they even want to put that into the constitution. As Ron Paul said, they are the party of balanced budgets.
So we will ask, “What if Reagan and the Bushes had balanced their own budgets?” And what if Clinton and Obama had taxed the same and spent the same as they actually did?
The answer is that the National Debt would now be lower by $13.5 trillion! So that’s the Republican National Debt — according to their own standard of balanced budgets.
It’s quite easy to check these calculations (see this spreadsheet). They go like this: When Reagan took office the debt was $1 trillion. When he left it was $2.86 trillion. So $1.86 trillion for him. Then Bush-I added $1.55 trillion. Total so far: $3.4 trillion. Then Clinton took over.
Now the national debt is like a mortgage, and so the bigger it is, the more interest must be paid on it. Without the extra Reagan-Bush $3.4 trillion, there would have been a few hundred billion less in interest on the debt every year under Clinton. That interest adds another $2.3 trillion to the Reagan-Bush debt. Then Bush II increased it by $6.1 trillion to $11.8 trillion. And interest on that has been increasing the debt under Obama. The total Reagan-Bushes debt is now $13.5 trillion.
Why this matters
Supply-side economics is outrageously dishonest. The supply-siders didn’t even mind conning their own man Reagan. The tax-cut “theory” only actually applied to the rich. So the plan was to cut tax rates for the rich in half, which they did. To get this through they had to cut taxes for the middle class some too, but they counted on inflation pushing the middle class back into higher tax brackets. But cutting the top bracket had a permanent effect because there is no higher bracket to get pushed into.
So not only was cutting taxes to raise money crazy, it was just a deception to cut taxes for the richest and then use the deficits to force cuts in services for the middle class and the poor. The Republicans have almost all gone over to the supply side now, and many, like Reagan, have been brainwashed into believing it. G.W. Bush claimed he would “retire nearly $1 trillion in debt over the next four years. This will be the largest debt reduction ever achieved by any nation at any time.” I think he actually believed that.
When the Voodoo started, that’s exactly when the debt went out of control. And 20 out of 20 budgets can’t be an accident. Especially when you consider that Clinton was handed a Voodoo budget headed in the wrong direction, stopped that, turned it around and ended up with the debt reduced from 66% to 58% of GDP.
But I need your help on this. Can you email this to a friend? (It’s set up for you here.) Or could you share this with one of the sharing buttons? (Note the 37,000 facebook likes, below. —Thanks, those have helped!)
There are a lot of lies in circulation. Blaming the Democrats for the debt is just one of them. See some others in this little slide show. Then steal the slides and pass them on. Or,
What about Obama?
Notice how the debt accelerated during Bush’s last two budget years. Obama’s debt is a continuation of that trend and neither Bush nor Obama are directly responsible for that acceleration. It happened because of the recession. (Bush was responsible for the turn-around from surplus to deficit soon after he took office, but not for the impact of the recession on the budget.) Nonetheless, Bush set the all-time record by increasing the debt by $1.1 trillion in 100 days between July 30 and Nov 9, 2008—but that had little to do with his choices.
Recessions cut tax revenues—in this case, dramatically. That accounts for nearly half of the deficit. So blaming Obama for the full deficit is like blaming him for not raising the tax rate to keep tax revenues up. Most of the increased spending is automatic increases in unemployment benefits, food stamps, and social security payments for early retirement. Very little of it is from stimulus spending, and that’s over.
Now we see that the economy is growing almost as fast as the debt, so in the last year, the debt has not outstripped economic growth by much. Economic growth is the main way that the WWII debt was brought down relative to GDP.
Thanks for all the “Likes” and “Shares” — a real help.
Also important: Why Price Carbon? The Paris Climate Conference, 2015
Reagan added a lot to the debt. No doubt. But going back 30 years to find a way to excuse current spending is stupid. The truth is the national debt hasn't gone done in any year since 1957. There's a lot of Democrats and Republicans both in that pool. https://www.treasurydirect....istdebt/histdebt.htm
And yes, that includes the years of Bill Clinton's "surplus." According to the US Treasury, the national debt went up those years too.
ronald reagan added what like 1-2 trillion in 8 years to the debt? Obama added 8 trillion in 6 years. All praise obama. ray b hates facts
Yeah, but you can triple that amount due to inflation and nominal value of the dollar. That is using 1988 dollars. If I go back to 1981, then it's 5-times.
Ronald Reagan era increased the debt by almost 200%
Yeah, but you can triple that amount due to inflation and nominal value of the dollar. That is using 1988 dollars. If I go back to 1981, then it's 5-times.
Ronald Reagan era increased the debt by almost 200%
Currently Obama increased it by 54%
Not defending Obama, just defending the facts.
So Reagan started and it was at 1 trillion, 3 trillion when he left office? (roughly)
Obama starts and it started at 12 trillion but is up to 18 trillion so far? (roughly)
I know that's probably not what you meant by I'm trying to come up with how you arrived at those figures.
[This message has been edited by Khw (edited 04-14-2015).]
So Reagan started and it was at 1 trillion, 3 trillion when he left office? (roughly)
Obama starts and it started at 12 trillion but is up to 18 trillion so far? (roughly)
I know that's probably not what you meant by I'm trying to come up with how you arrived at those figures.
Ronald Reagan: Added $1.86 trillion, 186% increase to the $998 billion debt level at the end of Carter's last budget, FY 1981.
Barack Obama: Added $6.167 trillion, a 53% increase to the $11.657 trillion debt level attributable to President Bush at the end of his last budget, FY 2009.
George W. Bush: Added $5.849 trillion, a 101% increase to the $5.8 trillion debt level at the end of Clinton's last budget, FY 2001.
Bill Clinton: Added $1.396 trillion, a 32% increase to the $4.4 trillion debt level at the end of Bush's last budget, FY 1993.
George H.W. Bush: Added $1.554 trillion, a 54% increase to the $2.8 trillion debt level at the end of Reagan's last budget, FY 1989.
Jimmy Carter: Added $299 billion, a 43% increase to the $699 billion debt level at the end of Ford's last budget, FY 1977.
Gerald Ford: Added $224 billion, a 47% increase to the $475 billion debt level at the end of Nixon's last budget, FY 1974.
Richard Nixon: Added $121 billion, a 34% increase to the $354 billion debt level at the end of LBJ's last budget, FY 1969.
Lyndon B. Johnson: Added $42 billion, a 13% increase to the $312 billion debt level at the end of JFK's last budget, FY 1964.
John F. Kennedy: Added $23 billion, a 8% increase to the $289 billion debt level at the end of Eisenhower's last budget, FY1961.
Dwight Eisenhower: Added $23 billion, a 9% increase to the $266 billion debt level at the end of Truman's last budget, FY 1953.
Harry Truman: Added $7 billion, a 3% increase over FDR's debt level of $259 billion at the end of FY 1945.
Franklin D. Roosevelt: Added $236 billion, a 1,048% increase over $23 billion, the debt at the end of Hoover's last budget, FY 1933.
Herbert Hoover: Added $6 billion, a 33% increase over $17 billion, the debt at the end of Coolidge's last budget, FY 1929.
Calvin Coolidge: Subtracted $5 billion from the debt, a 26% decline from $21 billion the debt level at the end of Harding's last budget, FY 1923.
Warren G. Harding: Subtracted $2 billion from the debt, a 7% decline from the $24 billion debt at the end of Wilson's last budget, FY 1921.
Woodrow Wilson: Added $21 billion to the debt, a 727% increase over the $3 billion debt at the end of Taft's last budget, FY 1913.
Ronald Reagan: Added $1.86 trillion, 186% increase to the $998 billion debt level at the end of Carter's last budget, FY 1981.
Barack Obama: Added $6.167 trillion, a 53% increase to the $11.657 trillion debt level attributable to President Bush at the end of his last budget, FY 2009.
George W. Bush: Added $5.849 trillion, a 101% increase to the $5.8 trillion debt level at the end of Clinton's last budget, FY 2001.
Bill Clinton: Added $1.396 trillion, a 32% increase to the $4.4 trillion debt level at the end of Bush's last budget, FY 1993.
George H.W. Bush: Added $1.554 trillion, a 54% increase to the $2.8 trillion debt level at the end of Reagan's last budget, FY 1989.
Jimmy Carter: Added $299 billion, a 43% increase to the $699 billion debt level at the end of Ford's last budget, FY 1977.
Gerald Ford: Added $224 billion, a 47% increase to the $475 billion debt level at the end of Nixon's last budget, FY 1974.
Richard Nixon: Added $121 billion, a 34% increase to the $354 billion debt level at the end of LBJ's last budget, FY 1969.
Lyndon B. Johnson: Added $42 billion, a 13% increase to the $312 billion debt level at the end of JFK's last budget, FY 1964.
John F. Kennedy: Added $23 billion, a 8% increase to the $289 billion debt level at the end of Eisenhower's last budget, FY1961.
Dwight Eisenhower: Added $23 billion, a 9% increase to the $266 billion debt level at the end of Truman's last budget, FY 1953.
Harry Truman: Added $7 billion, a 3% increase over FDR's debt level of $259 billion at the end of FY 1945.
Franklin D. Roosevelt: Added $236 billion, a 1,048% increase over $23 billion, the debt at the end of Hoover's last budget, FY 1933.
Herbert Hoover: Added $6 billion, a 33% increase over $17 billion, the debt at the end of Coolidge's last budget, FY 1929.
Calvin Coolidge: Subtracted $5 billion from the debt, a 26% decline from $21 billion the debt level at the end of Harding's last budget, FY 1923.
Warren G. Harding: Subtracted $2 billion from the debt, a 7% decline from the $24 billion debt at the end of Wilson's last budget, FY 1921.
Woodrow Wilson: Added $21 billion to the debt, a 727% increase over the $3 billion debt at the end of Taft's last budget, FY 1913.
So, yeah the percent increase is based off of the existing debt verses how much it was raised over that Presidents term. I just wanted to make sure I understood how those percents were arrived at.
If we looked at it and converted the 8 trillion figure being thrown around in this thread of debt added during Obama's Presidency we would come up with roughly 2.87 trillion 1980 dollars. According to a dollar value comparison I saw.
quote
By 1950, the dollar's value had dropped even lower than before the Depression. It was worth only $9.53. It has fallen ever since: 1960 = $7.76 1970 = $5.92 1980 = $2.79 1990 = $1.76 2000 = $1.33 2010 - $1.05
So are social programs. Both drag the economy down.....I believe we spend more money on social programs than military expenditures (including the wars), so saying that war has caused our debt to grow is a bit misguided.
So are social programs. Both drag the economy down.....I believe we spend more money on social programs than military expenditures (including the wars), so saying that war has caused our debt to grow is a bit misguided.
I saw a pie chart on here someone posted not to far back, and I believe Social Security was the largest "social program" expense we currently have. Between it and medicare, other "social programs" were a drop in the bucket (well maybe a slow and steady drip).
[This message has been edited by Khw (edited 04-15-2015).]
I saw a pie chart on here someone posted not to far back, and I believe Social Security was the largest "social program" expense we currently have. Between it and medicare, other "social programs" were a drop in the bucket (well maybe a slow and steady drip).
Expenditures for social programs in the US account for about 20% of GDP (2013), while military spending is less than 4% (2013). I will find out what program are included in that 20% figure and will post back. If it included Social Security then I will amend the figure.....I don't believe SS should be considered a social program, per se, since it is funded by the very people who collect the checks.
**edited**
Without Social Security, social programs are about 14% of GDP This includes food stamps, TANF, etc., etc. As I mentioned above, Social Security should not be considered an entitlement program since it is funded by the people who benefit from it (unlike food stamps, for example).
[This message has been edited by mrfiero (edited 04-15-2015).]
When will Wall Street stop screwing us, first "junk bonds", then the S&L deregulation and bail out, then "voodoo economics", then the mortgage crisis and bank failures that caused. Oh yeah I am eager to let Wall Street invest my Social Security contributions, lets get right on that, NOT!
When will Wall Street stop screwing us, first "junk bonds", then the S&L deregulation and bail out, then "voodoo economics", then the mortgage crisis and bank failures that caused. Oh yeah I am eager to let Wall Street invest my Social Security contributions, lets get right on that, NOT!
Proving once again our country has the best legal system money can buy, if you have enough there is no way you are going to jail. Try getting arrested and see how good a public defender is, or if you have the money hier F Lee Baily and get off.
Steve
------------------ Technology is great when it works, and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't
Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.
[This message has been edited by 84fiero123 (edited 04-15-2015).]
Ronald Reagan: Added $1.86 trillion, 186% increase to the $998 billion debt level at the end of Carter's last budget, FY 1981.
Barack Obama: Added $6.167 trillion, a 53% increase to the $11.657 trillion debt level attributable to President Bush at the end of his last budget, FY 2009.
I'm not disputing your figures, but I'm wondering what the point is. As debt grows, each president starts office with a larger debt. If you're suggesting Reagan's 186% increase is worse than Obama's 54% increase that would mean each successive president can rack up more debt than the previous and still be considered equal.
Are you suggesting would have to add another $20 Trillion or so to the debt before he can be considered "worse" than Reagan? I'm not following what the comparison is trying to show. Are you suggesting going from zero debt to $1 in debt is worse than going from $1 Trillion to $2 Trillion in debt?
Here is the graph that goes with the article I posted
Whoever did that chart obviously learned math with Common Core. The graph is trying to equate the difference over time of debt as a percent of GDP with total debt. Math doesn't work like that. If you want to know what the "Republican Debt" is, add up the actual deficit numbers. GDP changes per year so you can't equate a percentage from 30 years ago to a percentage today and claim you're comparing equal amounts.
I saw a pie chart on here someone posted not to far back, and I believe Social Security was the largest "social program" expense we currently have. Between it and medicare, other "social programs" were a drop in the bucket (well maybe a slow and steady drip).
A simplified chart:
"The Wars" are merely a part of discretionary spending. Social Security, Medicare, Unemployement, Food Stamps, etc. all fall under mandatory spending and they dwarf the total of discretionary spending. Defense is about 20% of discretionary spending - not total spending.
Or another way to look at it: Notice mandatory spending is more than federal revenue. Cut ALL discretionary spending and we still run a deficit.
When will Wall Street stop screwing us, first "junk bonds", then the S&L deregulation and bail out, then "voodoo economics", then the mortgage crisis and bank failures that caused. Oh yeah I am eager to let Wall Street invest my Social Security contributions, lets get right on that, NOT!
I'm not disputing your figures, but I'm wondering what the point is. As debt grows, each president starts office with a larger debt. If you're suggesting Reagan's 186% increase is worse than Obama's 54% increase that would mean each successive president can rack up more debt than the previous and still be considered equal.
Are you suggesting would have to add another $20 Trillion or so to the debt before he can be considered "worse" than Reagan? I'm not following what the comparison is trying to show. Are you suggesting going from zero debt to $1 in debt is worse than going from $1 Trillion to $2 Trillion in debt?
I don't care how many percentage points different they are they should not continue to increase it with every new incoming president, it's like they are all trying to out due the previous one in the area of debt. The thing that gets me is when I am out o money I am out of money. But when our countries politicians are out of money they just print more and raise the debt. That needs to stop, they need to live within a budget with no increase in the debt, they should be paying it down not increasing it every time a new administration starts.
So, if we compare Obama debt increase in 1980 dollars, 2.87 trillion, to what the debt was in 1980 we get 287% of the debt when Reagan took office.
that puts a chink in wichitas argument. Wow Obama at 287% vs regans which was way lower comparatively speaking. Looks like the leftist argument has backfired.
Obama will add approx 10 trillion when he is done. That's as much as all other 43 presidents combined. But I guess leftists will claim its only 100% so its no big deal. Way to spin it lefties
So Reagan started and it was at 1 trillion, 3 trillion when he left office? (roughly)
Obama starts and it started at 12 trillion but is up to 18 trillion so far? (roughly)
I know that's probably not what you meant by I'm trying to come up with how you arrived at those figures.
He's basing it on BUDGET deficit... which is a HUGE misnomer, and he may not even realize it.
The budget skyrocketed under Pelosi and Reid in 2006, Bush basically went along with it. Something like 35-40% of Bush's debt was accrued under his last two years.
Then when Obama became president, and had a super-majority... the budget deficit shot up to astronomical numbers. This was when the Democrats were 100% in control. In 2010 when the Republicans took office, the Republicans basically halted any additional spending, and pretty much refused any spending increases. This caused the budget deficit to drop exponentially. Obama occasionally takes credit for this, even though it was totally against his will.
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 04-15-2015).]
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: He's basing it on BUDGET deficit... which is a HUGE misnomer, and he may not even realize it.
The budget skyrocketed under Pelosi and Reid in 2006, Bush basically went along with it. Something like 35-40% of Bush's debt was accrued under his last two years.
Then when Obama became president, and had a super-majority... the budget deficit shot up to astronomical numbers. This was when the Democrats were 100% in control. In 2010 when the Republicans took office, the Republicans basically halted any additional spending, and pretty much refused any spending increases. This caused the budget deficit to drop exponentially. Obama occasionally takes credit for this, even though it was totally against his will.
I don't care who is in charge, they all seem to make it bigger, not decreasing it like they should. If the democrats are in charge they take the credit or heat depending on who is talking. if the republicans are in charge the same. but they are all always each taking credit for anything that they can, even if it is nothing.
The gov doesnt need more money it needs to tighten its belt and cut the rediculous amounts of waste and abuse. It really doesnt matter if that isnt enough to solve all our debt problems.
You know how they say dont feed the troll? Dont feed the government either, it will only grow bigger and have a more voracious appetite.
that puts a chink in wichitas argument. Wow Obama at 287% vs regans which was way lower comparatively speaking. Looks like the leftist argument has backfired.
Obama will add approx 10 trillion when he is done. That's as much as all other 43 presidents combined. But I guess leftists will claim its only 100% so its no big deal. Way to spin it lefties
With the exception of, that KHW did leftist math. Obama added $6.1 Trillion to date, not the $8 Trillion used in the figures. Also K used 1980 dollar value, and not 1988. He fudged the numbers.
Anyways, I'm not a leftest, not defending Obama and any debt is bad.
It's blind rightest who think that Reagan did not pile up huge debt , but his era that was in fact the case. Republicans are big spenders.
With the exception of, that KHW did leftist math. Obama added $6.1 Trillion to date, not the $8 Trillion used in the figures. Also K used 1980 dollar value, and not 1988. He fudged the numbers.
Anyways, I'm not a leftest, not defending Obama and any debt is bad.
It's blind rightest who think that Reagan did not pile up huge debt , but his era that was in fact the case. Republicans are big spenders.
I just used the numbers given in this thread. And what I could find for the value of a dollar by decade (averaged over the whole decade not one specific year). I mean heck, I even based it off what the 2010 value of a dollar was rather than the 2016, or actually the 2010 average decade value so far. I can amend it to 6.1 trillion. We still end up with 2.18 trillion, which is still more in 1980's decade dollars than Reagan (218% of the deficit when Reagan entered office). I'm not trying to defend Reagan or condemn Obama, I'm just saying essentially what Formula88 is saying. Comparing the current amount being added to an ever increasing base amount inherited is not a accurate representation of how much it's increasing. In order to get 200% Obama would have to add 20 trillion to the debt. Again, if we convert that 20 trillion in to 1980's dollar value Reagan would have had to increase the debt by 5.58 trillion, which would have been a 558% increase. But because the comparison number is so much larger now it makes Obamas increase percent look smaller. It's not an accurate way to express how much debt is being added. It's like when my dad told me "When you were 1 I was 24 times older than you but now that your 20 I'm just over twice as old as you. Your catching up!". Sure the numbers make it look that way, but it's not what is actually happening. The same with this whole % thing you brought up. It's absurd to compare the increase to a base number that has changed. You need to convert it one way or the other to either the old numbers or the current and make your comparison. Do it the other way. Convert Reagans 1980's 1.86 trillion deficit spending to current dollar value and compare it to the dept when Obama entered office. Here's a hint, his percent of increase compared to the current dept figure will be lower than Obamas just as Obamas is higher when compared the other way. That's not an excuse to say Reagans or Obamas deficit spending is okay, no they both spent way to much, it's just a more fair way of comparing how much was spent rather than comparing to a reference number that is much larger than it was 30 years ago.
Anyways, I't's just an observation at what I think is wrong with the comparison you brought up. You can like that comparison you cited, you can except it, Hell, you can live your life by it. I don't really care. I just don't think the premise used in the comparison equation is in any way a fair representation. That's my observation, take it for whatever you will. I will say though that apparently I'm not the only one with that same observation.
[This message has been edited by Khw (edited 04-15-2015).]
Anyways, I'm not a leftest, not defending Obama and any debt is bad.
Any debt is bad, for the individual, or for the country.
This is why smaller government and governmental downsiding is always preferred, because governments always inevitably bloat up and spend spend spend. This isn't a scalable way to do manage your "income".
Spending the money of your citizenry should carry with it the responsibility of trying to be as judisicous and frugal as possible while still providing the basics (roads, military, currency are the big three IMHO.)
In the end it doesn't matter who spent more than was budgeted. Now I only care about who can fix it.
I don't care who is in charge, they all seem to make it bigger, not decreasing it like they should. If the democrats are in charge they take the credit or heat depending on who is talking. if the republicans are in charge the same. but they are all always each taking credit for anything that they can, even if it is nothing.
Steve
Bill Clinton lowered it for a year... He, along with the Newt Gingrich congress, passed the welfare reform act and there was actually a budget surplus (although small).
I find the comparison of 2 flawed budget policies a flawed method if the discussion is about a balanced budget and lowering the national debt. While everyone agrees that dinning room table budgeting and simple business accounting are good example of how the government should manage it's finances, neither have been applied by either party. When they start reducing the size of programs, stop borrowing money to pay for them and pay off the debt we owe, That will put us on track to a truely balanced budget. Until then, it's a scam for political gain.
Bill Clinton lowered it for a year... He, along with the Newt Gingrich congress, passed the welfare reform act and there was actually a budget surplus (although small).
I wonder why no one else has done that? why no one even trys because it sure looks like they are all trying to ruin this country slowly but surely with and without each others help. They all blame each other but in reality it is all their faults for not trying to help anyone but themselves.
Any debt is bad, for the individual, or for the country.
This is why smaller government and governmental downsiding is always preferred, because governments always inevitably bloat up and spend spend spend. This isn't a scalable way to do manage your "income".
Spending the money of your citizenry should carry with it the responsibility of trying to be as judisicous and frugal as possible while still providing the basics (roads, military, currency are the big three IMHO.)
In the end it doesn't matter who spent more than was budgeted. Now I only care about who can fix it.
I couldn't agree more.
But for many, banning gay marriage and controlling a woman's uterus is more important than our crushing National debt.
But for many, banning gay marriage and controlling a woman's uterus is more important than our crushing National debt.
Everyone has their hot buttons. For me it is a strong military, veterans' benefits/support, and smaller government. Those are the issues I pay the most attention to and vote for or against candidates primarily based on their record in those areas.
Originally posted by Wichita: for many, banning gay marriage and controlling a woman's uterus is more important than our crushing National debt.
I would see it more like for some creating gay marraige and making killing unborn babies legal at later terms and younger ages seems more important.
-
In regards to abortion and economics:
"Admittedly, it is a rather cold, callous path of logic to analyze abortion in terms of economics, but let’s go there for a few moments. Back in 1998, the late Larry Burkett, wrote “The George Bailey Effect: Abortion-on-Demand and the Implications for America’s Economic Future“. Burkett examined abortion not from the moral perspective, but its impact on the economics of the United States. He makes a profound point:
This growing parity between the old and the young is at the heart of the demographic challenges that face Medicare and Social Security. Incredible as it may seem,by the time the peak of the baby boom generation reaches retirement age, the number of abortions since the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision will equal the number of births in the baby boom. “If only one-third of those who have been aborted were available to start work on their 18th birthday,” speculated USA Today, “the demise of Social Security would be put off for decades.”
Indeed, it is largely because of abortion-on-demand that by the year 2030 the ratio of workers to Social Security beneficiaries will be reduced to only 2-to-1, according to a projection from the Social Security Board of Trustees. In other words, two workers will be supporting one retiree. (When the program began in the 1930s, 42 workers supported each retiree.)
As a result of removing that staggering number of lives, the population – and tax base – are far smaller. If we assume a fairly steady rate of abortions since the last year of reporting (2008), then there have been almost 56M aborted babies in this country – nearly the population of California and Texas combined. Given an average federal tax revenue of approximately $8500/citizen, and assuming that those aborted between 1975 and 1990 (approx 23,782,000 lives, based on Guttmacher estimates) would now be productive taxpayers, the U.S. economy is losing roughly $202 billion per year in tax payments as of 2012." http://www.lifenews.com/201...llion-in-lost-taxes/ http://thecostofabortion.com/fact7.php
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 04-15-2015).]
I wonder why no one else has done that? why no one even trys because it sure looks like they are all trying to ruin this country slowly but surely with and without each others help. They all blame each other but in reality it is all their faults for not trying to help anyone but themselves.
Steve
Realistically, we only have ourselves to blame.
Case in point... the majority of voters here in America are Democrat. Whether or not they choose to vote (laziness, stupidity, etc.) is another story. But the vast majority support giving a living wage, free health care, free food, free internet, free phones, free rent / lodging, etc. That's because a HUGE number of them are on some kind of assistance.
To vote AGAINST that kind of stuff, today... means certain death for your political career. So if you're in the House or Senate, and you have to vote on something that will magically put tons of people out in the street, take food from babies and single mothers, and all the other crap... are you going to do it? No, the left liberal socialist elite will vilify and destroy you.
Likewise, you have somewhat of a military industrial program that's made up of huge organizations that are funded through billions and billions of dollars of government contracts. Many of these contracts are encouraged / furthered by their senators / house members for the various states where they work. The left will tell you that it's all the evil Republicans, the reality is it's any senator or house member that has a military base or government facility within their state... including Democrat states.
So... Obama encouraged, and the house and senate passed the "Sequestration" bill. This bill, if they could not come to a budget agreement, would cut military and welfare spending by just shy of 1 trillion over 10 years. Kind of a joke when it comes down to it... and truth be told, this was a threat from Obama as he didn't actually believe the time-frame would run out. It did, and Obama has been trying to reverse this bill since it was passed. The frustrating part is that, while the cuts have been occurring to the military, the president has been able to direct other funds to welfare entitlements in order to get around these sequester cuts.
What we need are political martyrs... we need a band of politicians in both the house and senate that are willing to lose their re-election bids in order to pass welfare and spending reform. We HAD these reforms for welfare already in place, but then Obama literally just threw them out. There's no longer a time-limit to be on welfare.
By that logic everything that any politician has ever done was someone else's fault for paying them.
No not at all, each situation must be looked at separately, in the case of the S&L deregulation it was the money influence of Wall Street lobbyists. The regulation of the S&L's was so lax that some were allowed to be controlled by organized crime. The unmentioned Bush son Neil was also involved in the corrupt and failed S&L called "Silverado"
He, along with the Newt Gingrich congress, passed the welfare reform act and there was actually a budget surplus (although small).
