quote:

ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny

I won't defend what the Dems do but to be fair, the debt is the fault of every administration since we became a net debtor instead of a lender. Some people blame that on Reagan. Honestly, I don't know when it really began but either way, we're doomed if we can't force our leaders to adopt a budget that deals with it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny

I won't defend what the Dems do but to be fair, the debt is the fault of every administration since we became a net debtor instead of a lender. Some people blame that on Reagan. Honestly, I don't know when it really began but either way, we're doomed if we can't force our leaders to adopt a budget that deals with it.

There is no argument it happened during the Reagan administration.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

Here is the ultra simple version of dealing with the US Deficit and US Debt in the USA:

The federal budget, when last I checked was taking in $2.7 trillion and spending $3.5 trillion creating a $800 billion deficit. The current US Debt is $16 trillion. To fix both problems is simple: Lower the budget to $2.7 trillion while increasing taxes by $500-800 billion/year, resulting in not only a balanced budget, but removing the US Debt in about twenty years.

End of 'simple version'.

The problem with the above 'solution' (other than being the most idiotic thing this nation could do) is it does not take into consideration...well...everything beyond a thin, narrow slice of reality. The Budget in the last '90's was a surplus and being used to pay down the US Debt at the time. When former President George W. Bush came to office, the US Debt was a mere $2 trillion and change. At that time, the debt was a HUGE number. By today's standards, we would laugh at it. In 2000 the budget surplus become a budget deficit. Each year the budget deficit simply got added onto the US Debt. We can point figures and blame each other all we want, but this nation made mistakes. Going off to Iraq from the perspective of the long term financial health of the nation was just dumb. We did not pay for this war directly, but through borrowed money. How much? A little over $4 trillion!

By the time President Obama came to office, the US Debt was over the $11 trillion mark and rising. The US Deficit was still out of whack. On top of that, the nation since 2007 was sliding quickly towards another great depression. By all accounts NOBODY wanted that future (maybe except the Tea Party....). After a bunch of actions, the disaster was adverted but created a recession. Slowly the economy has been inching upward again. Some areas recovering faster than others.

Still the US Deficit is a problem. And each year adding to the US Debt. We can sit here on this forum like the previous forums and bitch up a river of faults. Point fingers and say 'the other guy is a douche bag and an idiot' because they don't agree with you. And we'll get nowhere once more on this thread. Of course, that requires the persons on this forum to become educated on the facts and economic theories. Which has about as much chance of success as Republicans have of resurrecting Ronald Reagan and running him for President in 2016.

Raising taxes, while a favorite of Democrats could provide a great deal of the 'solution' part of this problem, it is not without its risks to the economy and the people within the nation. Dropping the spending would please the Republican/Tea Party types, but would do even more damage to the economy in the long run. Which sets for a very complex and complicated problem with no easy solutions or concepts to be employed. But everyone bitching that someone should do something about the problem. Just like fat people depmanding they paid people to slim them down while chowing down on the very stuff that keeps them fat late at night.

The solution is going to be something that no one likes, and maybe the best option. Everyone gets something they want, but not all of it; while at the same time not getting something they want. In effect, a compromise deal. You pay the store clerk for that can of coke. You don't want to pay money but want the coke. Your getting something 'of value' in exchange of something 'of value'. But in this case, the 'of value' is not easily defined in simple terms much to most American's aggravations

What we will see are taxes raised by a small amount and spending cut by a small amount. Its not because of the politics in Washington as many of you will no doubt rage a few pages over. But trying to keep the economy from sloshing down the tubes into a full on recession if not a bigger problem. The US Debt sadly, will take a long time to remove. No amount of bitching will bring it down faster. I could explain it better later, but I'm tired for now.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Ben Bernanke says spending has to come down.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny

I won't defend what the Dems do but to be fair, the debt is the fault of every administration since we became a net debtor instead of a lender. Some people blame that on Reagan. Honestly, I don't know when it really began but either way, we're doomed if we can't force our leaders to adopt a budget that deals with it.

There is no argument it happened during the Reagan administration.

quote:


Secondly - and I don't know how many times I have to repeat this.
Clinton *did not* balance the budget. The budget hasn't been balanced in decades. Clinton merely took social security spending off book. Poof - it disappeared!

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Ben Bernanke says spending has to come down.

Bwahahahahahahahaha... that right there would be a reason for me to want to raise spending. We're talking about the chairman of the Fed here... pretty much the heart of darkness when it comes to the US economy. I think it's pretty safe to assume that good ol' Ben will say whatever it takes to pocket a lot of money for him and his friends. I think it's pretty safe to say that anything which is good for Ben's and his friends is bad for 99.99% of US citizens.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie
Actually, Bernanke was speaking the truth. He does that, every so often.

quote:

ORIGINAL: muhly22222

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny

I won't defend what the Dems do but to be fair, the debt is the fault of every administration since we became a net debtor instead of a lender. Some people blame that on Reagan. Honestly, I don't know when it really began but either way, we're doomed if we can't force our leaders to adopt a budget that deals with it.

There is no argument it happened during the Reagan administration.

Actually, if I remember correctly, it started in the Van Buren administration. Andrew Jackson was the last president who managed to balance the budget. Though I will agree that the Reagan administration pushed America's budget to its limits...and they did so intentionally as a means of pushing the Soviet Union over the edge.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:


Secondly - and I don't know how many times I have to repeat this.
Clinton *did not* balance the budget. The budget hasn't been balanced in decades. Clinton merely took social security spending off book. Poof - it disappeared!

Social security is not off book, and never has been.  You will find it in the off budget portion of the treasury debt,deficit, revenue, budget table.  It doesn't matter how many times you repeat wholesale asswipe, it does not become true in its telling.
 
 The Social Security Administration is legally required to take all its surpluses and buy U.S. Government securities, and the U.S. Government readily sells those securities--which automatically and immediately becomes intragovernmental holdings. The economy was doing well due to the dot-com bubble and people were earning a lot of money and paying a lot into Social Security. Since Social Security had more money coming in than it had to pay in benefits to retired persons, all that extra money was immediately used to buy U.S. Government securities. The government was still running deficits, but since there was so much money coming from excess Social Security contributions there was no need to borrow more money directly from the public. As such, the public debt went down while intragovernmental holdings continued to skyrocket. The net effect was that the national debt most definitely did not get paid down because we did not have a surplus. The government just covered its deficit by borrowing money from Social Security rather than the public. So, the public portion of the debt was paid down.

Now, for more information rather than the disinformation provided us by our shortfingered friends:
http://www.ssa.gov/history/BudgetTreatment.html
 
We see that it has actually been off-budget more than it has been on-budget.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

Here is the ultra simple version of dealing with the US Deficit and US Debt in the USA:

The federal budget, when last I checked was taking in $2.7 trillion and spending $3.5 trillion creating a $800 billion deficit. The current US Debt is $16 trillion. To fix both problems is simple: Lower the budget to $2.7 trillion while increasing taxes by $500-800 billion/year, resulting in not only a balanced budget, but removing the US Debt in about twenty years.

End of 'simple version'.

The problem with the above 'solution' (other than being the most idiotic thing this nation could do) is it does not take into consideration...well...everything beyond a thin, narrow slice of reality.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

Here is the ultra simple version of dealing with the US Deficit and US Debt in the USA:

The federal budget, when last I checked was taking in $2.7 trillion and spending $3.5 trillion creating a $800 billion deficit. The current US Debt is $16 trillion. To fix both problems is simple: Lower the budget to $2.7 trillion while increasing taxes by $500-800 billion/year, resulting in not only a balanced budget, but removing the US Debt in about twenty years.

End of 'simple version'.

The problem with the above 'solution' (other than being the most idiotic thing this nation could do) is it does not take into consideration...well...everything beyond a thin, narrow slice of reality. The Budget in the last '90's was a surplus and being used to pay down the US Debt at the time. When former President George W. Bush came to office, the US Debt was a mere $2 trillion and change. At that time, the debt was a HUGE number. By today's standards, we would laugh at it. In 2000 the budget surplus become a budget deficit. Each year the budget deficit simply got added onto the US Debt. We can point figures and blame each other all we want, but this nation made mistakes. Going off to Iraq from the perspective of the long term financial health of the nation was just dumb. We did not pay for this war directly, but through borrowed money. How much? A little over $4 trillion!

By the time President Obama came to office, the US Debt was over the $11 trillion mark and rising. The US Deficit was still out of whack. On top of that, the nation since 2007 was sliding quickly towards another great depression. By all accounts NOBODY wanted that future (maybe except the Tea Party....). After a bunch of actions, the disaster was adverted but created a recession. Slowly the economy has been inching upward again. Some areas recovering faster than others.

Still the US Deficit is a problem. And each year adding to the US Debt. We can sit here on this forum like the previous forums and bitch up a river of faults. Point fingers and say 'the other guy is a douche bag and an idiot' because they don't agree with you. And we'll get nowhere once more on this thread. Of course, that requires the persons on this forum to become educated on the facts and economic theories. Which has about as much chance of success as Republicans have of resurrecting Ronald Reagan and running him for President in 2016.

Raising taxes, while a favorite of Democrats could provide a great deal of the 'solution' part of this problem, it is not without its risks to the economy and the people within the nation. Dropping the spending would please the Republican/Tea Party types, but would do even more damage to the economy in the long run. Which sets for a very complex and complicated problem with no easy solutions or concepts to be employed. But everyone bitching that someone should do something about the problem. Just like fat people depmanding they paid people to slim them down while chowing down on the very stuff that keeps them fat late at night.

The solution is going to be something that no one likes, and maybe the best option. Everyone gets something they want, but not all of it; while at the same time not getting something they want. In effect, a compromise deal. You pay the store clerk for that can of coke. You don't want to pay money but want the coke. Your getting something 'of value' in exchange of something 'of value'. But in this case, the 'of value' is not easily defined in simple terms much to most American's aggravations

What we will see are taxes raised by a small amount and spending cut by a small amount. Its not because of the politics in Washington as many of you will no doubt rage a few pages over. But trying to keep the economy from sloshing down the tubes into a full on recession if not a bigger problem. The US Debt sadly, will take a long time to remove. No amount of bitching will bring it down faster. I could explain it better later, but I'm tired for now.....

So many errors. Direct spending on the Iraq war as of end of last year was $757billion. Sooooo you're off by a factor of 3.
Your number is for iran, arghanistan and other operations and includes high speculative numbers into the future for the care of veterans, and inflated estimates on interest.

Secondly - and I don't know how many times I have to repeat this.
Clinton *did not* balance the budget. The budget hasn't been balanced in decades. Clinton merely took social security spending off book. Poof - it disappeared!

Tax revenues are the highest they've ever been. Federal expenditures as % of GDP are the highest they've ever been.
Ben Bernanke says spending has to come down.

What creditable reason do you have for suggesting that increasing spending is a good idea?

So when you suggest that people get educated in facts and figures, I suggest you start with yourself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Secondly - and I don't know how many times I have to repeat this.
Clinton *did not* balance the budget. The budget hasn't been balanced in decades. Clinton merely took social security spending off book. Poof - it disappeared!

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)