Neither party cares about the debt.

[Dovahkiin]

No one seems to understand this. You always have republicans (today) complaining about the national debt, and when republicans are in office, we have democrats complaining about the national debt. The reality? Neither party really cares, and they don't really have a valid reason to. That probably made you shake your head, after all, we're all going to die once china decides to cash in, right? Yeah, no. Funny thing about debt.. no one seems to understand it. Krugman talks about this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/09/opinion/paul-krugman-nobody-understands-debt.html?_r=0

You see, policy makers have been basing their actions on a false view of what debt is all about, and their attempts to reduce the problem have actually made it worse.
You might think our failure to reduce debt ratios shows that we aren’t trying hard enough — that families and governments haven’t been making a serious effort to tighten their belts, and that what the world needs is, yes, more austerity. But we have, in fact, had unprecedented austerity. As the International Monetary Fund has pointed out, real government spending excluding interest has fallen across wealthy nations — there have been deep cuts by the troubled debtors of Southern Europe, but there have also been cuts in countries, like Germany and the United States, that can borrow at some of the lowest interest rates in history.
You can see that misunderstanding at work every time someone rails against deficits with slogans like “Stop stealing from our kids.” It sounds right, if you don’t think about it: Families who run up debts make themselves poorer, so isn’t that true when we look at overall national debt?

No, it isn’t. An indebted family owes money to other people; the world economy as a whole owes money to itself. And while it’s true that countries can borrow from other countries, America has actually been borrowing less from abroad since 2008 than it did before, and Europe is a net lender to the rest of the world.

Because debt is money we owe to ourselves, it does not directly make the economy poorer (and paying it off doesn’t make us richer). True, debt can pose a threat to financial stability — but the situation is not improved if efforts to reduce debt end up pushing the economy into deflation and depression.

This brings me to talk about both parties. Democrats want to raise taxes and spending, while republicans want to cut taxes AND raise spending. (Don't let them fool you, the military, social security, you really think they're going to decimate medicaid and medicare? Not even the republicans will go that far if elected and holding a majority.) So we have democrats wanting to raise taxes and increase spending, which will increase the debt, and we have republicans wanting to cut taxes and increase spending AS WELL. If either party gave a shit about the debt, they would raise taxes AND cut spending. But this will not go over with the population, nor will it go over well with the morons who scream 'HOLD THE LINE!'

 

[TooTall]

No one seems to understand this. You always have republicans (today) complaining about the national debt, and when republicans are in office, we have democrats complaining about the national debt. The reality? Neither party really cares, and they don't really have a valid reason to. That probably made you shake your head, after all, we're all going to die once china decides to cash in, right? Yeah, no. Funny thing about debt.. no one seems to understand it. Krugman talks about this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/09/opinion/paul-krugman-nobody-understands-debt.html?_r=0

You see, policy makers have been basing their actions on a false view of what debt is all about, and their attempts to reduce the problem have actually made it worse.
You might think our failure to reduce debt ratios shows that we aren’t trying hard enough — that families and governments haven’t been making a serious effort to tighten their belts, and that what the world needs is, yes, more austerity. But we have, in fact, had unprecedented austerity. As the International Monetary Fund has pointed out, real government spending excluding interest has fallen across wealthy nations — there have been deep cuts by the troubled debtors of Southern Europe, but there have also been cuts in countries, like Germany and the United States, that can borrow at some of the lowest interest rates in history.
You can see that misunderstanding at work every time someone rails against deficits with slogans like “Stop stealing from our kids.” It sounds right, if you don’t think about it: Families who run up debts make themselves poorer, so isn’t that true when we look at overall national debt?

No, it isn’t. An indebted family owes money to other people; the world economy as a whole owes money to itself. And while it’s true that countries can borrow from other countries, America has actually been borrowing less from abroad since 2008 than it did before, and Europe is a net lender to the rest of the world.

Because debt is money we owe to ourselves, it does not directly make the economy poorer (and paying it off doesn’t make us richer). True, debt can pose a threat to financial stability — but the situation is not improved if efforts to reduce debt end up pushing the economy into deflation and depression.

This brings me to talk about both parties. Democrats want to raise taxes and spending, while republicans want to cut taxes AND raise spending. (Don't let them fool you, the military, social security, you really think they're going to decimate medicaid and medicare? Not even the republicans will go that far if elected and holding a majority.) So we have democrats wanting to raise taxes and increase spending, which will increase the debt, and we have republicans wanting to cut taxes and increase spending AS WELL. If either party gave a shit about the debt, they would raise taxes AND cut spending. But this will not go over with the population, nor will it go over well with the morons who scream 'HOLD THE LINE!'

If we had a President that would lead balancing the budget could happen. He is all for the raising taxes part.

 

[Dovahkiin]

Republicans Don’t Really Care About Reducing America’s Debt

That’s because for most Republicans, deficit reduction is a smokescreen. What they really want is “smaller” government, by which they mean government that taxes less and spends less on domestic programs. (On defense, Republican small government orthodoxy tends to wane.) Republicans want smaller government when deficits are high and when deficits are low. But when deficits are high, they pour old wine into new bottles and pretend that smaller government and deficit reduction are the same thing.

 

[Dovahkiin]

No one seems to understand this. You always have republicans (today) complaining about the national debt, and when republicans are in office, we have democrats complaining about the national debt. The reality? Neither party really cares, and they don't really have a valid reason to. That probably made you shake your head, after all, we're all going to die once china decides to cash in, right? Yeah, no. Funny thing about debt.. no one seems to understand it. Krugman talks about this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/09/opinion/paul-krugman-nobody-understands-debt.html?_r=0

You see, policy makers have been basing their actions on a false view of what debt is all about, and their attempts to reduce the problem have actually made it worse.
You might think our failure to reduce debt ratios shows that we aren’t trying hard enough — that families and governments haven’t been making a serious effort to tighten their belts, and that what the world needs is, yes, more austerity. But we have, in fact, had unprecedented austerity. As the International Monetary Fund has pointed out, real government spending excluding interest has fallen across wealthy nations — there have been deep cuts by the troubled debtors of Southern Europe, but there have also been cuts in countries, like Germany and the United States, that can borrow at some of the lowest interest rates in history.
You can see that misunderstanding at work every time someone rails against deficits with slogans like “Stop stealing from our kids.” It sounds right, if you don’t think about it: Families who run up debts make themselves poorer, so isn’t that true when we look at overall national debt?

No, it isn’t. An indebted family owes money to other people; the world economy as a whole owes money to itself. And while it’s true that countries can borrow from other countries, America has actually been borrowing less from abroad since 2008 than it did before, and Europe is a net lender to the rest of the world.

Because debt is money we owe to ourselves, it does not directly make the economy poorer (and paying it off doesn’t make us richer). True, debt can pose a threat to financial stability — but the situation is not improved if efforts to reduce debt end up pushing the economy into deflation and depression.

This brings me to talk about both parties. Democrats want to raise taxes and spending, while republicans want to cut taxes AND raise spending. (Don't let them fool you, the military, social security, you really think they're going to decimate medicaid and medicare? Not even the republicans will go that far if elected and holding a majority.) So we have democrats wanting to raise taxes and increase spending, which will increase the debt, and we have republicans wanting to cut taxes and increase spending AS WELL. If either party gave a shit about the debt, they would raise taxes AND cut spending. But this will not go over with the population, nor will it go over well with the morons who scream 'HOLD THE LINE!'

If we had a President that would lead balancing the budget could happen. He is all for the raising taxes part.

What do you want Obama to do? He is dealing with members of a party that don't want to compromise with him.

If you want to tackle America’s long-term deficit without exacerbating our already epic gap between rich and poor, the second option, trimming entitlement costs while raising taxes on the wealthy, makes a lot of sense. Early this year, Obama unveiled a budget that did exactly that. He proposed replacing the sequester with cuts in Medicare, a tweak in the way Washington measures inflation so that Social Security benefits don’t rise as fast, and a rule requiring that millionaires pay at least 30 percent of their income in taxes.

 

[TooTall]

No one seems to understand this. You always have republicans (today) complaining about the national debt, and when republicans are in office, we have democrats complaining about the national debt. The reality? Neither party really cares, and they don't really have a valid reason to. That probably made you shake your head, after all, we're all going to die once china decides to cash in, right? Yeah, no. Funny thing about debt.. no one seems to understand it. Krugman talks about this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/09/opinion/paul-krugman-nobody-understands-debt.html?_r=0

You see, policy makers have been basing their actions on a false view of what debt is all about, and their attempts to reduce the problem have actually made it worse.
You might think our failure to reduce debt ratios shows that we aren’t trying hard enough — that families and governments haven’t been making a serious effort to tighten their belts, and that what the world needs is, yes, more austerity. But we have, in fact, had unprecedented austerity. As the International Monetary Fund has pointed out, real government spending excluding interest has fallen across wealthy nations — there have been deep cuts by the troubled debtors of Southern Europe, but there have also been cuts in countries, like Germany and the United States, that can borrow at some of the lowest interest rates in history.
You can see that misunderstanding at work every time someone rails against deficits with slogans like “Stop stealing from our kids.” It sounds right, if you don’t think about it: Families who run up debts make themselves poorer, so isn’t that true when we look at overall national debt?

No, it isn’t. An indebted family owes money to other people; the world economy as a whole owes money to itself. And while it’s true that countries can borrow from other countries, America has actually been borrowing less from abroad since 2008 than it did before, and Europe is a net lender to the rest of the world.

Because debt is money we owe to ourselves, it does not directly make the economy poorer (and paying it off doesn’t make us richer). True, debt can pose a threat to financial stability — but the situation is not improved if efforts to reduce debt end up pushing the economy into deflation and depression.

This brings me to talk about both parties. Democrats want to raise taxes and spending, while republicans want to cut taxes AND raise spending. (Don't let them fool you, the military, social security, you really think they're going to decimate medicaid and medicare? Not even the republicans will go that far if elected and holding a majority.) So we have democrats wanting to raise taxes and increase spending, which will increase the debt, and we have republicans wanting to cut taxes and increase spending AS WELL. If either party gave a shit about the debt, they would raise taxes AND cut spending. But this will not go over with the population, nor will it go over well with the morons who scream 'HOLD THE LINE!'

If we had a President that would lead balancing the budget could happen. He is all for the raising taxes part.

What do you want Obama to do? He is dealing with members of a party that don't want to compromise with him.

If you want to tackle America’s long-term deficit without exacerbating our already epic gap between rich and poor, the second option, trimming entitlement costs while raising taxes on the wealthy, makes a lot of sense. Early this year, Obama unveiled a budget that did exactly that. He proposed replacing the sequester with cuts in Medicare, a tweak in the way Washington measures inflation so that Social Security benefits don’t rise as fast, and a rule requiring that millionaires pay at least 30 percent of their income in taxes.

The only opposition Obama would get is from the Democrats.

 

[Dovahkiin]

No one seems to understand this. You always have republicans (today) complaining about the national debt, and when republicans are in office, we have democrats complaining about the national debt. The reality? Neither party really cares, and they don't really have a valid reason to. That probably made you shake your head, after all, we're all going to die once china decides to cash in, right? Yeah, no. Funny thing about debt.. no one seems to understand it. Krugman talks about this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/09/opinion/paul-krugman-nobody-understands-debt.html?_r=0

You see, policy makers have been basing their actions on a false view of what debt is all about, and their attempts to reduce the problem have actually made it worse.
You might think our failure to reduce debt ratios shows that we aren’t trying hard enough — that families and governments haven’t been making a serious effort to tighten their belts, and that what the world needs is, yes, more austerity. But we have, in fact, had unprecedented austerity. As the International Monetary Fund has pointed out, real government spending excluding interest has fallen across wealthy nations — there have been deep cuts by the troubled debtors of Southern Europe, but there have also been cuts in countries, like Germany and the United States, that can borrow at some of the lowest interest rates in history.
You can see that misunderstanding at work every time someone rails against deficits with slogans like “Stop stealing from our kids.” It sounds right, if you don’t think about it: Families who run up debts make themselves poorer, so isn’t that true when we look at overall national debt?

No, it isn’t. An indebted family owes money to other people; the world economy as a whole owes money to itself. And while it’s true that countries can borrow from other countries, America has actually been borrowing less from abroad since 2008 than it did before, and Europe is a net lender to the rest of the world.

Because debt is money we owe to ourselves, it does not directly make the economy poorer (and paying it off doesn’t make us richer). True, debt can pose a threat to financial stability — but the situation is not improved if efforts to reduce debt end up pushing the economy into deflation and depression.

This brings me to talk about both parties. Democrats want to raise taxes and spending, while republicans want to cut taxes AND raise spending. (Don't let them fool you, the military, social security, you really think they're going to decimate medicaid and medicare? Not even the republicans will go that far if elected and holding a majority.) So we have democrats wanting to raise taxes and increase spending, which will increase the debt, and we have republicans wanting to cut taxes and increase spending AS WELL. If either party gave a shit about the debt, they would raise taxes AND cut spending. But this will not go over with the population, nor will it go over well with the morons who scream 'HOLD THE LINE!'

If we had a President that would lead balancing the budget could happen. He is all for the raising taxes part.

What do you want Obama to do? He is dealing with members of a party that don't want to compromise with him.

If you want to tackle America’s long-term deficit without exacerbating our already epic gap between rich and poor, the second option, trimming entitlement costs while raising taxes on the wealthy, makes a lot of sense. Early this year, Obama unveiled a budget that did exactly that. He proposed replacing the sequester with cuts in Medicare, a tweak in the way Washington measures inflation so that Social Security benefits don’t rise as fast, and a rule requiring that millionaires pay at least 30 percent of their income in taxes.

The only opposition Obama would get is from the Democrats.

Huh? Please explain what you're referring to.

 

[TooTall]

No one seems to understand this. You always have republicans (today) complaining about the national debt, and when republicans are in office, we have democrats complaining about the national debt. The reality? Neither party really cares, and they don't really have a valid reason to. That probably made you shake your head, after all, we're all going to die once china decides to cash in, right? Yeah, no. Funny thing about debt.. no one seems to understand it. Krugman talks about this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/09/opinion/paul-krugman-nobody-understands-debt.html?_r=0

You see, policy makers have been basing their actions on a false view of what debt is all about, and their attempts to reduce the problem have actually made it worse.
You might think our failure to reduce debt ratios shows that we aren’t trying hard enough — that families and governments haven’t been making a serious effort to tighten their belts, and that what the world needs is, yes, more austerity. But we have, in fact, had unprecedented austerity. As the International Monetary Fund has pointed out, real government spending excluding interest has fallen across wealthy nations — there have been deep cuts by the troubled debtors of Southern Europe, but there have also been cuts in countries, like Germany and the United States, that can borrow at some of the lowest interest rates in history.
You can see that misunderstanding at work every time someone rails against deficits with slogans like “Stop stealing from our kids.” It sounds right, if you don’t think about it: Families who run up debts make themselves poorer, so isn’t that true when we look at overall national debt?

No, it isn’t. An indebted family owes money to other people; the world economy as a whole owes money to itself. And while it’s true that countries can borrow from other countries, America has actually been borrowing less from abroad since 2008 than it did before, and Europe is a net lender to the rest of the world.

Because debt is money we owe to ourselves, it does not directly make the economy poorer (and paying it off doesn’t make us richer). True, debt can pose a threat to financial stability — but the situation is not improved if efforts to reduce debt end up pushing the economy into deflation and depression.

This brings me to talk about both parties. Democrats want to raise taxes and spending, while republicans want to cut taxes AND raise spending. (Don't let them fool you, the military, social security, you really think they're going to decimate medicaid and medicare? Not even the republicans will go that far if elected and holding a majority.) So we have democrats wanting to raise taxes and increase spending, which will increase the debt, and we have republicans wanting to cut taxes and increase spending AS WELL. If either party gave a shit about the debt, they would raise taxes AND cut spending. But this will not go over with the population, nor will it go over well with the morons who scream 'HOLD THE LINE!'

If we had a President that would lead balancing the budget could happen. He is all for the raising taxes part.

What do you want Obama to do? He is dealing with members of a party that don't want to compromise with him.

If you want to tackle America’s long-term deficit without exacerbating our already epic gap between rich and poor, the second option, trimming entitlement costs while raising taxes on the wealthy, makes a lot of sense. Early this year, Obama unveiled a budget that did exactly that. He proposed replacing the sequester with cuts in Medicare, a tweak in the way Washington measures inflation so that Social Security benefits don’t rise as fast, and a rule requiring that millionaires pay at least 30 percent of their income in taxes.

The only opposition Obama would get is from the Democrats.

Huh? Please explain what you're referring to.

When has a Democrat in Congress proposed a balanced budget?

 

[Siete]

the republican base doesn't know the difference between debt and deficit ... it shows right here every single day.

and long as they can spell 18 trillion, blame it on Obama, and hump each others leg for 100 or so posts thats all they really care about.

 

[SwimExpert]

No one seems to understand this. You always have republicans (today) complaining about the national debt, and when republicans are in office, we have democrats complaining about the national debt. The reality? Neither party really cares, and they don't really have a valid reason to. That probably made you shake your head, after all, we're all going to die once china decides to cash in, right? Yeah, no. Funny thing about debt.. no one seems to understand it. Krugman talks about this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/09/opinion/paul-krugman-nobody-understands-debt.html?_r=0

You see, policy makers have been basing their actions on a false view of what debt is all about, and their attempts to reduce the problem have actually made it worse.
You might think our failure to reduce debt ratios shows that we aren’t trying hard enough — that families and governments haven’t been making a serious effort to tighten their belts, and that what the world needs is, yes, more austerity. But we have, in fact, had unprecedented austerity. As the International Monetary Fund has pointed out, real government spending excluding interest has fallen across wealthy nations — there have been deep cuts by the troubled debtors of Southern Europe, but there have also been cuts in countries, like Germany and the United States, that can borrow at some of the lowest interest rates in history.
You can see that misunderstanding at work every time someone rails against deficits with slogans like “Stop stealing from our kids.” It sounds right, if you don’t think about it: Families who run up debts make themselves poorer, so isn’t that true when we look at overall national debt?

No, it isn’t. An indebted family owes money to other people; the world economy as a whole owes money to itself. And while it’s true that countries can borrow from other countries, America has actually been borrowing less from abroad since 2008 than it did before, and Europe is a net lender to the rest of the world.

Because debt is money we owe to ourselves, it does not directly make the economy poorer (and paying it off doesn’t make us richer). True, debt can pose a threat to financial stability — but the situation is not improved if efforts to reduce debt end up pushing the economy into deflation and depression.

This brings me to talk about both parties. Democrats want to raise taxes and spending, while republicans want to cut taxes AND raise spending. (Don't let them fool you, the military, social security, you really think they're going to decimate medicaid and medicare? Not even the republicans will go that far if elected and holding a majority.) So we have democrats wanting to raise taxes and increase spending, which will increase the debt, and we have republicans wanting to cut taxes and increase spending AS WELL. If either party gave a shit about the debt, they would raise taxes AND cut spending. But this will not go over with the population, nor will it go over well with the morons who scream 'HOLD THE LINE!'

 

[imawhosure]

No one seems to understand this. You always have republicans (today) complaining about the national debt, and when republicans are in office, we have democrats complaining about the national debt. The reality? Neither party really cares, and they don't really have a valid reason to. That probably made you shake your head, after all, we're all going to die once china decides to cash in, right? Yeah, no. Funny thing about debt.. no one seems to understand it. Krugman talks about this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/09/opinion/paul-krugman-nobody-understands-debt.html?_r=0

You see, policy makers have been basing their actions on a false view of what debt is all about, and their attempts to reduce the problem have actually made it worse.
You might think our failure to reduce debt ratios shows that we aren’t trying hard enough — that families and governments haven’t been making a serious effort to tighten their belts, and that what the world needs is, yes, more austerity. But we have, in fact, had unprecedented austerity. As the International Monetary Fund has pointed out, real government spending excluding interest has fallen across wealthy nations — there have been deep cuts by the troubled debtors of Southern Europe, but there have also been cuts in countries, like Germany and the United States, that can borrow at some of the lowest interest rates in history.
You can see that misunderstanding at work every time someone rails against deficits with slogans like “Stop stealing from our kids.” It sounds right, if you don’t think about it: Families who run up debts make themselves poorer, so isn’t that true when we look at overall national debt?

No, it isn’t. An indebted family owes money to other people; the world economy as a whole owes money to itself. And while it’s true that countries can borrow from other countries, America has actually been borrowing less from abroad since 2008 than it did before, and Europe is a net lender to the rest of the world.

Because debt is money we owe to ourselves, it does not directly make the economy poorer (and paying it off doesn’t make us richer). True, debt can pose a threat to financial stability — but the situation is not improved if efforts to reduce debt end up pushing the economy into deflation and depression.

This brings me to talk about both parties. Democrats want to raise taxes and spending, while republicans want to cut taxes AND raise spending. (Don't let them fool you, the military, social security, you really think they're going to decimate medicaid and medicare? Not even the republicans will go that far if elected and holding a majority.) So we have democrats wanting to raise taxes and increase spending, which will increase the debt, and we have republicans wanting to cut taxes and increase spending AS WELL. If either party gave a shit about the debt, they would raise taxes AND cut spending. But this will not go over with the population, nor will it go over well with the morons who scream 'HOLD THE LINE!'

Then the 1st question is----------> Why not be for a convention of the states that wants to impose a balanced budget amendment?

You are correct though, most of our decisions in the populace would be much easier if the government was forced to balance the budget. As long as some people believe that money can created out of thin air, nothing is going to change. But, tell them you want this, everybody has to pay that, and watch how fast people put priorities on things instead of EVERYTHING.

The real truth is-----------> If the government just froze it's budget at current levels without even cutting out waste, with an economic expansionist policy, they could balance the budget in 3 to 5 years. Why won't they do it? Because then they have nothing to argue about on new spending for voters, and instead, have to argue over moving money from one program to another of higher priority. No politician wants to do that! Someone is going to lose something, and somebody who loses something is not a happy voter.

That is how the establishment of both party's operate, like it or not. People running who tell the truth unless a congressperson in a very rich area, will not get elected. Telling people you have to decide between this or that they already have is never going to fly, unless the people you are telling can afford to replace what the government stops providing out of their own pocket.

You know, and I know, this country is deep debt. Now tell me..............which candidate is not talking about spending more somewhere, yet never says what they are going to cut to pay for it! You see, Washington IS the problem, and unless we neuter them, if you are younger than 50, this country will probably collapse in your lifetime. Sad, very sad; but very true.

 

[9aces]

the republican base doesn't know the difference between debt and deficit ... it shows right here every single day.

and long as they can spell 18 trillion, blame it on Obama, and hump each others leg for 100 or so posts thats all they really care about.

You know it's funny, it's hard to believe the Democratic base can be even more clueless than the Republican base about this.

Sadly....they are.

 

[JoeB131]

The thing is, debt is the path of least resistance. It's easier than raising taxes of cutting services.

 

[9aces]

The interesting question, which NOBODY wants asked by politicians of either party.

How long before the debt becomes a serious inflationary factor. By the time Barrack Hussein Obama leaves office, we're either going to be over 20 trillion in debt, or knocking hard on the door.

30 Trillion? 40? 50?? At what point does it become so difficult just to pay the interest it's going to force inflation just to do that?

 

[BreezeWood]

.

House Republican business tax-break bill gets Obama veto threat

The House is slated to vote Friday on a bill from Ohio Republican Pat Tiberi to permanently extend what’s known as bonus depreciation. The break lets businesses speed up write-offs for big purchases like machinery. Under Tiberi’s bill, companies would be able to deduct half the cost of some capital-equipment purchases right away, instead of over several years.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/113/saphr4718h_20140710.pdf

A House Republican bill to make a tax break for businesses permanent is running into a roadblock even before the chamber votes on it: White House Veto

only if someone can not read would they not know who contributed to the national debt during the last budget negotiations and passed legislation.

.

 

[Obiwan]

The thing is, debt is the path of least resistance. It's easier than raising taxes of cutting services.

Then why not take the high road????

Preserve the paid benefits like Social Security and Medicare, and ditch the free Internet and Obama phones that are a drain on working people????

If you want shit, get a job and buy it..

But wait...

You're a freeloader Democrat, aren't you????

 

[Lakhota]

Republicans Don’t Really Care About Reducing America’s Debt

That’s because for most Republicans, deficit reduction is a smokescreen. What they really want is “smaller” government, by which they mean government that taxes less and spends less on domestic programs. (On defense, Republican small government orthodoxy tends to wane.) Republicans want smaller government when deficits are high and when deficits are low. But when deficits are high, they pour old wine into new bottles and pretend that smaller government and deficit reduction are the same thing.

There is much truth in what you say. However, historically the Republicans have increased our national debt more than Democrats.

GOP Presidents Have Been the Worst Contributors to the Federal Debt

 

[9aces]

Republicans Don’t Really Care About Reducing America’s Debt

That’s because for most Republicans, deficit reduction is a smokescreen. What they really want is “smaller” government, by which they mean government that taxes less and spends less on domestic programs. (On defense, Republican small government orthodoxy tends to wane.) Republicans want smaller government when deficits are high and when deficits are low. But when deficits are high, they pour old wine into new bottles and pretend that smaller government and deficit reduction are the same thing.

There is much truth in what you say. However, historically the Republicans have increased our national debt more than Democrats.

GOP Presidents Have Been the Worst Contributors to the Federal Debt

It'd probably help if that link used honest numbers. They're using ones that are having Clinton running surplus. Which as we all know never happened.

Oh wait....I forgot, some people don't know what debt is. My bad.

 

[Dovahkiin]

Republicans Don’t Really Care About Reducing America’s Debt

That’s because for most Republicans, deficit reduction is a smokescreen. What they really want is “smaller” government, by which they mean government that taxes less and spends less on domestic programs. (On defense, Republican small government orthodoxy tends to wane.) Republicans want smaller government when deficits are high and when deficits are low. But when deficits are high, they pour old wine into new bottles and pretend that smaller government and deficit reduction are the same thing.

There is much truth in what you say. However, historically the Republicans have increased our national debt more than Democrats.

GOP Presidents Have Been the Worst Contributors to the Federal Debt

It'd probably help if that link used honest numbers. They're using ones that are having Clinton running surplus. Which as we all know never happened.

Oh wait....I forgot, some people don't know what debt is. My bad.

Wait, clinton never ran a surplus? In what universe?

 

[Rozman]

I don't really see much talk about the national debt....

When I do it's mostly that it's approaching $20 Trillion....
Then there are those that say it's a small percentage of GDP.....so stop bitching about it.

That's it.

We have those who think it's a problem....I am one of those.
And we have those who think it's no big deal....

Not all that much about wanting to do something about it.
Don't see much from the politicians in office....

I see more coverage from William DeVane the actor doing TV commercials and that's what he starts off with...The national debt.
and he's pushing the idea about buying gold.

We are spending a ton of money servicing the interest on the existing debt....

This should be an issue that needs to be addressed....

And we have Bernie Sanders who talks about spending more money on everything but not two
seconds on our national debt....

Why is that?

 

[Timmy]

No one wants a balanced budget . We like all the cool shot like national parks , space rockets , and fancy top gun whiz jets !