Neither party cares about the debt.

[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

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.

Maybe you should do some more "credible" research...

FactCheck.org: The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

CNN Fact Check: The last president to balance the budget

 

[Si modo]

DEBT

 

[imawhosure]

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.

Maybe you should do some more "credible" research...

FactCheck.org: The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

CNN Fact Check: The last president to balance the budget

DEBT

Bogus, go get the actual numbers from the CBO. Look at the national debt, and each year it rose. That is a true statement! But, I give props for him getting the closest, so yes, regardless if your statement is bogus, it was a very good performance.

 

[Si modo]

Hmmm....the title of the tread says DEBT. There's the DEBT.

 

[amrchaos]

wait a second, this balanced budget amendment may sound like a good idea

But what happens if the Congress fails to pass a balance budget?

 

[Si modo]

Continuing Resolutions.

 

[eddiew]

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.

republicans want everyone to forget they kept their big mouths shut when reagan tripled our debt and bush doubled it ,,,,memory loss is a repub problem

 

[Lakhota]

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.

republicans want everyone to forget they kept their big mouths shut when reagan tripled our debt and bush doubled it ,,,,memory loss is a repub problem

True, and we shouldn't forget that President George W. Bush kept the Afghanistan and Iraq war costs "off the books" - which we are still paying for:

How the US public was defrauded by the hidden cost of the Iraq war | Michael Boyle

 

[Lakhota]

I've asked the following question many times - but have yet to receive a credible answer:

How much new debt has President Obama created that wasn't a direct or indirect result of Bush actions and/or policies?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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!'

Screw that.
Cut spending and taxes. It's time our government learns what a fucken budget is. They're the one's who made the mess why should the tax payer suffer?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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?

Smoke and mirrors....
No, Bill Clinton Didn't Balance the Budget

Craig Steiner - The Clinton Surplus Myth

 

[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.

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

This one. In no year since 1957 has the US run a surplus. The debt has increased every year since.

 

[9aces]

I've asked the following question many times - but have yet to receive a credible answer:

How much new debt has President Obama created that wasn't a direct or indirect result of Bush actions and/or policies?

All of it. He could have reversed any and/or all of them when he became president. He had sufficient majorities to pass anything he wanted. He chose to continue on those courses.

He's even responsible for the 2009 budget, which is normally passed and signed by his predecessor. In this case....it wasn't, and he signed it because Bush threatened to veto it.

 

[gipper]

R voters bitch about D spending. D voters bitch about R spending. WTF...one would have to be blind not to see that both parties love deficit spending.

How divisive partisan politics works with deficit spending and the national debt, can only prove that some Americans are easily duped.

 

[JoeB131]

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????

I'd rather dump the bloated 900 Billion Dollar defense budget designed to subsize Israel and the Oil Companies...

than the 1.75 billion we spend on the "lifeline" program, most of which goes to the big cell phone companies.

 

[Lakhota]

I've asked the following question many times - but have yet to receive a credible answer:

How much new debt has President Obama created that wasn't a direct or indirect result of Bush actions and/or policies?

All of it. He could have reversed any and/or all of them when he became president. He had sufficient majorities to pass anything he wanted. He chose to continue on those courses.

He's even responsible for the 2009 budget, which is normally passed and signed by his predecessor. In this case....it wasn't, and he signed it because Bush threatened to veto it.

Really? So, you're suggesting that President Obama should have reversed Bush's tax cuts (which were the first during wartime) and just walk away from both Bush wars without bringing them to an honorable and reasonable conclusion? Is that what you're suggesting?

 

[Rustic]

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!'

Is that news to anyone? Lol
Socialism is never responsible it's own failures...

 

[Freewill]

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.

What the hell are you talking about. Obama was taking victory laps no more then two months ago because an unconsitutional two year budget was passed by the Republican congress. I blame both they seem care as the OP Said. But saying that the Republicans are not working with Obama is clear BS.

 

[Freewill]

Tax Revenues are at historic highs, how much more do they want?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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!'

Many in both parties care about the debt, but for the politician, taking the position that we should make the sacrifices necessary to end the deficits and pay down the debt are very likely to be a politically suicidal stance.