How much debt is too much

[NYcarbineer]

and lets get that talking point correct-----------no president can cut taxes or raise taxes. Congress (both parties) put those tax rates in place, Bush only signed the bill after congress passed it.

So we can blame the deficits of the 2000's on the Republican Congress? A Congress that was apparently then only waiting to get Bill Clinton out of the way so they'd have a Republican President in place who would rubberstamp their irresponsible tax cut and borrow budget busting fiscal policies?

Are you sure that is the myth that you want to go with?

congress is responsible for spending no matter which party is in control or who is president. Both parties got us in this mess, the base of both parties wants to continue it.

the tea party is the only faction that is trying to get it under control.

On the Bush tax cut. Govt revenue increased after it went into effect, thats why obama kept it.

Wrong.

Adjusted for inflation, revenue in 2000 was 2.3 trillion. It fell below that number for 6 years, until 2006, then fell below it again in 2008,

and has been below that number ever since.

You're just repeating lies you've heard other people tell without ever having bothered to research them yourself.

 

[Redfish]

So we can blame the deficits of the 2000's on the Republican Congress? A Congress that was apparently then only waiting to get Bill Clinton out of the way so they'd have a Republican President in place who would rubberstamp their irresponsible tax cut and borrow budget busting fiscal policies?

Are you sure that is the myth that you want to go with?

congress is responsible for spending no matter which party is in control or who is president. Both parties got us in this mess, the base of both parties wants to continue it.

the tea party is the only faction that is trying to get it under control.

On the Bush tax cut. Govt revenue increased after it went into effect, thats why obama kept it.

Wrong.

Adjusted for inflation, revenue in 2000 was 2.3 trillion. It fell below that number for 6 years, until 2006, then fell below it again in 2008,

and has been below that number ever since.

You're just repeating lies you've heard other people tell without ever having bothered to research them yourself.

the "adjusted for inflation" comment is there to distract from reality. The actual dollars collected after the bush tax cuts were larger than the actual dollars collected before them.

Even your hero Obama realized that, and kept them in place. I guess he is smarter than you.

 

[Redfish]

Nice bumper sticker reply ....we have had a revenue problem for 30 years

come on RW, you aren't that dumb.

Best you got?

Pot meet kettle.

 

[Redfish]

Except for the TeaTard temper tantrums, we are making our payments. Guess what, we are still the wealthiest nation on earth. We run up debt because we are unwilling to set up a balanced tax and spending structure

A country that is struggling with debt does not have a military that is stronger than the next ten countries combined.

We are paying the INTEREST on the debt. The principal goes up every minute.

Yes, we are still rich and strong, but adding a trillion per year to the debt will change that if it is not stopped.

17 trillion today, going up by a trillion a year. So, once again when should the deficit spending stop?

I agree with you that we need to balance spending with revenue-----that is the main tenet of the tea party.

We do not have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.

Spending is at about 22% of GDP, which is about where it was during the Reagan presidency.

Revenues are down to about 16% of GDP, which are lower than they've been since the 50's and 60's.

We don't have a spending problem, we have a revenue problem.

So whats your plan to increase revenue to match spending?

we could take 100% of the income of the top 5% and it would be a drop in the bucket. Where should the extra money come from?

or maybe we should just print it, as some fool said earlier.

 

[NYcarbineer]

congress is responsible for spending no matter which party is in control or who is president. Both parties got us in this mess, the base of both parties wants to continue it.

the tea party is the only faction that is trying to get it under control.

On the Bush tax cut. Govt revenue increased after it went into effect, thats why obama kept it.

Wrong.

Adjusted for inflation, revenue in 2000 was 2.3 trillion. It fell below that number for 6 years, until 2006, then fell below it again in 2008,

and has been below that number ever since.

You're just repeating lies you've heard other people tell without ever having bothered to research them yourself.

the "adjusted for inflation" comment is there to distract from reality. The actual dollars collected after the bush tax cuts were larger than the actual dollars collected before them.

Even your hero Obama realized that, and kept them in place. I guess he is smarter than you.

There's no such thing as inflation?

 

[NYcarbineer]

We are paying the INTEREST on the debt. The principal goes up every minute.

Yes, we are still rich and strong, but adding a trillion per year to the debt will change that if it is not stopped.

17 trillion today, going up by a trillion a year. So, once again when should the deficit spending stop?

I agree with you that we need to balance spending with revenue-----that is the main tenet of the tea party.

We do not have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.

Spending is at about 22% of GDP, which is about where it was during the Reagan presidency.

Revenues are down to about 16% of GDP, which are lower than they've been since the 50's and 60's.

We don't have a spending problem, we have a revenue problem.

So whats your plan to increase revenue to match spending?

we could take 100% of the income of the top 5% and it would be a drop in the bucket. Where should the extra money come from?

or maybe we should just print it, as some fool said earlier.

You start by reimposing PAYGO, which requires you to match all new spending with new revenues, and match any tax cuts with spending cuts.

 

[RKMBrown]

Except for the TeaTard temper tantrums, we are making our payments. Guess what, we are still the wealthiest nation on earth. We run up debt because we are unwilling to set up a balanced tax and spending structure

A country that is struggling with debt does not have a military that is stronger than the next ten countries combined.

We are paying the INTEREST on the debt. The principal goes up every minute.

Yes, we are still rich and strong, but adding a trillion per year to the debt will change that if it is not stopped.

17 trillion today, going up by a trillion a year. So, once again when should the deficit spending stop?

I agree with you that we need to balance spending with revenue-----that is the main tenet of the tea party.

We do not have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.

Spending is at about 22% of GDP, which is about where it was during the Reagan presidency.

Revenues are down to about 16% of GDP, which are lower than they've been since the 50's and 60's.

We don't have a spending problem, we have a revenue problem.

You are retarded, if we taxed enough to pay for all this spending we would have spent about 50% of GDP in Obscuma's first few years in office and still be in debt to our nose. Even today it would take 50% more revenue to pay for this shit, which would be 50% more than we taxed under Reagan. Your argument is full of shit. We have a spending problem not a revenue problem.

 

[Redfish]

Spending is at about 22% of GDP, which is about where it was during the Reagan presidency.

Revenues are down to about 16% of GDP, which are lower than they've been since the 50's and 60's.

We don't have a spending problem, we have a revenue problem.

So whats your plan to increase revenue to match spending?

we could take 100% of the income of the top 5% and it would be a drop in the bucket. Where should the extra money come from?

or maybe we should just print it, as some fool said earlier.

You start by reimposing PAYGO, which requires you to match all new spending with new revenues, and match any tax cuts with spending cuts.

works for me, do obama and reid agree? if so, why haven't they done it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

We are paying the INTEREST on the debt. The principal goes up every minute.

Yes, we are still rich and strong, but adding a trillion per year to the debt will change that if it is not stopped.

17 trillion today, going up by a trillion a year. So, once again when should the deficit spending stop?

I agree with you that we need to balance spending with revenue-----that is the main tenet of the tea party.

We do not have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.

Spending is at about 22% of GDP, which is about where it was during the Reagan presidency.

Revenues are down to about 16% of GDP, which are lower than they've been since the 50's and 60's.

We don't have a spending problem, we have a revenue problem.

You are retarded, if we taxed enough to pay for all this spending we would have spent about 50% of GDP in Obscuma's first few years in office and still be in debt to our nose. Even today it would take 50% more revenue to pay for this shit, which would be 50% more than we taxed under Reagan. Your argument is full of shit. We have a spending problem not a revenue problem.

The deficits we have are more a result of taxes falling than of spending increasing. Therefore, on balance, the problem is more on the revenue side than the spending side.

A good balance would be revenues at 20% of GDP, and spending at 20% of GDP.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

You libs never can provide an answer so here's another chance

current debt 17 T
when obama leaves office 20 T

At what point must the govt stop spending more than it takes in?

25 T
50 T
100 T

?

There will be no way back to fiscal sanity after Barry achieves his goal of destroying capitalism, and big government, is the ruling force. This design has been in effect since our first president with a Ph.D, Woodrow Wilson, was elected.

Intellectuals do not for good and sound, politics, make...

Rs raise the deficit, Obama has lowered it. Reagan made us a debtor nation and GW left us so deep in debt, we'll likely never get out. Rs want more and more laws and fewer freedoms.

But ... according to the sheeples,

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Spending is at about 22% of GDP, which is about where it was during the Reagan presidency.

Revenues are down to about 16% of GDP, which are lower than they've been since the 50's and 60's.

We don't have a spending problem, we have a revenue problem.

You are retarded, if we taxed enough to pay for all this spending we would have spent about 50% of GDP in Obscuma's first few years in office and still be in debt to our nose. Even today it would take 50% more revenue to pay for this shit, which would be 50% more than we taxed under Reagan. Your argument is full of shit. We have a spending problem not a revenue problem.

The deficits we have are more a result of taxes falling than of spending increasing. Therefore, on balance, the problem is more on the revenue side than the spending side.

A good balance would be revenues at 20% of GDP, and spending at 20% of GDP.

Rs are against raising revenue. They want us deeper in debt to foreign countries. As long as they're allowed to, they'll just keep borrowing money from other countries and taking from the poor.

 

[Redfish]

You libs never can provide an answer so here's another chance

current debt 17 T
when obama leaves office 20 T

At what point must the govt stop spending more than it takes in?

25 T
50 T
100 T

?

There will be no way back to fiscal sanity after Barry achieves his goal of destroying capitalism, and big government, is the ruling force. This design has been in effect since our first president with a Ph.D, Woodrow Wilson, was elected.

Intellectuals do not for good and sound, politics, make...

Rs raise the deficit, Obama has lowered it. Reagan made us a debtor nation and GW left us so deep in debt, we'll likely never get out. Rs want more and more laws and fewer freedoms.

But ... according to the sheeples,

QUOTE]










Are you really that stupid?

the debt when obama took over was 10T, today its 17T, when he leaves it will be 21T.

Obama will have added more to the national debt than all previous presidents COMBINED.

Yes, the annual deficit has been reduced from 1T to 700B, but its still a deficit and its growing every minute.

Do you know the difference between debt and deficit? If not, you are not qualified to participate in this discussion.

 

[Redfish]

You are retarded, if we taxed enough to pay for all this spending we would have spent about 50% of GDP in Obscuma's first few years in office and still be in debt to our nose. Even today it would take 50% more revenue to pay for this shit, which would be 50% more than we taxed under Reagan. Your argument is full of shit. We have a spending problem not a revenue problem.

The deficits we have are more a result of taxes falling than of spending increasing. Therefore, on balance, the problem is more on the revenue side than the spending side.

A good balance would be revenues at 20% of GDP, and spending at 20% of GDP.

Rs are against raising revenue. They want us deeper in debt to foreign countries. As long as they're allowed to, they'll just keep borrowing money from other countries and taking from the poor.

Ds are against cutting spending-------the rest of your post folllows.

 

[RKMBrown]

Spending is at about 22% of GDP, which is about where it was during the Reagan presidency.

Revenues are down to about 16% of GDP, which are lower than they've been since the 50's and 60's.

We don't have a spending problem, we have a revenue problem.

You are retarded, if we taxed enough to pay for all this spending we would have spent about 50% of GDP in Obscuma's first few years in office and still be in debt to our nose. Even today it would take 50% more revenue to pay for this shit, which would be 50% more than we taxed under Reagan. Your argument is full of shit. We have a spending problem not a revenue problem.

The deficits we have are more a result of taxes falling than of spending increasing. Therefore, on balance, the problem is more on the revenue side than the spending side.

A good balance would be revenues at 20% of GDP, and spending at 20% of GDP.

We would have to tax 100% of GDP to make you libs happy. The reason revenue is only 16% and not 20% is that 2/3 of the friggin country pays no income tax. Even among the ones that work only 50% of the people pay effective income tax > ZERO You want to start taxing the bottom 50%? Sure fine let's cancel ALL OF THE BUSH TAX CUTS. We already cancelled the ones for the evil rich and you guys are still crying about this.

 

[kaz]

You libs never can provide an answer so here's another chance

current debt 17 T
when obama leaves office 20 T

At what point must the govt stop spending more than it takes in?

25 T
50 T
100 T

?

Here's a question for you. How will we pay it off without raising taxes or devaluing our currency?

And I don't suppose you noticed that Bush doubled the national debt, too. "Reagan proved deficits don't matter."

A good start would be to at least stop spending more than we take in now. While I would prefer to do far more, that would eventually work.

 

[Redfish]

Ok, dems and libs, back to the original question.

you guys all supported obama in raising the debt ceiling last year. Will you support raising it again next year?

At what amount will you stop supporting more national debt?

17 trillion today and going up every minute. Give us a number, when should it be capped?

If your answer is never, please explain why.

 

[Londoner]

You libs never can provide an answer so here's another chance

current debt 17 T
when obama leaves office 20 T

At what point must the govt stop spending more than it takes in?

It's too high right now, but it's not merely a problem on the spending side.

Some facts.

1) As a percentage of GDP, the WWII debt was over 100% in 1949. Far, far worse than today's debt. But our postwar leaders like Eisenhower lead robust infrastructure projects and added nearly a million jobs, each of which was filled by someone who had the money to buy things and spur economic growth, which jump started the economy and allowed us to pay down the debt quickly. [Does the OP know what happens when people have good jobs and tons of spending money? The capitalist is forced to add even more jobs to capture that excess demand. This is why Reagan kept funding open to the states during his '81 recession, because he didn't want to take consumers out of the economy and choke off the consumption Main Street needs to retain their employees.].

2) The 80's economic boom was coupled with historic deficits. Reagan was asked to draw down military spending, which had reached unprecedented heights during his presidency. His budget director pointed to places like Orange County or San Diego which carried truly massive defense workforces - and said that cutting the defense budget would threaten the jobs of nearly a million people, all of who keep their respective local economies afloat through consumption. He even used the term Military Keynesianism. [One wonders if the OP understand any of this?]

3) Reagan's Federal workforce was 1/3 bigger than Obama's. Reagan understood that government workers are also consumers who buy things from Main Street stores. Obama was forced to shrink state and federal workforces, which had the desired effect of making his employment numbers look worse, and also removed consumers from (and as a result further depressed) the economy.

4)The Reagan Tax Cuts ushered in an era of permanent structural deficits and debt. Dwight Eisenhower taxed the 1% at over 90%, and Kennedy/Johnson/Nixon were in the 70% range. However, the high taxes were used to create solvent middle class of consumers, whose increased purchasing power translated into massive profits for the wealthy. During this time the economy boomed and government debt was low. The wealthy did fine. Enter Reagan, who moved taxes from 70% to 28%. He said this would not add to the deficits because the resulting economic growth would boost revenue. He was wrong, and his deficits speak for themselves. Even worse: the promised job growth happened in China, leaving the US with a huge net loss in manufacturing jobs.

The Reagan tax cuts were based on the promise of increased revenue and reduced deficits. Problem is, this claim never panned out and we have slid deeper and deeper into debt. We are in a permanent revenue crisis. A small number of Americans are realizing dynastic wealth, while the non-wealthy have slid into oblivion. We should go back to the model we had during the postwar years when economic growth was at its highest. . . but we lack the political roadmap for defeating the special interests which have destroyed our tax policy. In short, Reaganomics increased the number of millionaires and billionaires but cripple the middle class, that is, Reagan left us with a small wealthy elite like the Koch Brothers who could buy government. (Talk about a concentration of power)

 

[Lumpy 1]

Democrats are twisted sisters when it comes to the National Debt and Unfunded Liabilities, when Democrats hold the Presidency they would rather not talk about it... basically, they go deaf, dumb and blind...

 

[Londoner]

Ok, dems and libs, back to the original question.

you guys all supported obama in raising the debt ceiling last year. Will you support raising it again next year?

At what amount will you stop supporting more national debt?

17 trillion today and going up every minute. Give us a number, when should it be capped?

If your answer is never, please explain why.

Reagan asked for 17 debt limit increases and your side never talks about it. Bush asked for more debt limit increases than Obama, and never vetoed 1 piece of Republican Pork. Congress funded his war, and in exchange he delivered many goodies to their districts.

The Democrats believe in spending - so we know they are going to increase the debt, but your party claims to be against it. So why did Reagan and Bush ask for more debt limit increases than Carter/Clinton? Why did they spend twice as much? You can say that Congress holds the purse, but Tip Oneill begged Reagan to spend less on things like "Star Wars", which turned into a corrupt farce filled with massive no-bid defense industry payouts.

When your side controlled the Presidency and Congress during the Bush years they asked for 5 debt ceiling increases. Your information sources NEVER reported it. The people who now make up the Tea Party were fucking silent. Why?

Translation: you have no credibility.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I have more debt than I earn in a year.......is that a lot?

You are 12K in debt??? Wow.

but serioiusly its not too much if you can make the payments. But the govt is not doing that. the govt is only paying the interest and is borrowing money to make the interest payments.

If this continues, at some point the entire revenue of the govt will be needed just to pay the interest on the debt, then what?

Except for the TeaTard temper tantrums, we are making our payments. Guess what, we are still the wealthiest nation on earth. We run up debt because we are unwilling to set up a balanced tax and spending structure

A country that is struggling with debt does not have a military that is stronger than the next ten countries combined.

Well, we're making payments on the massive interest that's accruing.