Interesting Chart on US Debt history

[Dad2three]

Please show which parts of my statements were false premises, which were distortions and which were lies.

Or run away. LOL!

Sorry, Don't have all day, I'll go with Dems/F/F for $400 Alex...

That's okay, Sir Robin.

Maybe when you get back?

Just start with Dems and Fannie/Freddie MYTH you are pushing?

lol

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Simple, look at the 4 balanced budgets he had

Government spending has declined from 22.2 percent of the economy in 1992 to 18.7 percent of the economy in 1999 -- the lowest share since 1966

http://archive.hhs.gov/news/press/2000pres/20000207.html


REMEMBER RONNIE INCREASED SPENDING, ANYWAY YOU MEASURE IT?

Simple, look at the 4 balanced budgets he had

Unless that happened while the Dems had control of the House and Senate, you'll have a hard time convincing me his "spending cuts" were the reason.

Nah


"The deficit has come down, and I give the Clinton Administration and President Clinton himself a lot of credit for that. [He] did something about it, fast. And I think we are seeing some benefits."
— Paul Volcker, Federal Reserve Board Chairman (1979-1987), in Audacity, Fall 1994

NOTE THE DATE? AFTER 12 YEARS OF GOP INCREASING THE DEBT OVER 500%?


"Clinton’s 1993 budget cuts, which reduced projected red ink by more than $400 billion over five years, sparked a major drop in interest rates that helped boost investment in all the equipment and systems that brought forth the New Age economy of technological innovation and rising productivity."
— Business Week, May 19, 1997



Who Created The 1990s Surplus, Clinton Or The GOP? (AFTER CLINTON VETOED THE GOP TAX CUTS AFTER HIS FIRST SURPLUS)



In 1993, Congress passed and President Clinton signed a half-billion deficit reduction package, one that included a boost in upper income tax rates to 39.6%. When Clinton's 1993 economic program scraped by without capturing the support of even one GOP lawmaker, the New York Times remarked:

Historians believe that no other important legislation, at least since World War II, has been enacted without at least one vote in either house from each major party.

Inheriting massive budget deficits and unemployment topping 7% from Bush the Elder, Clinton's $496 billion program was nonetheless opposed by every single member of the GOP, as well as defectors from his own party. As the Times recounted, it took a tie-breaking vote from Vice President Al Gore to earn victory:

An identical version of the $496 billion deficit-cutting measure was approved Thursday night by the House, 218 to 216. The Senate was divided 50 to 50 before Mr. Gore voted. Since tie votes in the House mean defeat, the bill would have failed if even one representative or one senator who voted with the President had switched sides.

The rest, as they say, is history.

Republicans Claim Credit For Clinton Surpluses | Crooks and Liars

In 1993, Congress passed and President Clinton signed a half-billion deficit reduction package, one that included a boost in upper income tax rates to 39.6%.

He boosted taxes on everybody.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Conservatives NEVER let facts or truth get in their way

GOP has blocked EVERYTHING in the Senate without a super majority for the Dems....

Weird, So GDP fell? That NEVER happens under GOP Prez's right (9% Dubya last quarter 2008, Reagan had 5 quarters of negative GDP)

GOP has blocked EVERYTHING in the Senate without a super majority for the Dems....

Bush and Reagan never had a super majority. I thought Obama was smarter than both?

Weird, So GDP fell?

It is kinda weird, considering the huge jump in debt over the last 5 1/2 years and the smartest President ever, with all his new regulations and his phone and his pen, working from the golf course to get us back on course.

Got it, Yoou'll stick with false premises, distortions and lies, the ONLY thing consdervatives EVER have

But you are saying the Dems worked with Ronnie/Dubya?

Got it, Yoou'll stick with false premises, distortions and lies, the ONLY thing consdervatives EVER have

Please show which parts of my statements were false premises, which were distortions and which were lies.

 

[Dad2three]

Simple, look at the 4 balanced budgets he had

Unless that happened while the Dems had control of the House and Senate, you'll have a hard time convincing me his "spending cuts" were the reason.

Nah


"The deficit has come down, and I give the Clinton Administration and President Clinton himself a lot of credit for that. [He] did something about it, fast. And I think we are seeing some benefits."
— Paul Volcker, Federal Reserve Board Chairman (1979-1987), in Audacity, Fall 1994

NOTE THE DATE? AFTER 12 YEARS OF GOP INCREASING THE DEBT OVER 500%?


"Clinton’s 1993 budget cuts, which reduced projected red ink by more than $400 billion over five years, sparked a major drop in interest rates that helped boost investment in all the equipment and systems that brought forth the New Age economy of technological innovation and rising productivity."
— Business Week, May 19, 1997



Who Created The 1990s Surplus, Clinton Or The GOP? (AFTER CLINTON VETOED THE GOP TAX CUTS AFTER HIS FIRST SURPLUS)



In 1993, Congress passed and President Clinton signed a half-billion deficit reduction package, one that included a boost in upper income tax rates to 39.6%. When Clinton's 1993 economic program scraped by without capturing the support of even one GOP lawmaker, the New York Times remarked:

Historians believe that no other important legislation, at least since World War II, has been enacted without at least one vote in either house from each major party.

Inheriting massive budget deficits and unemployment topping 7% from Bush the Elder, Clinton's $496 billion program was nonetheless opposed by every single member of the GOP, as well as defectors from his own party. As the Times recounted, it took a tie-breaking vote from Vice President Al Gore to earn victory:

An identical version of the $496 billion deficit-cutting measure was approved Thursday night by the House, 218 to 216. The Senate was divided 50 to 50 before Mr. Gore voted. Since tie votes in the House mean defeat, the bill would have failed if even one representative or one senator who voted with the President had switched sides.

The rest, as they say, is history.

Republicans Claim Credit For Clinton Surpluses | Crooks and Liars

In 1993, Congress passed and President Clinton signed a half-billion deficit reduction package, one that included a boost in upper income tax rates to 39.6%.

He boosted taxes on everybody.

Got more revenues, AND cut spending, whereas Reagan just increased taxes on the average guys, cutting it for the rich....

http://mises.org/daily/1544

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nah


"The deficit has come down, and I give the Clinton Administration and President Clinton himself a lot of credit for that. [He] did something about it, fast. And I think we are seeing some benefits."
— Paul Volcker, Federal Reserve Board Chairman (1979-1987), in Audacity, Fall 1994

NOTE THE DATE? AFTER 12 YEARS OF GOP INCREASING THE DEBT OVER 500%?


"Clinton’s 1993 budget cuts, which reduced projected red ink by more than $400 billion over five years, sparked a major drop in interest rates that helped boost investment in all the equipment and systems that brought forth the New Age economy of technological innovation and rising productivity."
— Business Week, May 19, 1997



Who Created The 1990s Surplus, Clinton Or The GOP? (AFTER CLINTON VETOED THE GOP TAX CUTS AFTER HIS FIRST SURPLUS)



In 1993, Congress passed and President Clinton signed a half-billion deficit reduction package, one that included a boost in upper income tax rates to 39.6%. When Clinton's 1993 economic program scraped by without capturing the support of even one GOP lawmaker, the New York Times remarked:

Historians believe that no other important legislation, at least since World War II, has been enacted without at least one vote in either house from each major party.

Inheriting massive budget deficits and unemployment topping 7% from Bush the Elder, Clinton's $496 billion program was nonetheless opposed by every single member of the GOP, as well as defectors from his own party. As the Times recounted, it took a tie-breaking vote from Vice President Al Gore to earn victory:

An identical version of the $496 billion deficit-cutting measure was approved Thursday night by the House, 218 to 216. The Senate was divided 50 to 50 before Mr. Gore voted. Since tie votes in the House mean defeat, the bill would have failed if even one representative or one senator who voted with the President had switched sides.

The rest, as they say, is history.

Republicans Claim Credit For Clinton Surpluses | Crooks and Liars

In 1993, Congress passed and President Clinton signed a half-billion deficit reduction package, one that included a boost in upper income tax rates to 39.6%.

He boosted taxes on everybody.

Got more revenues, AND cut spending, whereas Reagan just increased taxes on the average guys, cutting it for the rich....

The Myths of Reaganomics - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily

Got more revenues, AND cut spending

Well, you're half right.

 

[Dad2three]

In 1993, Congress passed and President Clinton signed a half-billion deficit reduction package, one that included a boost in upper income tax rates to 39.6%.

He boosted taxes on everybody.

Got more revenues, AND cut spending, whereas Reagan just increased taxes on the average guys, cutting it for the rich....

The Myths of Reaganomics - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily

Got more revenues, AND cut spending

Well, you're half right.

President Clinton entered office determined to unleash the productive potential of the American people by putting the government's fiscal house back in order. As a result of fiscal discipline, interest rates have fallen and private investment has boomed, contributing to the longest expansion in U.S. history.

Record budget deficits have been erased. In 1992 the deficit was a record $290 billion and CBO projected that it would grow to $455 billion by 2000. Instead we have a projected $167 billion surplus, the third one is a row. That is $622 billion less savings drained by the government in one year alone.

The largest pay-down of debt in history: $297 billion. In 1998 and 1999, the debt held by the public was reduced by $140 billion. OMB is projecting that the government will pay down an additional $157 billion in debt held by the public this fiscal year. That will bring the total debt pay down to $297 billion -- the largest three-year debt pay down in American history. In contrast, under Presidents Reagan and Bush, the debt held by the public quadrupled.

Smallest government in over three decades while increasing key investments in our people. Government spending has declined from 22.2 percent of the economy in 1992 to 18.7 percent of the economy in 1999 -- the lowest share since 1966. At the same time, the government has made important investments, including nearly doubling investments in education and training.

Tax burden for typical families is the lowest since the 1970s. At the same time, the typical American family will shoulder the lowest Federal tax burden since 1978.

Investment has boomed. The benefits of fiscal discipline for our economy have been enormous. Interest rates are lower than they would have been otherwise, helping to fuel seven consecutive years of double-digit investment growth for the first time in our Nation's history. That is a 12.1 percent real annual increase in investment in business equipment and software since 1993 -- compared to 4.7 percent annual growth from 1981 to 1992.

http://archive.hhs.gov/news/press/2000pres/20000207.html

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Got more revenues, AND cut spending, whereas Reagan just increased taxes on the average guys, cutting it for the rich....

The Myths of Reaganomics - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily

Got more revenues, AND cut spending

Well, you're half right.

President Clinton entered office determined to unleash the productive potential of the American people by putting the government's fiscal house back in order. As a result of fiscal discipline, interest rates have fallen and private investment has boomed, contributing to the longest expansion in U.S. history.

Record budget deficits have been erased. In 1992 the deficit was a record $290 billion and CBO projected that it would grow to $455 billion by 2000. Instead we have a projected $167 billion surplus, the third one is a row. That is $622 billion less savings drained by the government in one year alone.

The largest pay-down of debt in history: $297 billion. In 1998 and 1999, the debt held by the public was reduced by $140 billion. OMB is projecting that the government will pay down an additional $157 billion in debt held by the public this fiscal year. That will bring the total debt pay down to $297 billion -- the largest three-year debt pay down in American history. In contrast, under Presidents Reagan and Bush, the debt held by the public quadrupled.

Smallest government in over three decades while increasing key investments in our people. Government spending has declined from 22.2 percent of the economy in 1992 to 18.7 percent of the economy in 1999 -- the lowest share since 1966. At the same time, the government has made important investments, including nearly doubling investments in education and training.

Tax burden for typical families is the lowest since the 1970s. At the same time, the typical American family will shoulder the lowest Federal tax burden since 1978.

Investment has boomed. The benefits of fiscal discipline for our economy have been enormous. Interest rates are lower than they would have been otherwise, helping to fuel seven consecutive years of double-digit investment growth for the first time in our Nation's history. That is a 12.1 percent real annual increase in investment in business equipment and software since 1993 -- compared to 4.7 percent annual growth from 1981 to 1992.

http://archive.hhs.gov/news/press/2000pres/20000207.html

putting the government's fiscal house back in order

Except for gutting the military, maybe you have examples of other areas where he showed his incredible fiscal restraint?

 

[Dad2three]

Got more revenues, AND cut spending

Well, you're half right.

President Clinton entered office determined to unleash the productive potential of the American people by putting the government's fiscal house back in order. As a result of fiscal discipline, interest rates have fallen and private investment has boomed, contributing to the longest expansion in U.S. history.

Record budget deficits have been erased. In 1992 the deficit was a record $290 billion and CBO projected that it would grow to $455 billion by 2000. Instead we have a projected $167 billion surplus, the third one is a row. That is $622 billion less savings drained by the government in one year alone.

The largest pay-down of debt in history: $297 billion. In 1998 and 1999, the debt held by the public was reduced by $140 billion. OMB is projecting that the government will pay down an additional $157 billion in debt held by the public this fiscal year. That will bring the total debt pay down to $297 billion -- the largest three-year debt pay down in American history. In contrast, under Presidents Reagan and Bush, the debt held by the public quadrupled.

Smallest government in over three decades while increasing key investments in our people. Government spending has declined from 22.2 percent of the economy in 1992 to 18.7 percent of the economy in 1999 -- the lowest share since 1966. At the same time, the government has made important investments, including nearly doubling investments in education and training.

Tax burden for typical families is the lowest since the 1970s. At the same time, the typical American family will shoulder the lowest Federal tax burden since 1978.

Investment has boomed. The benefits of fiscal discipline for our economy have been enormous. Interest rates are lower than they would have been otherwise, helping to fuel seven consecutive years of double-digit investment growth for the first time in our Nation's history. That is a 12.1 percent real annual increase in investment in business equipment and software since 1993 -- compared to 4.7 percent annual growth from 1981 to 1992.

http://archive.hhs.gov/news/press/2000pres/20000207.html

putting the government's fiscal house back in order

Except for gutting the military, maybe you have examples of other areas where he showed his incredible fiscal restraint?

Got it, in conservative world the reality of 4 surpluses (he had to veto the GOP $700+ tax cut after HIS first surplus to get 3 more), isn't an example of fiscally conservative Prez. I guess only Reagan tripling the debt or both Bush's doubling it allow the GOP to be called the fiscally conservatives *shaking head*

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

President Clinton entered office determined to unleash the productive potential of the American people by putting the government's fiscal house back in order. As a result of fiscal discipline, interest rates have fallen and private investment has boomed, contributing to the longest expansion in U.S. history.

Record budget deficits have been erased. In 1992 the deficit was a record $290 billion and CBO projected that it would grow to $455 billion by 2000. Instead we have a projected $167 billion surplus, the third one is a row. That is $622 billion less savings drained by the government in one year alone.

The largest pay-down of debt in history: $297 billion. In 1998 and 1999, the debt held by the public was reduced by $140 billion. OMB is projecting that the government will pay down an additional $157 billion in debt held by the public this fiscal year. That will bring the total debt pay down to $297 billion -- the largest three-year debt pay down in American history. In contrast, under Presidents Reagan and Bush, the debt held by the public quadrupled.

Smallest government in over three decades while increasing key investments in our people. Government spending has declined from 22.2 percent of the economy in 1992 to 18.7 percent of the economy in 1999 -- the lowest share since 1966. At the same time, the government has made important investments, including nearly doubling investments in education and training.

Tax burden for typical families is the lowest since the 1970s. At the same time, the typical American family will shoulder the lowest Federal tax burden since 1978.

Investment has boomed. The benefits of fiscal discipline for our economy have been enormous. Interest rates are lower than they would have been otherwise, helping to fuel seven consecutive years of double-digit investment growth for the first time in our Nation's history. That is a 12.1 percent real annual increase in investment in business equipment and software since 1993 -- compared to 4.7 percent annual growth from 1981 to 1992.

http://archive.hhs.gov/news/press/2000pres/20000207.html

putting the government's fiscal house back in order

Except for gutting the military, maybe you have examples of other areas where he showed his incredible fiscal restraint?

Got it, in conservative world the reality of 4 surpluses (he had to veto the GOP $700+ tax cut after HIS first surplus to get 3 more), isn't an example of fiscally conservative Prez. I guess only Reagan tripling the debt or both Bush's doubling it allow the GOP to be called the fiscally conservatives *shaking head*

So you have no other examples. Got it.

 

[TheJedi]

President Clinton entered office determined to unleash the productive potential of the American people by putting the government's fiscal house back in order. As a result of fiscal discipline, interest rates have fallen and private investment has boomed, contributing to the longest expansion in U.S. history.

Record budget deficits have been erased. In 1992 the deficit was a record $290 billion and CBO projected that it would grow to $455 billion by 2000. Instead we have a projected $167 billion surplus, the third one is a row. That is $622 billion less savings drained by the government in one year alone.

The largest pay-down of debt in history: $297 billion. In 1998 and 1999, the debt held by the public was reduced by $140 billion. OMB is projecting that the government will pay down an additional $157 billion in debt held by the public this fiscal year. That will bring the total debt pay down to $297 billion -- the largest three-year debt pay down in American history. In contrast, under Presidents Reagan and Bush, the debt held by the public quadrupled.

Smallest government in over three decades while increasing key investments in our people. Government spending has declined from 22.2 percent of the economy in 1992 to 18.7 percent of the economy in 1999 -- the lowest share since 1966. At the same time, the government has made important investments, including nearly doubling investments in education and training.

Tax burden for typical families is the lowest since the 1970s. At the same time, the typical American family will shoulder the lowest Federal tax burden since 1978.

Investment has boomed. The benefits of fiscal discipline for our economy have been enormous. Interest rates are lower than they would have been otherwise, helping to fuel seven consecutive years of double-digit investment growth for the first time in our Nation's history. That is a 12.1 percent real annual increase in investment in business equipment and software since 1993 -- compared to 4.7 percent annual growth from 1981 to 1992.

http://archive.hhs.gov/news/press/2000pres/20000207.html

putting the government's fiscal house back in order

Except for gutting the military, maybe you have examples of other areas where he showed his incredible fiscal restraint?

Got it, in conservative world the reality of 4 surpluses (he had to veto the GOP $700+ tax cut after HIS first surplus to get 3 more), isn't an example of fiscally conservative Prez. I guess only Reagan tripling the debt or both Bush's doubling it allow the GOP to be called the fiscally conservatives *shaking head*

I give Bush 1 credit because he knew he had to pay for Desert Storm so he raised taxes, even though it was unpopular. This is what a real leader does and while I did not agree fully with all of his policies, I consider him to be the last of the common sense Republicans and I voted for him in '92 over Clinton.

Like I said earlier, I think the Bush's tax hike was, at least in part, what helped enable the Clinton budget. Taxes ARE supposed to go up in times of war and conflict and go down in times of peace and prosperity. They are an organic part of managing government finances and they need to be flexible.

 

[rdean]

Republicans don't believe in education.

They think supply and demand is a wild liberal theory.

They won't invest in infrastructure.

They don't want to invest in their own people.

Is it any wonder they fail at economics?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Democrats don't believe in economics.

They think taxing money out of the private sector never hurts.

 

[Dad2three]

Democrats don't believe in economics.

They think taxing money out of the private sector never hurts.

Weird, Lowest tax burden under Bush in over 2 generations, how was the 'jobs, jobs, jobs' and economy under him again?


"Every dollar spent by the government must be paid for either by taxes or by more borrowing with greater debt.
The only way to make more tax cuts now is to have bigger and bigger deficits and to borrow more and more money. Either we or our children will have to bear the burden of this debt.
This is one kind of chicken that always comes home to roost. An unwise tax cutter, my fellow citizens, is no real friend of the taxpayer."
- Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower” 1952 in his refusal to lower the top tax rate on the rich from 91%.

 

[TheJedi]

Democrats don't believe in economics.

They think taxing money out of the private sector never hurts.

Now this is the funny part. Republicans say NO to investing in our country and want to make it all private sector monopolies of public services. Democrats say YES to investing in our country by creating a strong central government leaving little to the states to decide.

They are BOTH wrong.

1. We NEED to invest in infrastructure. Highways, railroads, public transit, power grids, etc. These things should be done as a cooperation between public and private sector. Taxes foot the bill and private companies get to bid on contracts (open bidding - none of this crony shit)

2. The size of government should be in proportion to the needs of the population not too big and not too small. We need regulatory agencies to insure that private companies are not milking the public and destroying the environment. We just need a rule that says people who worked in the industries the agencies regulate and people who lobby on behalf of those industries are barred from employment in these agencies. Then we need to take stupid regulations off the books and put ones in that actually work as intended.

3. Things of utmost public need (energy, banking, etc) should be heavily regulated including price controls. By allowing these things to be exploited by private companies who put profit above human life is just plain stupid. These are the same industries that right now tell Congress what to do and it is WHY we are an OLIGARCHY now. Our vote means nothing today. That is the truth.

4. When we go to war we need to be taxed to pay for it. Not cut domestic spending. This simply makes sense. If you don't want to pay the tax, then tell your government not to go to war.

5. We need to clean up the bureaucracy. It needs to be completely overhauled, trimmed down by eliminating redundant/overlapping services and it needs to be modernized with current technology. This can save billions of dollars alone.

6. We need serious welfare reform. I am talking draconian. State-assisted lives should be State-managed as in the government is in total control for the two years they are on it and if they fail to meet the rigorous standards they lose their kids. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200. We just need to set up a program where pre-approved parents are standing by to take these kids in with the understanding that they are solely financially responsible for the kids' well-being. This is a whole other thread, really.

7. We need to invest in Education. This is what has set us apart form the rest of the world and now we are falling behind. All education should be free in this country as it benefits us all. There will be less unemployment, less crime and more opportunity. Starting off after college with 60-250k in student loan debt, is just plain assinine. We should not have to start off our careers enslaved to a bank.

8. We need to invest on technology, innovation and space travel. This is the stuff that builds up our future as a nation. We should be sponsoring young, inspired minds to invent, innovate, dream and discover. We need to march forward and not cling to antiquated ways and technology because of profit, we should always be evolving the social paradigm.

That's where I stand at least.

In truth, I realize that bickering about this has no point. None of what needs to get done will ever get done because as we forum warriors jab at each other here complaining about this or that, the real enemy is slowly eroding our rights, making money hand over fist by looting our treasury, buying our politicians and the policies they enact...We are just frogs in a pot of water not too far from boiling.

It almost seems futile.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Nations with $17 trillion in debt aren't "investing", they're financial crack whores

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Democrats don't believe in economics.

They think taxing money out of the private sector never hurts.

Weird, Lowest tax burden under Bush in over 2 generations, how was the 'jobs, jobs, jobs' and economy under him again?


"Every dollar spent by the government must be paid for either by taxes or by more borrowing with greater debt.
The only way to make more tax cuts now is to have bigger and bigger deficits and to borrow more and more money. Either we or our children will have to bear the burden of this debt.
This is one kind of chicken that always comes home to roost. An unwise tax cutter, my fellow citizens, is no real friend of the taxpayer."
- Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower” 1952 in his refusal to lower the top tax rate on the rich from 91%.

Weird, Lowest tax burden under Bush in over 2 generations

It's true, he really cut taxes on middle and low income earners.

The only way to make more tax cuts now is to have bigger and bigger deficits and to borrow more and more money. Either we or our children will have to bear the burden of this debt.

Or, cut the spending.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Democrats don't believe in economics.

They think taxing money out of the private sector never hurts.

Now this is the funny part. Republicans say NO to investing in our country and want to make it all private sector monopolies of public services. Democrats say YES to investing in our country by creating a strong central government leaving little to the states to decide.

They are BOTH wrong.

1. We NEED to invest in infrastructure. Highways, railroads, public transit, power grids, etc. These things should be done as a cooperation between public and private sector. Taxes foot the bill and private companies get to bid on contracts (open bidding - none of this crony shit)

2. The size of government should be in proportion to the needs of the population not too big and not too small. We need regulatory agencies to insure that private companies are not milking the public and destroying the environment. We just need a rule that says people who worked in the industries the agencies regulate and people who lobby on behalf of those industries are barred from employment in these agencies. Then we need to take stupid regulations off the books and put ones in that actually work as intended.

3. Things of utmost public need (energy, banking, etc) should be heavily regulated including price controls. By allowing these things to be exploited by private companies who put profit above human life is just plain stupid. These are the same industries that right now tell Congress what to do and it is WHY we are an OLIGARCHY now. Our vote means nothing today. That is the truth.

4. When we go to war we need to be taxed to pay for it. Not cut domestic spending. This simply makes sense. If you don't want to pay the tax, then tell your government not to go to war.

5. We need to clean up the bureaucracy. It needs to be completely overhauled, trimmed down by eliminating redundant/overlapping services and it needs to be modernized with current technology. This can save billions of dollars alone.

6. We need serious welfare reform. I am talking draconian. State-assisted lives should be State-managed as in the government is in total control for the two years they are on it and if they fail to meet the rigorous standards they lose their kids. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200. We just need to set up a program where pre-approved parents are standing by to take these kids in with the understanding that they are solely financially responsible for the kids' well-being. This is a whole other thread, really.

7. We need to invest in Education. This is what has set us apart form the rest of the world and now we are falling behind. All education should be free in this country as it benefits us all. There will be less unemployment, less crime and more opportunity. Starting off after college with 60-250k in student loan debt, is just plain assinine. We should not have to start off our careers enslaved to a bank.

8. We need to invest on technology, innovation and space travel. This is the stuff that builds up our future as a nation. We should be sponsoring young, inspired minds to invent, innovate, dream and discover. We need to march forward and not cling to antiquated ways and technology because of profit, we should always be evolving the social paradigm.

That's where I stand at least.

In truth, I realize that bickering about this has no point. None of what needs to get done will ever get done because as we forum warriors jab at each other here complaining about this or that, the real enemy is slowly eroding our rights, making money hand over fist by looting our treasury, buying our politicians and the policies they enact...We are just frogs in a pot of water not too far from boiling.

It almost seems futile.

Republicans say NO to investing in our country

I'm all for investing in America. It works best when we don't have such a clown as President.

Oh, you meant government investment.

 

[freedombecki]

Democrats don't believe in economics.

They think taxing money out of the private sector never hurts.

Weird, Lowest tax burden under Bush in over 2 generations, how was the 'jobs, jobs, jobs' and economy under him again?


"Every dollar spent by the government must be paid for either by taxes or by more borrowing with greater debt.
The only way to make more tax cuts now is to have bigger and bigger deficits and to borrow more and more money. Either we or our children will have to bear the burden of this debt.
This is one kind of chicken that always comes home to roost. An unwise tax cutter, my fellow citizens, is no real friend of the taxpayer."
- Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower” 1952 in his refusal to lower the top tax rate on the rich from 91%.

Weird, Lowest tax burden under Bush in over 2 generations

It's true, he really cut taxes on middle and low income earners.

The only way to make more tax cuts now is to have bigger and bigger deficits and to borrow more and more money. Either we or our children will have to bear the burden of this debt.

Or, cut the spending.

Yep! Spending has put us in the red to the tune of trillions of dollars.

National Debt in Real Time: $17,557,573,000,000.00, U. S. National Debt Clock: Real Time

A few months ago:

 

[Kimura]

Democrats don't believe in economics.

They think taxing money out of the private sector never hurts.

Weird, Lowest tax burden under Bush in over 2 generations, how was the 'jobs, jobs, jobs' and economy under him again?


"Every dollar spent by the government must be paid for either by taxes or by more borrowing with greater debt.
The only way to make more tax cuts now is to have bigger and bigger deficits and to borrow more and more money. Either we or our children will have to bear the burden of this debt.
This is one kind of chicken that always comes home to roost. An unwise tax cutter, my fellow citizens, is no real friend of the taxpayer."
- Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower” 1952 in his refusal to lower the top tax rate on the rich from 91%.

Weird, Lowest tax burden under Bush in over 2 generations

It's true, he really cut taxes on middle and low income earners.

The only way to make more tax cuts now is to have bigger and bigger deficits and to borrow more and more money. Either we or our children will have to bear the burden of this debt.

Or, cut the spending.

Right....cutting spending and removing income from the economy is the way to go. A deficit reduction is the fiscal equivalent of a tax increase since the both remove money from the economy. A deficit reduction would simply affect low and middle income folks as opposed to higher income folks.

By the way, the federal government isn't required to run a balanced budget. This type of nonsense is highly destructive when the economy isn't performing well. This means the federal government should spend more. If you don't like the federal government spending its own fiat for public purpose (single payer, infrastructure, R&D, feeding poor children, etc), the federal government can revenue share with the states. This is what that liberal Richard Nixon did, when he figured out the federal government could create revenues, as opposed to the states, but the states and local municipalities were more better with spending priorities.

 

[Kimura]

Weird, Lowest tax burden under Bush in over 2 generations, how was the 'jobs, jobs, jobs' and economy under him again?


"Every dollar spent by the government must be paid for either by taxes or by more borrowing with greater debt.
The only way to make more tax cuts now is to have bigger and bigger deficits and to borrow more and more money. Either we or our children will have to bear the burden of this debt.
This is one kind of chicken that always comes home to roost. An unwise tax cutter, my fellow citizens, is no real friend of the taxpayer."
- Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower” 1952 in his refusal to lower the top tax rate on the rich from 91%.

Weird, Lowest tax burden under Bush in over 2 generations

It's true, he really cut taxes on middle and low income earners.

The only way to make more tax cuts now is to have bigger and bigger deficits and to borrow more and more money. Either we or our children will have to bear the burden of this debt.

Or, cut the spending.

Yep! Spending has put us in the red to the tune of trillions of dollars.

National Debt in Real Time: $17,557,573,000,000.00, U. S. National Debt Clock: Real Time

A few months ago:

So what? That 17 trillion simply represents the total savings of the US economy in the form of dollar deposits at the Federal Reserve.

Under our fiat current system, the federal government's deficit (the currency issuer) = the non-government's financial savings/equity. Deficits add to the net financial assets of the private sector.