Republicans so worried about the debt, yet they cause most of it.

[LordBrownTrout]

Wrong. O racked up 8 trillion. More than all previous presidents combined.

Yeah, to pay for Bush's 2 wars off the books, Bush's unfunded Medicare part D, Bush's bankster bailout, and Bush's tax cut which blew the Clinton surplus.

There was never a surplus. At that time, we were 4 trillion in debt.

You clearly do not know a difference between a budget surplus and total national debt.

All too much. Any surplus after expenditures are made is supposed to pay down our national debt.

Oh so you are saying surplus is possible after all. Good on you.

Yes, it is possible.

 

[The Derp]

Why do you think other countries and very rich people are buying up precious metals and other commodities?

Because they're ******* idiots who are betting against this country. Which would also make them traitors.

If the dollar ever does tank, what will you use to purchase food, clothing or even shelter? Establishment liberals are loving what is going on, as every day it brings them closer to ruining America and there will be no one to protect you. Police and soldiers will go back to their own homes and protect their own families while the rabid liberals will be burning cities, punching women and robbing you blind. Oh yeah, that is happening in the inner cities right now, never mind...

The dollar isn't going to tank and the only way it would is if you refused to raise the debt ceiling, causing a default. You're the ones who consistently refuse to raise the debt ceiling. Not raising it is the primary way we would default on our debt.

But bet against the US economy at your own risk, traitor.

 

[The Derp]

Why was it that welfare was only allowed for 2 years when "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" was in office? Because the contract with America would cut off welfare after 2 years and people had to find work or go to school. His economy was touted as a great one, only because Newt brought the contract for the woman abuser to sign.

So this is ******* ridiculous.

Conservatives proudly proclaim that they reformed welfare 20 years ago. Yet, Conservatives complain about too much welfare abuse today. So then that means the reform you clowns did 20 years ago wasn't all it was cracked up to be, was it?

Secondly, the real reason why they reformed welfare was so that they could change the funding to block grants which states could pull from to close budget deficits that appeared from poor fiscal policy.

Conservatives quite literally use welfare to pay for tax cuts. Which would make them the real welfare queens.

 

[AntonToo]

and yet want to give the rich tax cuts, (how ignorant is that) They must have brain damage.

and what will happen to global terrorism they ask , since they do not want to do anything about gun laws in the US, who by the way most mass shooters are white males and US citizens and even some vets, who in the hell cares.

The War on Poverty has cost $22 trillion -- three times more than what the government has spent on all wars in American history. Federal and state governments spend $1 trillion in taxpayer dollars on America's 80 means-tested welfare programs annually.

The War on Poverty Has Cost $22 Trillion - NCPA
www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=25288

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

$20,204,000,000,000

Want to try again?

BULLSHIT.

Biggest components of of those programs SS and Medicare are PAID FOR with payroll taxes and in fact have been running surplus for years (REDUCING deficits)

The final component is Medicaid - a program that pays for medical care of low income people that couldn't possibly afford it otherwise. Even conservatives nowadays believe that the program is necessary.

Would the Medicaid program be needed if everyone had a job? Would anyone need medicare or social security, if more people were allowed to save more of their own money to invest, instead of being FORCED to contribute to the ponsi schemes?

I concede, in the magical unicorn and rainbow land in your head, Medicaid is not needed.

So I tell you what, as soon as you conservatives bring us that heaven on earth I'll 100% support phasing out Medicaid program...because no one will be left needing it.

Why was it that welfare was only allowed for 2 years when "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" was in office? Because the contract with America would cut off welfare after 2 years and people had to find work or go to school. His economy was touted as a great one, only because Newt brought the contract for the woman abuser to sign.

I know you've been baking in the politico bubble for too long but those were not major economic drivers in the 90s.

See population gowth, internet and other tech developments, plus a huge real estate & finance bubble

 

[The Derp]

There was never a surplus. At that time, we were 4 trillion in debt.

Sooooooooooooooooo.....

A budget surplus is completely different from the debt. Surpluses can be used to reduce debt. And the Net Public Debt was reduced during Clinton. Do you not know the difference between deficits, surpluses, and debt?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Wrong. O racked up 8 trillion. More than all previous presidents combined.

Yeah, to pay for Bush's 2 wars off the books, Bush's unfunded Medicare part D, Bush's bankster bailout, and Bush's tax cut which blew the Clinton surplus.

There was never a surplus. At that time, we were 4 trillion in debt.

You clearly do not know a difference between a budget surplus and total national debt.

All too much. Any surplus after expenditures are made is supposed to pay down our national debt.

Oh so you are saying surplus is possible after all. Good on you.

Look, annual surplus is simply positive budget balance for the year, whether you use it to pay down debt or send a check back to everyone does not really matter to it being a budget surplus for that year.

Further - in current political climate WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT ANY SURPLUS EVER.

The only way to get the government to get a surplus is to have the establishment stop spending on shit that isn't needed. Yes there needs to be social security, medicare, Medicaid, but how about eliminating the agencies that have thousands of people just sitting there when those 3 orgs can be just as effective automated? Get rid of the IRS because you don't need tax thugs checking over paper since most returns are also automated.

In the basement of the Dept of Agriculture, of all places, was a placard of pictures and honorable mention of Blacks in Government(ironic that it is in the basement?) or BIG. I looked around and couldn't find any placard that represented Whites in Government or WIG. But instead of having separate placards, I mentioned that they could combine the 2 and make it People in Government or PIG, the largest part of pork the government spends on.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

There was never a surplus. At that time, we were 4 trillion in debt.

Sooooooooooooooooo.....

A budget surplus is completely different from the debt. Surpluses can be used to reduce debt. And the Net Public Debt was reduced during Clinton. Do you not know the difference between deficits, surpluses, and debt?

I know, nimrod. You should stay out of a conversation if you're this lost.

 

[The Derp]

All too much. Any surplus after expenditures are made is supposed to pay down our national debt. If our national debt was O and revenus exceeded expenditures after govt was funded after the fiscal year ended in september, there would a real surplus.

So you're using the term "surplus" incorrectly.

A budget surplus occurs when we take in more revenue than we spend. You can't have a debt surplus, you can only have 0 debt.

Now here's the big question: why does debt concern you so much?

 

[AntonToo]

Yeah, to pay for Bush's 2 wars off the books, Bush's unfunded Medicare part D, Bush's bankster bailout, and Bush's tax cut which blew the Clinton surplus.

There was never a surplus. At that time, we were 4 trillion in debt.

You clearly do not know a difference between a budget surplus and total national debt.

All too much. Any surplus after expenditures are made is supposed to pay down our national debt.

Oh so you are saying surplus is possible after all. Good on you.

Look, annual surplus is simply positive budget balance for the year, whether you use it to pay down debt or send a check back to everyone does not really matter to it being a budget surplus for that year.

Further - in current political climate WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT ANY SURPLUS EVER.

The only way to get the government to get a surplus is to have the establishment stop spending on shit that isn't needed.

No that is not the only way. There is TOTALLY another, much more realistic, way dude.

We cut some spending, we raise some taxes, we tolerate some economic contraction that will result and we get even on the long term budget.

There is no free lunch here, no magic bean soup, no political wins for anyone, just good ol' fashioned work to pay the bills.

 

[Spare_change]

Get rid of the AMT and inheritance tax, say goodbye to billions. Just the opposite of Robbin Hood, take from the working class, aged, disabled , and those working min wage in cheap GOP states, and give to the rich.

makes so much sense. Republicans are shameless wonders. Those who vote for the shameless Pubs are just as bad.

You continue to amaze me with your ability to look a facts, and then get your synopsis wrong.

The truth doesn't elude you - reality eludes you.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

There was never a surplus. At that time, we were 4 trillion in debt.

You clearly do not know a difference between a budget surplus and total national debt.

All too much. Any surplus after expenditures are made is supposed to pay down our national debt.

Oh so you are saying surplus is possible after all. Good on you.

Look, annual surplus is simply positive budget balance for the year, whether you use it to pay down debt or send a check back to everyone does not really matter to it being a budget surplus for that year.

Further - in current political climate WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT ANY SURPLUS EVER.

The only way to get the government to get a surplus is to have the establishment stop spending on shit that isn't needed.

No that is not the only way. There is TOTALLY another, much more realistic, way dude.

We cut some spending, we raise some taxes, we tolerate some economic contraction that will result and we get even on the long term budget.

There is no free lunch here, no magic bean soup, no political wins for anyone, just good ol' fashioned work to pay the bills.

You do realize that for the past 8 years we increased the spending and increased the taxes also? it is about time to lower the taxes and cut the ******* spending.

 

[Spare_change]

All too much. Any surplus after expenditures are made is supposed to pay down our national debt. If our national debt was O and revenus exceeded expenditures after govt was funded after the fiscal year ended in september, there would a real surplus.

So you're using the term "surplus" incorrectly.

A budget surplus occurs when we take in more revenue than we spend. You can't have a debt surplus, you can only have 0 debt.

Now here's the big question: why does debt concern you so much?

Actually, you kinda missed on this one.

A "budget surplus" is when you take in more money than you planned for in your budget. This happens virtually every year. It has nothing to do with the relationship between spending and income.

Our problem is that we constantly spend more than we budget, and more disastrously, spend more than our income. THAT difference is called the deficit. The debt, on the other hand, is the compilation of all deficits unpaid to date plus all interest incurred.

 

[The Derp]

You continue to amaze me with your ability to look a facts, and then get your synopsis wrong.

The latest "tax reform" package from Conservatives pays for the tax cut for the rich by cutting Medicare and Medicaid.

The truth doesn't elude you - reality eludes you.

You seem to vastly misunderstand what "truth" means.

 

[The Derp]

Our problem is that we constantly spend more than we budget, and more disastrously, spend more than our income. THAT difference is called the deficit. The debt, on the other hand, is the compilation of all deficits unpaid to date plus all interest incurred.

We don't spend more than we budget, we voluntarily cut revenue which manufactures deficits. It's exactly what happened in 2001 after the Bush Tax Cuts. We had a record high budget surplus in 2000 that was turned into a record high budget deficit by 2003.

That is entirely, 100% because of the Bush Tax Cuts.

Same thing happened in Kansas in 2013...they too had a budget surplus that was a record high...then Brownback and the Conservatives cut taxes, the surplus was turned into record deficits, and Kansas' economy cratered. Those tax cuts were repealed this spring by Republicans and Democrats in Kansas (SB 30), overriding Governor Skidmark's -er um, I mean Brownback's- veto. Here's the budget for Kansas, both with and without tax cuts. You'll notice spending stays the same. What is it you see?

When I look at that, I see KS going from a $436M deficit to a $155M surplus. Do you see the same thing? Spending didn't change at all, only the amount of revenue collected and look at that! Without even touching spending, Kansas got a budget surplus by repealing tax cuts.

So if that's the case in Kansas, why would repealing low taxes for the rich play out any different on the nation's budget?!

 

[The Derp]

You do realize that for the past 8 years we increased the spending and increased the taxes also? it is about time to lower the taxes and cut the ******* spending.

And during Obama the deficit was reduced by more than 2/3 from where Bush the Dumber and Conservatives left it.

Take a look at this...this is Kansas' budget. They too had trickle-down tax cuts in 2013, and as a result, had massive deficits, credit downgrades (two of them!), and job/GDP growth below the national average. Notice how the repeal of the tax cuts (SB 30) makes the deficits disappear and surpluses appear! And notice how spending wasn't touched at all. So KS achieved a balanced budget/surplus without cutting spending, just by repealing tax cuts.

So if it worked in KS, why wouldn't repealing low taxes for the rich work nationally?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

All too much. Any surplus after expenditures are made is supposed to pay down our national debt. If our national debt was O and revenus exceeded expenditures after govt was funded after the fiscal year ended in september, there would a real surplus.

So you're using the term "surplus" incorrectly.

A budget surplus occurs when we take in more revenue than we spend. You can't have a debt surplus, you can only have 0 debt.

Now here's the big question: why does debt concern you so much?

Currently, the debt to GDP ration is about 75 percent. As the debt to GDP ratio increases, debt holders could demand larger interest payments. They want compensation for an increasing risk they won't be repaid. Diminished demand for US treasurys would further increase and likely crash the dollar. As the dollar falls, foreign holders get paid back in currency that is worth less. That further decreases demand. This has happened numerous times but everyone just thinks the gravy train will continue to roll.

 

[AntonToo]

You clearly do not know a difference between a budget surplus and total national debt.

All too much. Any surplus after expenditures are made is supposed to pay down our national debt.

Oh so you are saying surplus is possible after all. Good on you.

Look, annual surplus is simply positive budget balance for the year, whether you use it to pay down debt or send a check back to everyone does not really matter to it being a budget surplus for that year.

Further - in current political climate WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT ANY SURPLUS EVER.

The only way to get the government to get a surplus is to have the establishment stop spending on shit that isn't needed.

No that is not the only way. There is TOTALLY another, much more realistic, way dude.

We cut some spending, we raise some taxes, we tolerate some economic contraction that will result and we get even on the long term budget.

There is no free lunch here, no magic bean soup, no political wins for anyone, just good ol' fashioned work to pay the bills.

You do realize that for the past 8 years we increased the spending and increased the taxes also? it is about time to lower the taxes and cut the ******* spending.

Yes I realize that...because in raw dollars THAT WILL ALWAYS BE THE CASE.

The economy grows as population grows, technology advance and there is normal inflation - all that means is that we cannot compare spending in un-adjusted, raw dollar terms and have to use %ofGDP measure which already adjust for inflation and economy size.

So from budgetary perspective we are in MUCH better place today compared to 8 years ago when spending was up and revenues were down due to Great Recession.

However we face long term demographical problem of aging population with increasing medical costs and less workers per dependent. And the true answer is the same down-the-middle compromise, instead of never ending politico campaigning. Cut some benefits, raise some taxes.

 

[Penelope]

10 trillion added under Obama.

Thanks to Bush Jr.

 

[Penelope]

10 trillion added under Obama.

Because it was Obama that caused Bush to submit 1.3T Deficit budget for 2009.

Time to wake up and smell reality:

We will be heading right down this road if the GOP has their way.

 

[BlindBoo]

I'm all for a balanced budget amendment. Term limits for Congress critters too.

Both of these sound really great in theory, but not in practice.

1. A BBA is pointless because government doesn't collect revenues all at one time, and the budget has to be nimble to handle emergency response to disasters like hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, pandemics, etc. A BBA would mean that if disaster funding ran out before a massive disaster hit late in the year (think Hurricane Sandy, which was in November), there would be no money left for a response because the budget had reached its cap.

2. Term limits don't solve the underlying problem of money in politics. If you put in term limits, but didn't do any campaign finance reform, you would just have a revolving door of party apparatchiks. So instead of having one shitty, corporate-owned politician for 30 years, you get 15 shitty, corporate-owned politicians for 2 years each (for the House) or 5 shitty, corporate-owned politicians for 6 years each (for the Senate). Term limits do nothing to stop the purchasing of political parties by special interests and in fact could make the problem even worse.

So, I like the thinking...but I think we can dig deeper for better solutions.

Exceptions for emergencies could be allowed. Electioneering should also be disallowed except for a certain number of days before the elections. Campaign contributions to candidates should be heavily taxed and severely limited.

I know however it will never happen.