Wave of Debt Payments Facing US Government

[PatekPhilippe]

Most Democrats voted against the war, btw. Read a paper or something once in awhile.

Too bad the Dems controlled the senate in 2003, and could have stopped chimpola cold.

'Congress' wasn't the issue you phoney bastard and you know it, the dems laid down like Persian rugs and let those assclowns invade a country for no valid reason.

And YOUR BOYS made it happen bull shit artist.

I love it when cons try to blame the Iraq war on the Democrats.

MOST DEMOCRATS VOTED AGAINST THE IRAQ WAR. PERIOD.

Like I said...the Democrats CONTROLLED THE SENATE AND THEREFORE ALLOWED THE WAR RESOLUTION TO PASS

Too bad....your precious democrats are just as fucked up as everyone else....now quit whining!!!!

 

[Toronado3800]

Add to that the servicing of our debt at 10% and rising....why can't the Democrats get spending under control? Why do they want to plunge the country ANOTHER 10 trillion dollars in debt?! The Republicans spent a lot on the wars and the declining dollar didn't help anything...but Obama ran on a campaign of fiscal conservatism and so far he's lied through his teeth.

Give em time. Willy Bill Clinton for all his NAFTA signing, lazy womanizing ways, did end up President of our last balanced budget.

Your hatred of the debt is noted. I don't have any credit card bills myself so I understand. At best Reagan figured we'd float our debt of the 80's longer than the Russians could. And Maybe that's why the USSR came apart. Still you and I can dislike him and both Bush's for signing all them budgets.

The entitlement programs are investments in themselves. Social Security is fine if anyone with a brain ends up raising the retirement age or making a couple extra tweaks. No big deal, a lot of folks will enjoy capitalism and won't be able to retire to the golf courses at 62. They(we) may have to wait to 72, 75 to retire and then work a bit at the grocery store continually contributing to the capitalist economy just to balance the SS budget.

Again I feel its the price we pay for our freedom to show historically bad investment skills as a whole and the price for our inability to take in our elderly relatives en mass or watch the poor lie on our street corners.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Add to that the servicing of our debt at 10% and rising....why can't the Democrats get spending under control? Why do they want to plunge the country ANOTHER 10 trillion dollars in debt?! The Republicans spent a lot on the wars and the declining dollar didn't help anything...but Obama ran on a campaign of fiscal conservatism and so far he's lied through his teeth.

Give em time. Willy Bill Clinton for all his NAFTA signing, lazy womanizing ways, did end up President of our last balanced budget.

Your hatred of the debt is noted. I don't have any credit card bills myself so I understand. At best Reagan figured we'd float our debt of the 80's longer than the Russians could. And Maybe that's why the USSR came apart. Still you and I can dislike him and both Bush's for signing all them budgets.

The entitlement programs are investments in themselves. Social Security is fine if anyone with a brain ends up raising the retirement age or making a couple extra tweaks. No big deal, a lot of folks will enjoy capitalism and won't be able to retire to the golf courses at 62. They(we) may have to wait to 72, 75 to retire and then work a bit at the grocery store continually contributing to the capitalist economy just to balance the SS budget.

Again I feel its the price we pay for our freedom to show historically bad investment skills as a whole and the price for our inability to take in our elderly relatives en mass or watch the poor lie on our street corners.

Do you know how he balanced the budget? Probably not so I will tell you.

What he did was instruct the Treasury to NOT issue any new treasuries or government backed securities for sale on the worlds financial markets. This in turn lowered the debt servicing payments (interest payments on the National Debt) as bonds matured and were paid off. That is how he balanced the budget and created a surplus.....he certainly didn't cut any spending in the domestic budget.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Does anyone have a link to historical government spending rates as a % of GDP? I'm looking in all the wrong places. In particular I'm thinking about the Clinton terms vs Bush1 since the budget got balanced. That doesn't mean he lowered the comparable size of government though.

US Government Spending As Percent Of GDP in United States 1960-2010 - Federal State Local

 

[Care4all]

WOW, Bush's hikes in spending were EXTREME....it's a shame, after clinton and his congress worked so hard to reduced the government's spending percentage of our gdp....

looks like that chart shows the percentage of gvt spending to gdp starts trending downward in 2010...am I reading that correctly? seems wrong???

 

[dilloduck]

Strange that a different group are complaining about the debt now that the office of the president is under different party control.

Are you kidding ? How long have you been following politics ? It's ALWAYS the other party's fault.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

WOW, Bush's hikes in spending were EXTREME....it's a shame, after clinton and his congress worked so hard to reduced the government's spending percentage of our gdp....

looks like that chart shows the percentage of gvt spending to gdp starts trending downward in 2010...am I reading that correctly? seems wrong???

Clinton didn't reduce A SINGLE BIT OF SPENDING. What happened was our GDP rose and spending stayed the same or increased only slightly. A true indicator would have been the FY 1996-FY2000 budgets. This "spending as a percentage of GDP" is always used by the libs as a "see Clinton cut spending and balanced the budget" talking point but actually it's just another talking point based on fuzzy math, smoke and mirrors for the easily duped.

 

[Toronado3800]

Clinton didn't reduce A SINGLE BIT OF SPENDING. What happened was our GDP rose and spending stayed the same or increased only slightly. A true indicator would have been the FY 1996-FY2000 budgets. This "spending as a percentage of GDP" is always used by the libs as a "see Clinton cut spending and balanced the budget" talking point but actually it's just another talking point based on fuzzy math, smoke and mirrors for the easily duped.

I'll ride with that to a point.

I'll disagree on the intent also. For if I spend $1000 on fuel in year A then there is 3% inflation at the gas station by the time year B rolls around and I still manage to spend the same $1000 I've reduced my fuel intake.

Controlling spending while the GDP catches up is a safe way of not disturbing the economy. ...... a government employing 10 million ppl in a country of 300 million is for all purposes smaller than one employing 10 million ppl in a country of 250 million.

Then again, we're splitting hairs on Bill Clinton. Go NAFTA, yuck.

 

[Toronado3800]

looks like that chart shows the percentage of gvt spending to gdp starts trending downward in 2010...am I reading that correctly? seems wrong???

Yeah. Must be a prediction on the 2010 part. A strange one at that.....Wonder if they're predicting a GDP increase in 2010 and spending w/o a stimulus plan or with partial recover of the 2008 bail out money.