Sunday, April 18, 2010
Another Question For The Socialists
Why, when we owe $12 trillion, would the Obama administration set out budgets that will ensure our collective debt climbs to $20 trillion? Why are we borrowing more money, when Medicare, Social Security, the Postal Service, Amtrak, etc. are all insolvent as it is? link
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Come on Darren...we're just gonna raise taxes on the rich...u know, people making more than 250 dollars a year
Why was our debt $4 trillion in 2000 and $12 trillion in 2009?
How do you pay down $12 trillion?
You beat me to it, Mazenko. I would add, however, that it's because Bush and Obama were equally bad at reining in government spending. Perhaps we should try electing ACTUAL fiscal conservatives.
Actually it was 5.6 trillion on 1 Oct 00.
To answer your other question you stop spending money, have government policies that incentivize growth and employment, run surpluses and pay down the debt. Things like not spending trillions on nationalized health care or cap and tax come to mind.
Really MikeAT? You run surpluses? I certainly hope you've shared this with your elected officials . . .I think it just. might. work.
Spending cuts won't cut $12 trillion - not a chance.
And the surpluses materialized with slightly higher taxes in the 90s, so they clearly incentivized growth and employment.
Greg Mankiw - Bush's budget guy - has clearly proved that the debt ballooned because of decreased revenue more than higher spending.
The debt would not be there without two unfunded tax cuts, two unfunded wars, and a Medicare expansion.
So, it's not so simple. Pro-growth policies aren't all about lower taxes, though that helps. Fiscal policy is far more complicated. It's about appropriate tax rates.
1981 to 1989 doubled the National Debt.
2001 to 2009 doubled the National Debt.
And 2009-2010 will do *what* to the national debt?
maxutils
Yes, if you want to pay down a debt you must make more money (in a personal sense, you must make more income…in a government sense you must spend less money than you take in…notice I don’t say take in more than you spend) yearly and direct the surplus to paying off the debt. It works in person and in government. If you can’t figure that out, you need to go back to a home economics’ class.
Now we agree on one thing…we need to have real conservatives who will restrain government spending, not RINOs like Lindsey Graham and McCain and damned sure not any of the current leadership of the national Democratic party. One of the greatest failures of GW Bush’s administration is he didn’t find his veto pen until year seven of his term. Gerald Ford vetoed almost 70 bills in less than two years in office.
The surpluses of the 1990s are not due to Billy Clinton. They are due to Newt Gingrich and the congressional class of 94. During the budget battle of 1995 Gingrich et all stood their ground demanding of Clinton a budget plan that would balance in seven years by CBO numbers which they eventually got. The result was surpluses. That was screwed up by a Republican congress in the early 2000s and a Republican president that didn’t use his veto pen to stop the spending.
Do I see any chance for progress on the budget and the debt? Ask me after the November elections.
Increase it by 1/10.
mazenko
Agreed, spending cuts won’t cut the debt…cutting spending and expanding revenue till you get a surplus and then directing that surplus to the debt will handle it.
And the surpluses materialized with slightly higher taxes in the 90s, so they clearly incentivized growth and employment.
More like disciplined spending and reform of welfare, among other things. BTY, explain how higher taxes incentivized growth and employment…one great example of the results of a specific tax was the 10% luxury tax. The effects were the loss of tens of millions in tax revenue and unemployment for tens of thousands of boat builders. Rich people simply bought their yachts overseas.
The debt would not be there without two unfunded tax cuts, two unfunded wars, and a Medicare expansion.
Agreed on the Medicare expansion…and that is a program that needs to be needs tested. Now can you explain to me the concept of an unfunded war? Or put another way, which one of our wars was funded? I’ll list them for you: Revolutionary War, War of 1812, Mexican War, Civil War, Spanish American War, World War I, World War II, Korean War, Vietnam War, Gulf War I and Gulf War II. Which one was funded?
Pro-growth policies aren't all about lower taxes, though that helps.
OK…I thought higher taxes clearly "incentivized growth and employment".
Um, MikeAT . . .I apologize for not being sarcastic enough for you to recognize it. Thanks for making sure I understood what a surplus was, though. And Darren, in answer to your question, from 12 to 20 is raising it 67%, which is less than doubling it. But, you knew that. The president can propose a budget, but it's Congress that passes it . . . fact is, spending has increased under every President in my lifetime, and only Clinton has been able to run a technical surplus, and that surplus was BS anyway since it doesn't count projected shortfalls in funding for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. We would do a lot better to point out that government as a whole is spending irresponsibly, rather than play 'gotcha' with members of whichever party we don't like.
I never hid my contempt for the Republican-led Congress and President Bush when it came to, as I quoted several times, "spending money like a drunken sailor in a Southeast Asian port." However, to hide behind the fiction the current Congress and President's spending are no worse than any other is a fool's errand.
And maxutils I have told Darren on multiple occasions to not say Congress is spending money like a drunken sailor in a Southeast Asian port . He is insulting the sailors by associating them with members of the Congress. A sailor spends his own money.
It's true. He has told me that on several occasions, and he is correct.
Darren,
The answer is very simple. Liberals are not good at basic math. They can work with hyperbole and conjecture, but they cannot add two and two to get four. Most of the time they get five in terms of revenue and three in terms of spending which makes them think they have two to spend when really what they have is two that are borrowed from the Chinese. I suspect at some point we may have to sell Hawaii.
Post a Comment