Does anybody realize the federal debt is up by almost $5 Trillion since 2009?
Of course you ignore that time when Democrats cut spending during good economic times while the "fiscally conservative" Republicans screamed about how it would damage the economy.
You're right that the GOP has a strong element of pro-big government spenders which is why there is a current divide between the pro-big government spenders in the GOP (aka neo-cons) and those who actually believe in being fiscally restrained in spending and government growth.
But in the end even you are admitting that cuts to government aren't the doomsday economic scenario those big government spenders in the GOP (neo-cons) and Democrats would like us to believe because the broken window theory is a complete fallacy in the end. Especially when it comes to long term economic growth in this nation. And we are much better off by allowing people to retain more of their money in the end instead of growing out government, be it for government guns or butter.
Why do think the republicans are trying to trash the ACA and the country with the shut down and the debt ceiling?
The dems will have an absolutely positive record to run on and the republicans will have nothing (they usually run on, "we aren't as bad as the other guys").
GUYS!
The deficit needs to be INVERTED before we can even start to nibble away at the national debt of SEVENTEEN TRILLION FUCKING DOLLARS!
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
Only in such a fucked up age would people think our hideous rate of failure being marginally slowed down was worth discussing.
Its like Peg Bundy only buying 8 new outfits on credit instead of the usual 9 in order to save Al some money he doesnt even have. His pay check goes entirely into the interest charges on Peggys credit card and even the interest charges are rising.
Thats America. Government is having fun running around with our money which we havent even generated yet.
Why use facts when you can just point fingers?
If you would open your mind you MIGHT consider the fact that the Bush tax cuts/credits have been phased out so MOST of our Federal taxes have gone UP, UP and UP. This accounts for most of the reduction in the yearly deficit.
If you represent the "typical" democrat consider me not.
... an independent.
I guess you've forgotten what happened in 2008 that led to 2009 spending ?
We'd still be in the Bush depression without it.
We will never know what might have happened.
A large chunk of debt was issued without any real results to show. Money was dumped onto activities that were short term fixes to postpone the pain of actually fixing the problems. Shuffling the pea beneath the walnut shells.
Had that debt been directed into controlled consumer directed internal spending, the benefits would have been greater but not as political generous.
Get the deficit back to what was before Obama showed up with smooth talking, then I will feel that he his better than average pol.
At this point he keeps spending more than is coming in, and not caring how it shows.
Imagine what it'd be if there were actually "substantial" cuts to the budget. I'm not talking about anything like killing off any program, but talking more about trying to increase effectiveness and cut off 100 billion a year.
Things like trying to get more people off food stamps (easier said than done), trimming some off military budget, and creating more jobs (again, easier said than done, this would help with the food stamp issue).
I think some people need to realize that we simply can't just keep piling on new programs when we can't even pay for the ones we have. The best we can hope for is a slowdown of new spending so we can finally catch up to what is already implemented.
Of course, this is a pipe dream.
I think the general point I was trying to make is that regardless of what the opposition says about big spending Democrats and the need to spend less, we are indeed on a major short term downward trend when it comes to spending and the deficit. The only areas left to do any significant reforms will be the sacred cows of each party - Medicare, social security, and tax reform (tax increases).
I'd bet the farm that if you asked the majority of Republican and conservative constituents how much the deficit has dropped since Obama's first year, the majority would say none......and that's a terrible starting point when we need to politicians to be honest about the hole we're in.
Oh you mean get spending to below what it was in the 80's when Reagan was president or the 90's when Clinton was president! I know you aren't talking about bush jr who sky rocketed us to higher than we are now (of course that was because of the economic crash that happened on his watch)?
Government spending is measured as a percentage to GDP. We have several options, cut spending by half, raise taxes (I'm guessing another 4-8%) or a combination of both.
Which one do you think is the smartest option? Then ask yourself who in congress or the president is offering such a proposal.
No, there are times when you should cut spending and/or raise taxes and there are times when you should increase spending and/or lower taxes. The Neocons think there should never be spending cuts and the Tea Party thinks there should always be big spending cuts. The moderate Republicans think there should gradual spending cuts but don't understand what should be cut or when it should be cut. All three approaches do considerable damage to our economy because NONE of them understand modern economics, but the moderates do the least damage, the Neocons trade short term boosts for long term catastrophic damage ala Reagan and Dubya, and the Tea Party philosophy will fuck us all real good instantaneously.You're right that the GOP has a strong element of pro-big government spenders which is why there is a current divide between the pro-big government spenders in the GOP (aka neo-cons) and those who actually believe in being fiscally restrained in spending and government growth.
But in the end even you are admitting that cuts to government aren't the doomsday economic scenario those big government spenders in the GOP (neo-cons) and Democrats would like us to believe because the broken window theory is a complete fallacy in the end. Especially when it comes to long term economic growth in this nation. And we are much better off by allowing people to retain more of their money in the end instead of growing out government, be it for government guns or butter.
We will never know what might have happened.
A large chunk of debt was issued without any real results to show. Money was dumped onto activities that were short term fixes to postpone the pain of actually fixing the problems. Shuffling the pea beneath the walnut shells.
Had that debt been directed into controlled consumer directed internal spending, the benefits would have been greater but not as political generous.
Get the deficit back to what was before Obama showed up with smooth talking, then I will feel that he his better than average pol.
At this point he keeps spending more than is coming in, and not caring how it shows.
Sounds nice in theory...but the reality is that Democrats want to significantly raise taxes and not cut net spending. This is clear to anyone approaching the issue without partisan blinders on.No, there are times when you should cut spending and/or raise taxes and there are times when you should increase spending and/or lower taxes. The Neocons think there should never be spending cuts and the Tea Party thinks there should always be big spending cuts. The moderate Republicans think there should gradual spending cuts but don't understand what should be cut or when it should be cut. All three approaches do considerable damage to our economy because NONE of them understand modern economics, but the moderates do the least damage, the Neocons trade short term boosts for long term catastrophic damage ala Reagan and Dubya, and the Tea Party philosophy will fuck us all real good instantaneously.
Democrats understand that you cut spending/raise taxes during economic booms and raise spending/lower taxes during recessions. It isn't rocket science and the supporting evidence is clear to anyone approaching the issue without partisan blinders on.
Grats on the irrelevant semantics win. It isn't misuse, it's just illogical/insane or more accurately, dishonest. So change "misuse" to "dishonest" in my post and my point still stands.Its not. You are still using them correctly. Not using them isn't misuse.
Now if you would like to say that you aren't being logical and/or sane by ignoring statistics, fine. But not using something doesn't constitute misusing it. By definition, that's incorrect.
Yes that is clear. Again, to anyone without partisan blinders on, the reasoning right now is because we are still treading water with a very fragile economy so cutting spending will delay recovery even longer, but raising taxes on the highest earners will not. This will have the effect of lowering the deficit without damaging the economy. Next step is for someone with partisan blinders on to characterize this as "stealing from the rich."Sounds nice in theory...but the reality is that Democrats want to significantly raise taxes and not cut net spending. This is clear to anyone approaching the issue without partisan blinders on.
I think $1T in new taxes is going to hurt our economy any way you try to slice it...despite any "good intentions" of only "stealing from the rich" as if the middle class will be somehow unaffected. And I personally don't trust Democrats to make meaningful spending cuts unless it's essentially limited to military spending only....their track record speaks for itself.Yes that is clear. Again, to anyone without partisan blinders on, the reasoning right now is because we are still treading water with a very fragile economy so cutting spending will delay recovery even longer, but raising taxes on the highest earners will not. This will have the effect of lowering the deficit without damaging the economy. Next step is for someone with partisan blinders on to characterize this as "stealing from the rich."
Grats on the irrelevant semantics win. It isn't misuse, it's just illogical/insane or more accurately, dishonest. So change "misuse" to "dishonest" in my post and my point still stands.
I didn't miss your point. It was that since it's possible to cherry-pick statistics to support anything then it follows that all statistics are useless and/or false. It doesn't follow, so it seems that you are actually the one missing points here.Congrats on missing the point. Well done, yet again. Winner!
Does anybody realize the federal debt is up by almost $5 Trillion since 2009?
Fern
Not aware of anyone proposing $1T in new taxes, but if the Dems were allowed to raise rates on the rich back in 2010 or 2011 our current debt wouldn't be quite so high now, would it? This is why libs are so frustrated with conservatives. Conservatives create giant recessions with their policies, lose elections over it and then still find every way possible to block policies that will aid recovery. Then they complain that the recession is our fault when it started before we had power, complain that we aren't fixing it fast enough when they are blocking everything we try to do to fix it, and complain that our policies will make things worse instead of better when all expert analysis points to the opposite. Then any attempt to point any of this out is dismissed with a hand wave. But Bush!I think $1T in new taxes is going to hurt our economy any way you try to slice it...despite any "good intentions" of only "stealing from the rich" as if the middle class will be somehow unaffected. And I personally don't trust Democrats to make meaningful spending cuts unless it's essentially limited to military spending only....their track record speaks for itself.
Yea, I know they don't give a flying fuck about America, they WANT it to go down in flames. Hey as long as the lunatics in their district vote for them, everything is kosher.
then it follows that all statistics are useless and/or false.