surftide said:and who does the US owe this large debt to?
Bush isn't responsibile for our national debt, but he certainly hasn't helped the matter.
The Real McCoy said:Bush isn't responsibile for our national debt, but he certainly hasn't helped the matter. It's been a growing problem for quite some time now and besides, congress is the governmental body that passes the budget. The unnecessary pork slipped in there by your representatives in congress doesn't help either.
oldreliable67 said:Well, yes and no. The President is expected to provide leadership and initiative in fiscal matters. Bush has clearly not done so. Yes, the budget deficit has been considerably afffected by the GWOT and hurricane relief. But that isn't the whole story, by a long shot. In fact, his lack of leadership on spending prompted Peggy Noonan, a staunch Repub and former Reagan speechwriter to pen the comment that, "When asked about pork, Bush asked, Got any Bar B Sauce?" (Published in her column in the WSJ a month or so back, will try and furnish a link.)
So far, not a single veto or even a serious threat of such on any spending. Even the notorious highway bill, notorious because of things like the $250 million 'bridge to nowhere' in Alaska (killed in the last day or two, thank goodness) and a $2 million bike path in Newark, NJ, just to name a couple, didn't get any serious opposition out of the WH.
And these guys are Republicans? They are acting more like Democrats of old.
Yes, we have a high deficit, but that won't last.
Lantzolot said:Yes, we have a high deficit, but that won't last. Let us try to be optimistic.
Australianlibertarian said:If the war in Iraq is only worth 10% of the U.S.A's government debt, what is the rest of this borrowing being used for? I mean how much does it really cost to run American Government institutions and programs? Either treasury figures have underestimated the cost of Iraq, or U.S politicians are spending like drunken sailors. Or maybe it's a combination of the two?
Looking at these figures is bloody scary. It may seem like an American problem, but these huge levels of debt, are just as much as a problem for someone in China, or an Aussie like me.
Out of interest, if U.S government debt keeps increasing, at what level do you think (open to anyone this question) that things could start getting nasty in the global economy? Or are the other economies of the world more insulated from U.S budget defecits?
TimmyBoy said:I think the primary task of any newly elected president from here on out would be to completely and totally pay off the national debt. I would be willing to accept higher tax rates if I knew their was a solid plan for paying off the national debt and that tax money was used to accomplish such a feat.
TimmyBoy said:If you balance the budget and pay off the national debt, after the national debt is paid off and the nation is kept out of debt, their wouldn't be a need for this current taxation as it stands right now. More taxation would be needed to pay off the debt however than the current taxation, but I wouldn't have a problem with increased taxation so long as I knew the debt was being paid off. Not only that, but with a debtless nation, you would have much better chances of unparrelled economic prosperity and a healthy economy. If we don't pay off the debt, we leave a future american generation to have to deal with the day of reckoning and this is a bad legacy in my view.