To be fair please answer the following simple question: What was the Bush increase in the defict/national debt about, if not simply to "tax, borrow and spend and give free stuff"? The outrage is not so easy to believe when the basic policy was not changed, only the "magnitude" of the gap (deficit). Hmm...
And where were the "debt concerned" GOP members during the Bush era of tac cuts, borrow, spend and give free stuff?
The simple fact is Obama is continuing a method that got Bush elected twice. No, I'm not just blaming Bush. Let's get real though, how can anyone who voted for Bush twice be complaining about Obama's spending without being a hypocrite?
Congress controls, or fails to control, spending.
Not the president.
Whether the president has an R or a D after his name means little.
I never mentioned Clinton either and yet here we are. So what are you trying to say, that Clinton was responsible for Bush debt? Do you think Obama's debt would be as high now if he had inherited Clinton's debt and budget surplus instead of Bush's debt and policies? Because I sure don't. In fact, I don't think we would have even had a 9/11 if Gore had been elected. <sigh> if wishes were fishes....I never mentioned NAFTA or anything else. What I said was that he left Bush with an almost $6 trillion dollar debt. Do you understand that part before you move on elsewhere?
Sorry but that is to put it mildly, naive to think that cutting taxes without reducing spending won't reduce revenue. The notion that the money was put to good use is baloney since all we have to show for it is a recession, two failed wars and a shrinking middle class.Do people really see the Bush Tax Cuts as a addition to the debt? I would think even the simplest logic would conclude that yes, while that money did not come into the government; it was used for goods, services and investments. Those add to the economy which creates money to be taxed which brings in more money. Or would that statement open a can of worms?
Interesting, whey is Obama even talking to the leader of the house?
And where were the "debt concerned" GOP members during the Bush era of tac cuts, borrow, spend and give free stuff?
The simple fact is Obama is continuing a method that got Bush elected twice. No, I'm not just blaming Bush. Let's get real though, how can anyone who voted for Bush twice be complaining about Obama's spending without being a hypocrite?
I never mentioned Clinton either and yet here we are. So what are you trying to say, that Clinton was responsible for Bush debt? Do you think Obama's debt would be as high now if he had inherited Clinton's debt and budget surplus instead of Bush's debt and policies? Because I sure don't. In fact, I don't think we would have even had a 9/11 if Gore had been elected. <sigh> if wishes were fishes....
Sorry but that is to put it mildly, naive to think that cutting taxes without reducing spending won't reduce revenue. The notion that the money was put to good use is baloney since all we have to show for it is a recession, two failed wars and a shrinking middle class.
If only that were true - because then nothing would get done.It's like being a passenger in a 747 headed for the ground, and watching the pilot on the left blame the pilot on the right, and vice versa, while neither one does anything to pull the nose back up.
The bottom line is the federal government is dysfunctional.
If only that were true - because then nothing would get done.
Unfortunately, the government always finds the ability to spend.
Now that I've cleaned the pepsi off my monitor, I have to ask:In fact, I don't think we would have even had a 9/11 if Gore had been elected.
This is mostly because federal spending buys votes.to spend, but never to control spending or balance it with income.
Becasue Obama will never see a bill if He doesn't.Interesting, whey is Obama even talking to the leader of the house?
I never mentioned Clinton either and yet here we are. So what are you trying to say, that Clinton was responsible for Bush debt? Do you think Obama's debt would be as high now if he had inherited Clinton's debt and budget surplus instead of Bush's debt and policies? Because I sure don't. In fact, I don't think we would have even had a 9/11 if Gore had been elected. <sigh> if wishes were fishes....
A penny saved is a penny earned. If you're not spending revenue then it stands to reason there is going to be more revenue saved.Reducing spending does not reduce revenue. Revenue is a result of the government taxing, and has nothing to do with spending. If you want to talk about improving our debt situation, then yes, increasing revenue while reducing spending would be the fastest solution.
They are related. The revenue to pay for almost everything government does comes from taxes. So if you decrease revenue (incoming) and increase spending (outgoing) then you're eventually going to broke. It's just that simple.The fact that you pile wars and the recession onto the tax cuts is amazing, they aren't related. What is related is that with the increase in money, middle class and lower class had more disposable income. The more disposable income they have, the more they spend on the direct economy.
This is mostly because federal spending buys votes.
A penny saved is a penny earned. If you're not spending revenue then it stands to reason there is going to be more revenue saved.
They are related. The revenue to pay for almost everything government does comes from taxes. So if you decrease revenue (incoming) and increase spending (outgoing) then you're eventually going to broke. It's just that simple.
Well, that's true as well - but it all boils down to votes.I'm not so sure. I think the voters are getting a little bit nervous about that 16 teradollar and growing debt. The problem is, no one wants their favorite government program ended, nor do they want their taxes raised. They want someone else's program ended, and someone else's taxes raised.
Well, that's true as well - but it all boils down to votes.
If you campaign to cut off subsidies, those who get those subsidies will likely not vote for you.
54% = almost everything?The revenue to pay for almost everything government does comes from taxes.
Winter is coming.Right. And since many of the recipients of subsidies are also deep pockets that finance campaigns, it is even less likely that subsidies will be ended any time soon.
I'm not so sure. I think the voters are getting a little bit nervous about that 16 teradollar and growing debt. The problem is, no one wants their favorite government program ended, nor do they want their taxes raised. They want someone else's program ended, and someone else's taxes raised.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?