The National Debt and should/how to pay it down?

[USA_1]

Reagan doubled the GDP, created over 20 million jobs, doubled govt. revenue, and restored the American spirit after the Carter malaise.

You weren't old enough to know what went on during the Reagan years therefore have zero credibility.

Reagan increased the debt by 1.7 trillion dollars in 8 years. Obama will do that in less than 2 years and is doing nothing to grow the private sector. Debt when Reagan took office was 900 billion and when he left it was 2.6 trillion. Wouldn't you love to have that debt today instead of 12.3 trillion?

Get the facts before spouting rhetoric. Go to BEA.gov, BLS.gov and get the facts.

I am older than you are, sonny. I lived through it. I worked in the housing industry during the Reagan Years and made a ton of money. The boom was short lived but the debt went on. You do remember the Savings and loan crisis don't you? And the Iran Contra affair?

You do know that Reagan dollars are different than todays dollars, don't you?

 

[cpwill]

Every conflict has multi national forces. The US still controls the US military and the top commander is and always will be the president, no matter what the mission. UN or not.

yup; but the UN can establish and push down general Rules of Engagement that US forces operating under their overall command are forced to follow.

which means, for the Marines in Beiruit, that "in order not to offend the local populace" the helpless guards that watched that vehicle crash the gate and drive into the barracks had weapons.... but no ammunition.

 

[cpwill]

Yep, the planning for 9/11 began after Somalia and in fact Clinton was warned in 1998 in a PDB that terrorists were planning an attack on this country.

:lol: hey, to be fair, he did send a missile into Sudan after OBL had already moved on.

 

[USA_1]

yup; but the UN can establish and push down general Rules of Engagement that US forces operating under their overall command are forced to follow.

which means, for the Marines in Beiruit, that "in order not to offend the local populace" the helpless guards that watched that vehicle crash the gate and drive into the barracks had weapons.... but no ammunition.

The US forces are not forced to do anything. I thought you were in the military.

 

[cpwill]

Yes, we are dependent on both. Yes, we trade for both.

But one is finite.

both are finite.

No they aren't.

yes they are, which is why they are willing to wreck a goodly portion of of our economy in order to "develop" these "alternative" energies whether or not people want them. it's almost a religion with some of these people.

 

[USA_1]

To claim that Reagan cut and ran is simply a lie
.

Nope. It is exactly what he did. Just like Clinton did in Somalia. You can try to re-write history but the facts speak for themselves.

 

[cpwill]

The US forces are not forced to do anything. I thought you were in the military.

i am in the military; and when operating as part of a coalitional command or under UN command, we follow their rules. when the UN is in command of a military mission, it sets Rules of Engagement.

 

[USA_1]

i am in the military; and when operating as part of a joint command or under UN command, we follow their rules. when the UN is in command of a military mission, it sets Rules of Engagement.

The US does not have to follow rules of engagement. The US can agree to follow them but the US takes orders from no one, not even the UN and the US commanders have the ultimate say in regards to their men.
What kind of President would agree to the moronic rules of engagement in Lebanon and put Marines in such a dangerous position? Reagans stupidity contributed to the Marine barracks bombing.
The UN did not put those Marines in Lebanon. Reagan did.

 

[cpwill]

The US does not have to follow rules of engagement. The US can agree to follow them but the US takes orders from no one and the US commanders have the ultimate say in regards to their men.

bluntly, that's incorrect. overarching ROE's are established at the national command level; and when operating as part of a coalition structure, come from the umbrella command. US commanders are given them and ordered to enforce them.

What kind of President would agree to the moronic rules of engagement in Lebanon and put Marines in such a dangerous position?

you would withdraw US forces from a humanitarian mission over a squabble over ROE's?

Reagans stupidity contributed to the Marine barracks bombing.

lack of foresight, certainly. just as Clinton's stupidity gave us the Al-Qaeda of today.

 

[USA_1]

you would withdraw US forces from a humanitarian mission over a squabble over ROE's?

.

To save 240 Marines lives. Damm right.

 

[Conservative]

I am older than you are, sonny. I lived through it. I worked in the housing industry during the Reagan Years and made a ton of money. The boom was short lived but the debt went on. You do remember the Savings and loan crisis don't you? And the Iran Contra affair?

You do know that Reagan dollars are different than todays dollars, don't you?

If you are older than me then show it. I learned personal responsibility growing up and how to take care of my family. Getting to keep more of my money helped me pay off personal debt and become less dependent on the govt.

I worked in the 70's, 80's, 90's, and 2000's and the 80's were the best years of my life and my families.

You made a lot of money, I made a lot of money, none of that money we made caused the debt since govt. revenue grew. Why is that so hard to understand?

 

[USA_1]

bluntly, that's incorrect. overarching ROE's are established at the national command level; and when operating as part of a coalition structure, come from the umbrella command. US commanders are given them and ordered to enforce them.
y.

The President and US commanders can overrule any order from any outside source. You should know that.

 

[USA_1]

If you are older than me then show it. I learned personal responsibility growing up and how to take care of my family. Getting to keep more of my money helped me pay off personal debt and become less dependent on the govt.

I worked in the 70's, 80's, 90's, and 2000's and the 80's were the best years of my life and my families.

You made a lot of money, I made a lot of money, none of that money we made caused the debt since govt. revenue grew. Why is that so hard to understand?

Actually the economic boom of the Reagan years was fueled by government spending, so yes the money we made did contribute to the debt.
Reagan lowered taxes for the rich which also contributed to the debt.

The glory days of Reagan were extremely short lived. He was one of the most fiscally irresponsible presidents we have ever had. The recession that followed his presidency proved how short term Reaganomics were. And we were still stuck with the debt. Unlike Reagan I believe in balanced budgets. And I have never depended on the government for anything.

 

[Conservative]

USA-1;1058574470]Actually the economic boom of the Reagan years was fueled by government spending, so yes the money we made did contribute to the debt.
Reagan lowered taxes for the rich which also contributed to the debt.

Do you realize how foolish you sound? Tax cuts were given to all taxpayers, not just the rich and tax revenue double to the govt. How did that create debt?

As for spending, that spending led to the peace dividend that Clinton got. Reagan won the Cold War allowing Clinton to spend less money on defense. Problem is Clinton cut defense too much.

The glory days of Reagan were extremely short lived. He was one of the most fiscally irresponsible presidents we have ever had. The recession that followed his presidency proved how short term Reaganomics were. And we were still stuck with the debt. Unlike Reagan I believe in balanced budgets. And I have never depended on the government for anything.

The American people as well as historians disagree with you. The recession under Bush had nothing to do with Reaganomics. You really need to read history instead of trying to re-write it.

 

[USA_1]

Do you realize how foolish you sound? Tax cuts were given to all taxpayers, not just the rich and tax revenue double to the govt. How did that create debt?
t.

Reagan raised SS taxes so my taxes actually went up under Reagan. Revenue went up because government spending went up and the debt exploded.

"The only problem with this analysis is that it is historically inaccurate. Reagan may have resisted calls for tax increases, but he ultimately supported them. In 1982 alone, he signed into law not one but two major tax increases. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year and the Highway Revenue Act raised the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion.

According to a recent Treasury Department study, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. An increase of similar magnitude today would raise more than $100 billion per year.

In 1983, Reagan signed legislation raising the Social Security tax rate. This is a tax increase that lives with us still, since it initiated automatic increases in the taxable wage base. As a consequence, those with moderately high earnings see their payroll taxes rise every single year.

In 1984, Reagan signed another big tax increase in the Deficit Reduction Act. This raised taxes by $18 billion per year or 0.4 percent of GDP. A similar-sized tax increase today would be about $44 billion.

The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 raised taxes yet again. Even the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue-neutral, contained a net tax increase in its first 2 years. And the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 raised taxes still more.

The year 1988 appears to be the only year of the Reagan presidency, other than the first, in which taxes were not raised legislatively. Of course, previous tax increases remained in effect. According to a table in the 1990 budget, the net effect of all these tax increases was to raise taxes by $164 billion in 1992, or 2.6 percent of GDP. This is equivalent to almost $300 billion in today's economy."

 

[cpwill]

To save 240 Marines lives. Damm right.

if that was the choice presented absolutely. but i don't think we can really judge decisions with rear-view vision; the notion that we would lose a company and a half of Marines probably wasn't considered any more than we make Africom decisions based on the possibility of al-Shabaab becoming a nuclear power.

 

[USA_1]

if that was the choice presented absolutely. but i don't think we can really judge decisions with rear-view vision; the notion that we would lose a company and a half of Marines probably wasn't considered any more than we make Africom decisions based on the possibility of al-Shabaab becoming a nuclear power.

It didn't take a genius to figure out you don't put a barracks full of unarmed marines in a war zone without adequate security. It was pure stupidity.
Reagans handling of that entire situation was an embarrassment for the United States and it made us look like weak and vulnerable resulting in future terror attacks. It was just as bad as Clinton in Somalia.

 

[Conservative]

USA-1;1058574483]Reagan raised SS taxes so my taxes actually went up under Reagan. Revenue went up because government spending went up and the debt exploded.

The only problem with this analysis is that it is historically inaccurate. Reagan may have resisted calls for tax increases, but he ultimately supported them. In 1982 alone, he signed into law not one but two major tax increases. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year and the Highway Revenue Act raised the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion.

According to a recent Treasury Department study, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. An increase of similar magnitude today would raise more than $100 billion per year.

In 1983, Reagan signed legislation raising the Social Security tax rate. This is a tax increase that lives with us still, since it initiated automatic increases in the taxable wage base. As a consequence, those with moderately high earnings see their payroll taxes rise every single year.

In 1984, Reagan signed another big tax increase in the Deficit Reduction Act. This raised taxes by $18 billion per year or 0.4 percent of GDP. A similar-sized tax increase today would be about $44 billion.

The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 raised taxes yet again. Even the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue-neutral, contained a net tax increase in its first 2 years. And the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 raised taxes still more.

The year 1988 appears to be the only year of the Reagan presidency, other than the first, in which taxes were not raised legislatively. Of course, previous tax increases remained in effect. According to a table in the 1990 budget, the net effect of all these tax increases was to raise taxes by $164 billion in 1992, or 2.6 percent of GDP. This is equivalent to almost $300 billion in today's economy."

Good, Lord, man, SS taxes went up and the money comes back to you when you retire. So such luck with Income taxes

Do you understand where your payroll taxes go? How about the gasoline taxes? Don't drive, don't pay the taxes.

Govt. revenue increased and Congress spent the money. Reagan set a record for vetoes and still didn't stop it. Why are you concerned about a 2.6 trillion debt when we have a 12.3 trillion debt today?

Sorry that you weren't able to benefit from the Reagan economy. Fortunately you were in a very small minority.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

If you are older than me then show it. I learned personal responsibility growing up and how to take care of my family. Getting to keep more of my money helped me pay off personal debt and become less dependent on the govt.

I worked in the 70's, 80's, 90's, and 2000's and the 80's were the best years of my life and my families.

You made a lot of money, I made a lot of money, none of that money we made caused the debt since govt. revenue grew. Why is that so hard to understand?

What is hard to understand is that you fail to either see or accept the fact that the US government debt INCREASED under Reagan, in dollar terms and as a % of GDP. He increased debt that your childern will have to pay. Is that personal responsibility leaving debt for your childern?

My idea of personal responsibility is paying for things I use, not leaving those debts for others to pay. Not something Reagan accepted. Bush sr did

 

[Conservative]

Lord Tammerlain;1058574497]What is hard to understand is that you fail to either see or accept the fact that the US government debt INCREASED under Reagan, in dollar terms and as a % of GDP. He increased debt that your childern will have to pay. Is that personal responsibility leaving debt for your childern?

What you fail to understand is that Reaganomics had nothing to do with the debt created. I am still waiting for you intellectually superior people to explain how doubling govt. revenue to the treasury was the cause of the debt you want to blame on Reagan?

the American people benefited from Reaganomics.

My idea of personal responsibility is paying for things I use, not leaving those debts for others to pay. Not something Reagan accepted. Bush sr did

My idea as well but we have Congressional Representatives more interested in spending to buy votes than do their job and be fiscally responsible. You really must love Obama then.

 

[USA_1]

I am concerned about the debt today, just I as I was back then, but to pretend Reagan was the president of fiscal responsibility is ridiculous. What I acknowledge and you deny is that the republicans are no better than the democrats when it comes to fiscal responsibility. We need a change from both parties.

 

[Conservative]

I am concerned about the debt today, just I as I was back then, but to pretend Reagan was the president of fiscal responsibility is ridiculous. What I acknowledge and you deny is that the republicans are no better than the democrats when it comes to fiscal responsibility. We need a change from both parties.

Reagan did the right thing, he allowed the American people to keep more of what they earned. That is empowering people and the people responded and sent the economy booming. 20 million jobs were created and that is what generated more govt. revenue.

One thing I have learned over my lifetime is that the govt. is going to waste money, and if that is the case then I prefer getting to keep more of mine and making myself less dependent on the govt.

I helped my kids and now am helping my grandkids prepare for the future. I don't need all that so called govt. help and that is due to proper use of the Reagan and Bush tax cuts.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

What you fail to understand is that Reaganomics had nothing to do with the debt created. I am still waiting for you intellectually superior people to explain how doubling govt. revenue to the treasury was the cause of the debt you want to blame on Reagan?

the American people benefited from Reaganomics.



My idea as well but we have Congressional Representatives more interested in spending to buy votes than do their job and be fiscally responsible. You really must love Obama then.

He also increase spending with money the government did not have.

He should have either cut spending or increased taxes (or a combination of the two)

But instead he ran DEFICITS, which are stimulative to the economy.

The American people got further in debt because of Reagan

As for Obama, no I dont love Obama, he was a better foreign policy choice then McCain. Neither would have been my choice

 

[Conservative]

Lord Tammerlain;1058574516]He also increase spending with money the government did not have.

His policies doubled govt. revenue. Now prove that Reagan spent the money

He should have either cut spending or increased taxes (or a combination of the two)

I suggest you do some better research on the Reagan economy and where that money was spent.

But instead he ran DEFICITS, which are stimulative to the economy.

The tax cuts stimulated the economy a lot more than the govt. spending. Obama needs to take the cue from Reagan. It is the private sector, not the public sector that keeps our economy running.

The American people got further in debt because of Reagan

Now that is funny, the American people keeping more of their money spent it and that is the fault of Reagan? Does the term personal responsibility mean anything to you?

As for Obama, no I dont love Obama, he was a better foreign policy choice then McCain. Neither would have been my choice

Neither was my choice but I voted for McCain and would again. I knew who Obama was and we are getting that emty suit his resume said he was.

 

[cpwill]

LT: are you suggesting that we grade Presidents' economic success solely on their effect on the national debt?