U.S. NATIONAL DEBT

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Haven't read the budget, eh? Don't worry - most people haven't. Seriously, dude, you're a bright guy and articulate your points really well when we banter on here. Take a look at table S-11 here for a glimpse at how mandatory spending is the main cost driver for budget deficits. DoD itself accounted for 19.1% of outlays in '05 and per the '07 budget should account for 18.8% of outlays for '06 (recall the PB is submitted to Congress right after the SOTU in Feb).

In contrast, mandatory spending for '05 was 60.8% of the budget in '05 and 61.9% in '06. Again, recall the '06 #'s in the '07 budget will be estimates.

Breakdown the programs however you like over the past several years and in future years, and you'll find that it is the SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Debt Interest, and other mandatory spending that are the major expenditures for the federal government, i.e. the main cost drivers. If you want to cut spending, that is where you really have to do it.

Also, take a look at the CBO projections for how Medicaid and Medicare alone will increase over the next few years as the Baby Boomers start to retire. It's pretty obvious that even were discretionary spending to remain constant - it will go up between 2 and 7 percent per year, the grown in mandatory spending will MANDATE an increase in the debt ceiling, i.e. be the cost driver for the national debt.

Hope that's what you were looking for. We might disagree about how to address the problem, but I believe you'll agree with me that the real problem to be addressed is the structure of the programs the mandatory spending category encompasses.

Explain how during Clinton when we had more social progs, we leveled off the debt and had an annual budget surplus for the first time in 40 years. But during Reagan, Bush, Bush we elimiinated social progs and went downhill, or actually uphill in the debt dept.

Explain that? Your theory that Dems handout, hence hurt the gov and the budget has been debunked and you just keep avoiding.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Read the budget, do some math, read up on your history, lose a bit of your hatred, and I'll discuss this with you.

I gave Justin some good data. Check it out, come to terms with reality, and let me know when you're ready.

Quote

Read the budget,

Read the debt numbers I posted and then write.

Quote

do some math

I did, with fewer social programs BushII has doubled Clinton's national debt increase in just 5 years.... will probably double the entire debt in his 8 years - unprecedented.

Quote

read up on your history

What history? This thread is about the National Debt and I have established that history has been poor for the Repubs and descent for the Dems.

Quote

lose a bit of your hatred

I know you're going to duck-n-run from the rest of this post, but please answer this: what hatred? What have I written that expresses hatred?

Quote

and I'll discuss this with you.

Answer my questions.

Quote

I gave Justin some good data. Check it out, come to terms with reality, and let me know when you're ready.

Reality, as in factual data from government offices or info that is extracted and acurate from gov offices? I did post that and you fail to answer; who's in reality?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Hope that's what you were looking for.

Sort of, but not quite.

Are you asserting that if the money wasn't spend on your war in Iraq, the National Debt would be in the same shape?

Or do you think the current Administration should just cancel any and all social services to fund the war?

Quote

Breakdown the programs however you like over the past several years and in future years, and you'll find that it is the SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Debt Interest, and other mandatory spending that are the major expenditures for the federal government, i.e. the main cost drivers. If you want to cut spending, that is where you really have to do it.

on a long term basis...yes. Or increase receipts to keep funding the "mandatory" outlays.

In the mean time, your president has gone way overboard on the discretionary spending, causing a giant increase in National Debt. I agree that in the long run mandatory spending has to be looked at, but to suggest that mandatory spending is the main reason for the giant increase in National Debt is a bit of a joke.

BTW, the war only accounts for 10-15% of the debt increase.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Oh, without 9/11 and the Iraq War the budget would have a completely different character/flavor. The mere addition of DHS added new dimensions to it.

GWB and this Congress have definitely increased discretionary spending - no doubt about it. Not one spending bill has been vetoed and there's pork everywhere. However, the programs that created the mandatory spending were made decades ago and have only been modified since - not reformed in a major way.

Look at the % of GNP you'd have to tax to keep up with the projected outlays - even holding discretionary spending constant. Can't be done realistically.

Quote

Oh, without 9/11 and the Iraq War the budget would have a completely different character/flavor.

UH, not really. Shit is still shit, even with vanilla frosting on it.

Quote

GWB and this Congress have definitely increased discretionary spending - no doubt about it.

YA THINK!!!!?????? Let me see, did he spend it on social programs? Noooooooooooooooo, but Clintion did and he actually turned around the debt, so where is your argument that social progs kill the budget? Kinda outta gas....

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

I agree....so what has your current president done to start balancing the ship?

I think he's been stinking up the place in terms of fiscal responsibility. I've already said it many times. refer to the veto spending bill comments, refer to the mandatory budget problem. He's done little to nothing on both. The partial privatization of SS was a good idea, but doomed from the start. So the best I can say is he made one honest gesture and gave up too fast and nothing since.

And your parenthetical statement is real insult. If you ever read my posts you'd know it's not needed.

Quote

The partial privatization of SS was a good idea, but doomed from the start. So the best I can say is he made one honest gesture and gave up too fast and nothing since.

Exactly, the airlines and Enron have shown that we should throw our retirements inthe hands of corps.... nice

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Dem's can't veto anything right now - the veto power rests with the Executive branch. The fact that not one of the pork laden spending bills have been vetoed is a disgrace.

The President did propose that several programs shown to be ineffective or having no measurable effect within the Department of Education be eliminated. The cries from the leftists and their sycophant NEA were horrendous.

Quote

having no measurable effect

Yea.... then ok'd school vouchers to give money to Jesus charities... nice....

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

It's clear you haven't read the budget and are not familiar with it.

Read the budget and try again.

Is this the equilivent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going LALALALALALALAL until reality goes away?

Thank you! This is what he did when I posted my graphs of presidents and their national debt.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Which means the demise isn't to be blamed on the politicians but on the system

Still the best system around.

And I do blame the elected people and in a way the idiots that elect them. I feel that no one should be allowed to be in the Senate or the House for any long period of time. I do not see how a guy that has been in Washington so long is a representative of anything but the system.

But like I said it is still the best system around. Not perfect, but still very good.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Die hard Bush fan? Hmmm...I wouldn't say that - I'm quite perturbed at several things he's done ranging from the structure of his second tax cut to the lack of a single vetoed spending bill to the steel tariff imbroglio to the moronic anti-gay marriage ammendment proposal. I'd rather characterize myself as someone who doesn't like to see him impugned baselessly. I do support many of his positions, however, so perhaps I could be correctly characterized as a Bush supporter.

Anyhoo, I'd have to think about when in history and get back to you, because off the top of my head I'm not sure. Perhaps Lincoln's successor. He had the opportunity to welcome the southern states back in and commence a cooperative rebuilding effort, but instead took a far more contentious and punitive approach towards the southern states, with horrid consequences for all.

Ask any conservative or libertarian leaning fellow or lady, and I'm fairly confident any of them would state that this Republican congress has been an absolutely abyssmal disappointment.

I'll get back to you on the history thing, as I'm not in history-mode right now.

Quote

Ask any conservative or libertarian leaning fellow or lady, and I'm fairly confident any of them would state that this Republican congress has been an absolutely abyssmal disappointment.

Let me guess how you're going to vote this election???? Hmm, could it be Repub? The real problem isn't the politicians but the American voters who won't come off their antiquated love of a party trhat was once dignified.

[Hawkins121 0]

We will never be able to pay back the national debt. But so fucking what? Get over it.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

You do realize the incredible denial of any hard core leftie that that above people don't exist. If you refrain from total bandwagon support of 'baseless impugning' you are automatically on the "Die Hard Bush Fan" list.

with his approval rating down to 32%, that pretty much makes supporters part of the die hard fan club.

Which is his base even if we get nuked by the rest of the world or our economy tanks the rest of teh way, or possibly a worldwide embargo.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Rich people who buy treasury notes and other countries who wish to invest in the US. Over 20% is owed to Asian countries, the biggest slice of which goes to China who continues to fund our trade deficit. That's the ironic thing, the party who has the big woodie for fighting communism is systematically selling our country to China.

Quote

Just who do we owe this debt to?

And I thought it was Clinton who sold out to China....

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Ok, here's something to chew on. We are currently PAYING the interest on the debt even though we haven't touched the principal for about five years. So this is basically an interest only loan and we're currently forking out about two BILLION dollars PER DAY in interest. Where do you think your income tax goes? As for the previous post, check the value of the dollar over the last few years, and also consider what's going to happen when the dollar gets so unattractive that not only does China quit financing our debt but OPEC decides to peg oil against the Euro instead of the dollar. The people who are currently running our government think about one thing, what they can get for themselves NOW, future be damned.

Quote

Quote

It seems to me, that the USA could be building up this massive debt to help fund it's wars (wow that took a huge mind stretch).... but (here comes the biggie).... They dont care because they [may] not have any intensions for ever repaying that debt... they may just say Fuck Off... if you want it come and get it......we've just saved your collective arses (not that they have, but in their minds that doesn't matter).


.

Most countries carry a debt and when not paid, reflects in lower value of currency.

I've thought about them both. We are hosed and we will be a very unattractive country in 10 years, maybe less. China is the new US and they're even attracting new tourists.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

We will never be able to pay back the national debt. But so fucking what? Get over it.

well...how can one possible respond to such brilliance?

----
the paper surplus estimated at the end of the 90s totalled several trillion. Personally I think it relied on trends continuing too long, but it represented half the debt in less than a decade. If we had to pay back the debt, it would have been very possible to make a substantial dent.

Some debt is fine, it's the rapid growth relative to GDP that is not. If you want to cut taxes, which seemed appropriate in 2001 with a surplus, you don't create the homeland security pork department and fight as many wars as possible.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I thought more about it, and I'm sticking with Lincoln's successor, Andrew Johnson. Horrid set of choices he made that really set back the reintegration of the Southern states by decades. Possibly Lyndon Johnson, but I don't think history wlll be as harsh on him as on Andrew Johnson. Anybody know if they were related in any way?

Of course the first pres to be impeached for usurpation of power, amongst other things, but I think Hoover and now Bush are the frontrunners for trainwreck POTUS.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

We will never be able to pay back the national debt. But so fucking what? Get over it.

Awwww, don't get hateful..... I'm sorry your party hosed the country, but I will be paying for it too by way of a devalued dollar.

BTW, the debt has actually gone down in a presidency and turned horizontal druing CLinton. It is possible.

[Lucky... 0]

OK, I'm gonna post the graph again for all those who think the Repubs are good for the economy and the debt.

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

[narcimund 0]

Quote

We will never be able to pay back the national debt. But so fucking what? Get over it.

This complete ignorance of the forces of economics is probably so widespread as to explain just about everything.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

How so? What programs do the Dems have that the Repubs do not? What are the differences in the social system that give a free ride?

If you want to get into basics; Dems like welfare to people, Repubs like welfare to companies.

Companies make money and hire people. Welfare does not and will not make a Country stronger. While both groups have the same programs, the focus is what is important.

Quote

The Dems tax and collect a gov surplus, which goes to reduce the debt and create an annual surplus. Repubs reduce taxes and overspend to limit governmental powers so they can run it via corporations. Look at the graph I included earlier, can you see that I have supported my assertions? If not, explain why.

Your chart does not answer any questions as to why, or how it would have been different with anyone else in charge.

Your "overspending" includes 2 wars.

Quote

Bill explains it well, but many things aren’t tied to the constitution. One could invoke the 14th and argue equal protection, since corps are so big and out of control.

And did you not read how the Government is elected by the people and the majority get what they want? And if that is to "crush" Unions then they get that. It is how a Democracy works.

Quote

Unions hurt companies and help people. You really can’t do one without the other. In this climate I think we can agree that employees without union representation are FAR less likely to have health insurance and other benefits. I just care about people more than corps.

And when those compaines have to go bankrupt? Who wins then?

And you can have happy employees and a strong company. Look at Southwest Airlines and compare them to GM.

I am for people to have jobs to buy things from work. Not from Welfare.

Quote

Democrats are pro-union, pro-healthcare, and pro working people in general. Republicans are for all corporate rights and not for working people, I think the Overtime Law, the Bankruptcy Law, the Ergonomics Bill and so many others are evidence of that.

Pro-Union as you have stated is anti-company. If the company is dead, there is no reason to have a Union.

I think that Repubs are for working people. They just choose to make it so they have the opportunity to have jobs, not just hand them things. The US was founded with Capitalism as a corner stone. While you cannot ignore the people who need help, how do you pay for it if everyone is on welfare?

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

So if the people elect David Duke, then we can abolish the 13th????? Please, I can’t take it anymore……

Hate to break it to you, while I would not agree with your example, that IS how a Democracy works.

Quote

OK, explain how the poor are benefited by the Repub Party.

I already have. If you choose to ignore them, that is not my fault.

Quote

How is it that the Dems give money back? Look at the last 25 years and make that argument. Impossible

Simple, a rich guy realizes he has enough and decides to help others. Not a hard concept to grasp

Quote

You tend to be Republican because you don’t look at facts.

What can't you play nice? I am not attcaking you saying you are a Dem since you don't want to work for a living. You would rather have others work and you can just pop out kids and smoke dope.

See how stupid both sound? Care to play nice, or act stupid?

[TheAnvil 0]

Ahhhh...you've FINALLY posted a graph of some data. How nice. 'tis quite unfortunate you don't know how to interpret it.

If you'll take a look at the slope of your line during the Great Reagan's tenure and compare it with the slope of the best linear fit of the line during the reign of El Jefe Cliintonista, you'll find they're about equal. Now, to the credit of the Republican Congress - the legislative branch of government, as I'm sure you know, per Article 1 Section 9 Clause 7 of the Constitution, is the only branch that may authorize expenditure of funds from the Treasury (sans veto of the Executive branch, obviously) - and El Jefe Clintonista himself, the slope did level out towards the end of his tenure.

The reasons for the similar rates of increase in spending between the two are quite different. However, the rates of increase are roughly the same, while you revile one president and seem to idolize the other. Quite interesting.

Those of us who understand the debt and from whence it came, realize that the Presidents and the Congress for any given year have far less to do with the debt for that particular year than their predecessors, because the entitlement programs that are the cost drivers for that year were enacted into law far prior to the commencement of that year. Other factors come into play as well - increased discretionary spending due to wars, hurricanes, or what have you, new entitlement programs, excessive pork, and the like will all contribute to the overall deficit.

You state that the graph has something to do with the economy - odd that it doesn't seem to actually do that. Please regale us with a creative tale of that interpretation. While you're at it, please do read the budget and try and understand the data therein.

While you're in reading mode, you might want to read up on some of the things you're pontificating about in many of your posts. The infamous arsenic imbroglio during the nascent stages of GWB's tenure in office, for example. If you'd read up on it a bit perhaps you'll come to realize why those of us who actually know the facts about the arsenic shenanigans laugh so hard at leftists crowing about it.

I could go on, but that would be impolite. Don't want you overburdened, you see. A quick recap: read the budget, learn about the great arsenic caper, your graph and economic data that may be derived from it, and a little less hatred.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

Ahhhh...you've FINALLY posted a graph of some data. How nice.

Um... Vini... page 1 dude: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2201820#2201820

[TheAnvil 0]

Ahhh...missed that...thanks. My interpretation remains unchanged though. Nice little slam-GWB site there.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Ahhh...missed that...thanks. My interpretation remains unchanged though. Nice little slam-GWB site there.

HUH? Are you ducking and running again? I initially asked and I will reitterate, how is it that social programs, entitlements as you call them, are the issue here when CLinton had more and was able to turn the national debt horizontal by the end of his term and actually leave with an approx 230B anual surplus?

Please, answer that. BTW, facts are facts whether told by the Swift Boat Vets or Moveon.... are the claims posted by the site erroneous? I think not, so answer them or drop the, "entitlements are killing us" routine.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Ahhhh...you've FINALLY posted a graph of some data. How nice. 'tis quite unfortunate you don't know how to interpret it.

If you'll take a look at the slope of your line during the Great Reagan's tenure and compare it with the slope of the best linear fit of the line during the reign of El Jefe Cliintonista, you'll find they're about equal. Now, to the credit of the Republican Congress - the legislative branch of government, as I'm sure you know, per Article 1 Section 9 Clause 7 of the Constitution, is the only branch that may authorize expenditure of funds from the Treasury (sans veto of the Executive branch, obviously) - and El Jefe Clintonista himself, the slope did level out towards the end of his tenure.

The reasons for the similar rates of increase in spending between the two are quite different. However, the rates of increase are roughly the same, while you revile one president and seem to idolize the other. Quite interesting.

Those of us who understand the debt and from whence it came, realize that the Presidents and the Congress for any given year have far less to do with the debt for that particular year than their predecessors, because the entitlement programs that are the cost drivers for that year were enacted into law far prior to the commencement of that year. Other factors come into play as well - increased discretionary spending due to wars, hurricanes, or what have you, new entitlement programs, excessive pork, and the like will all contribute to the overall deficit.

You state that the graph has something to do with the economy - odd that it doesn't seem to actually do that. Please regale us with a creative tale of that interpretation. While you're at it, please do read the budget and try and understand the data therein.

While you're in reading mode, you might want to read up on some of the things you're pontificating about in many of your posts. The infamous arsenic imbroglio during the nascent stages of GWB's tenure in office, for example. If you'd read up on it a bit perhaps you'll come to realize why those of us who actually know the facts about the arsenic shenanigans laugh so hard at leftists crowing about it.

I could go on, but that would be impolite. Don't want you overburdened, you see. A quick recap: read the budget, learn about the great arsenic caper, your graph and economic data that may be derived from it, and a little less hatred.

Quote

Ahhhh...you've FINALLY posted a graph of some data. How nice. 'tis quite unfortunate you don't know how to interpret it.

We've already debunked your, "reading comprehension" garble; don't start with a tyrade of interprettaion.

Quote

If you'll take a look at the slope of your line during the Great Reagan's tenure and compare it with the slope of the best linear fit of the line during the reign of El Jefe Cliintonista, you'll find they're about equal. Now, to the credit of the Republican Congress - the legislative branch of government, as I'm sure you know, per Article 1 Section 9 Clause 7 of the Constitution, is the only branch that may authorize expenditure of funds from the Treasury (sans veto of the Executive branch, obviously) - and El Jefe Clintonista himself, the slope did level out towards the end of his tenure.

Great Reagan... good one! Soaring debt = borrowed whatever prosperity he was credited with.

As for the comparison of the graph line of Reagan and CLinton, look at the entire line and you will see a horizontal turning of the graph at the end. Not mention the fact that it turned a few degrees immediately. Perhaps a straightedge will help here. You can't take a several hundred Billion $ per year deficit and turn it downward in 2 years, so it took about 5-6 years to turn it around and he did. Reagan left with it going at 45 degrees and Bush1 kept it going.

So you're going to credit the Repub Congress for the benefit of the economy? Nice.... then you can credit them for this trainwreck we now have under Bush2. Speaking of Bush2, where did you comment on them here... I must have missed that. Wonder why?

Congress knows that the pres can veto any soending package, so they work together and COngress won't write anything that the pres won't sign. Perhaps what you're trying to say here is that CLinton was able to cooperate with the Republican Congress, whereas Bush2 is only able to create divide and still manage to conduct the worst economy since the Great Deptession. Maybe that's it.....

Again, so how about this current Republican Congress?

The slope leveled out during the end of his term? You do need a straightedge - look again.

Quote

If you'll take a look at the slope of your line during the Great Reagan's tenure and compare it with the slope of the best linear fit of the line during the reign of El Jefe Cliintonista, you'll find they're about equal.

-AND-

Quote

and El Jefe Clintonista himself, the slope did level out towards the end of his tenure.

These are your words and they contradict??????

Quote

The reasons for the similar rates of increase in spending between the two are quite different. However, the rates of increase are roughly the same, while you revile one president and seem to idolize the other. Quite interesting.

Disgust for one and praise for another doesn't change the numbers or the reasons for them. So tell us why the last 3 Repub presidents have butcherd the economic status of the US and the only Dem has turned it around.

Quote

Those of us who understand the debt and from whence it came, realize that the Presidents and the Congress for any given year have far less to do with the debt for that particular year than their predecessors, because the entitlement programs that are the cost drivers for that year were enacted into law far prior to the commencement of that year.

So this again kills your theory that Reagan was great. Bush1 had a worse economy than even Reagan, which means, under your logic, that it was Regan's fault for that economy. Or is it that Carter wes to blame for it all and diaper-wearing Reagan and Bush1 were too inept to turn it around in 12 years? I do agree that some things take a couple years to change, but when that's unsubstantiated by gross tax cuts for the rich and extreme military spending, your point of entitlement is hard to make.

Quote

Other factors come into play as well - increased discretionary spending due to wars, hurricanes, or what have you, new entitlement programs, excessive pork, and the like will all contribute to the overall deficit.

SO that means Bush2 is a very lean president, cause he didn't that little hurricane thing cost anything via non-response.

As for wars, Clinton avoided them and we didn;t ave those expenditures. Both Bush's looked for these wars and look at their debt graph. To be fair, this current war accounts for only 15% or so of t=Bush's increased debt, so that isn't the big itme there, just contributory.

Quote

You state that the graph has something to do with the economy - odd that it doesn't seem to actually do that. Please regale us with a creative tale of that interpretation. While you're at it, please do read the budget and try and understand the data therein.

It does, although sometimes indirectly, sometimes very directly. IF the GNP/GDP is down and teh pres doesn't compensate by lower spending, the debt will rise. If, under clinton, he had raised taxes and was the beneficiary of a robust economy, the debt will fall. So there is a correlation, sometimes direct, sometimes indirect.

Quote

While you're in reading mode, you might want to read up on some of the things you're pontificating about in many of your posts. The infamous arsenic imbroglio during the nascent stages of GWB's tenure in office, for example. If you'd read up on it a bit perhaps you'll come to realize why those of us who actually know the facts about the arsenic shenanigans laugh so hard at leftists crowing about it.

Instead of dropping insult, why not actually post your claims. As I know it, Clinton signed to increase water standards of arsenic content, then Clinton / Congress proposed another at the end of his term and Bush killed it when he took office.

Quote

I could go on, but that would be impolite. Don't want you overburdened, you see. A quick recap: read the budget, learn about the great arsenic caper, your graph and economic data that may be derived from it, and a little less hatred.

YOu can be as ornate as you wish, but with the exception of a couple, even your own realize it's simple dodging of issues. If you have assertions to post, do so as I did with the graph. If you wish to refute the accuracy of the graph, do so and I will respond.