You Owe $45,000

[questftbest]

The debt is now over 14 trillion. That is 14 million, million. SHAMEFUL! Every man, woman and child owes $45,000. Liberals want to increase spending in the name of "investment". When does this madness end? Are they intellectually stunted, mad or just don't care in their lust for more power?

 

[lawtonfogle]

Not just liberals. Everyone in power wants to keep spending on what they want to. A few hopefuls would cut a lot of the fat, but I have doubts about if they are just saying that to get voted in.

 

[kermit]

The debt is now over 14 trillion. That is 14 million, million. SHAMEFUL! Every man, woman and child owes $45,000. Liberals want to increase spending in the name of "investment". When does this madness end? Are they intellectually stunted, mad or just don't care in their lust for more power?

If you knew someone who neglected their home and run up credit cards you'd call them irresponsible. But when it comes to politics you call the people who want to fix the home irresponsible.

The debt isn't knew and most of it comes from Republican spending. Or should I say misspending because the obviously didn't use it to maintain the infrastructure past generations worked hard to hand down to us.

 

[kermit]

Not just liberals. Everyone in power wants to keep spending on what they want to. A few hopefuls would cut a lot of the fat, but I have doubts about if they are just saying that to get voted in.

I try to look at the things we are spending on. If were are spending a lot yet neglecting our road, bridge, ect. then we are spending on the wrong things.

 

[Notamonkey]

If you knew someone who neglected their home and run up credit cards you'd call them irresponsible. But when it comes to politics you call the people who want to fix the home irresponsible.

The debt isn't knew and most of it comes from Republican spending. Or should I say misspending because the obviously didn't use it to maintain the infrastructure past generations worked hard to hand down to us.

5.1 trillion in less than two years, last yeat 1.5 trillion. 5.1 is a little less then Bubba left the entire national debt when he left office. This admin. is the one running up debt with nothing to show for it. Guess who controlled congress the last four years? Sure, Bush signed the spending bills, but this spending is more than any government in history.

 

[lordbt]

If you knew someone who neglected their home and run up credit cards you'd call them irresponsible. But when it comes to politics you call the people who want to fix the home irresponsible.

The debt isn't knew and most of it comes from Republican spending. Or should I say misspending because the obviously didn't use it to maintain the infrastructure past generations worked hard to hand down to us.

Congress does the spending. The President can only accept or veto the spending bills the congress sends to him. So the real blame lies there, not with the White House.

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

Sigh.

It's things like this that make me sympathize with the sovereign citizens.

 

[chaz345]

If you knew someone who neglected their home and run up credit cards you'd call them irresponsible. But when it comes to politics you call the people who want to fix the home irresponsible.

The debt isn't knew and most of it comes from Republican spending. Or should I say misspending because the obviously didn't use it to maintain the infrastructure past generations worked hard to hand down to us.

You are right in that the debt isn't new, but it's absolutely NOT primarily from Republican spending. BOTH parties are completely irresponsible when it comes to spending. I didn't see any significant infrastructure improvements when Clinton was in office and the Dems controlled Congress. His "suplus" was smoke and mirrors. Projections based on a rate of economy growth that would never happen and spending a "surplus" in the Social Security system.

Having said that that, there's been plenty of irresponsible spending by Republicans too. But the reality is that the mess trancends party politics and it's going to take something other than party politics to get us out of it. Increased taxes simply isn't going to cut it since regardless of tax rate, revenue stays pretty close to 18% of GDP over the long term. And with current spending at 26% of GDP, we obviously can't fix the problem with increased revenue. Sure a tax increase may provide a temporary fix, that looks good, especially when projected out. Good enougn to get the current batch of clowns re-elected. But it simply won't do anything real to solve the problem.

 

[Grizzly]

The debt is now over 14 trillion. That is 14 million, million. SHAMEFUL! Every man, woman and child owes $45,000. Liberals want to increase spending in the name of "investment". When does this madness end? Are they intellectually stunted, mad or just don't care in their lust for more power?

Liberals want to raise taxes to cover their spending. Republicans just want to spend.

 

[chaz345]

Liberals want to raise taxes to cover their spending. Republicans just want to spend.

Obama claims to want to decrease taxes on most people and raise them on a few of the richest. Problem is, there isn't anywhere near enough money there to cover it. Even with a spending freeze and the tax increases that Obama wants, we're not even close. Deep painful cuts are needed. Yeah it will suck, but it will suck a LOT less than the alternative which is a crash that will make the Great Depression look like boom times. We ALL need to stop being selfish little government entitled babies and demand the serious deep cuts needed to right the ship. Anyone who thinks that the problem ca be fixed by a couple of percentage points here and there on the tax rates needs a basic math lesson.

 

[PatrickM]

Well if Gates, Buffet et al wanna really give away all their moola, they can start with my portion of the debt!

 

[Belk]

The debt is now over 14 trillion. That is 14 million, million. SHAMEFUL! Every man, woman and child owes $45,000. Liberals want to increase spending in the name of "investment". When does this madness end? Are they intellectually stunted, mad or just don't care in their lust for more power?

Don't be silly. They are actively malevolent and are trying to destroy this great country. Their plan is to run the economy into the ground to make everyone dependent upon government. Then they will move the worst of the True Patriots (tm) into Fema re-education camps. The last straw will be when they create food shortages and force everyone to eat kittens to stay alive.


(The really sad part is, that I have heard people actually espouse each of these positions)




(except the kittens. Apparently there are some things to dastardly even for the conniving democrats)

 

[kermit]

Don't be silly. They are actively malevolent and are trying to destroy this great country. Their plan is to run the economy into the ground to make everyone dependent upon government. Then they will move the worst of the True Patriots (tm) into Fema re-education camps. The last straw will be when they create food shortages and force everyone to eat kittens to stay alive.


(The really sad part is, that I have heard people actually espouse each of these positions)




(except the kittens. Apparently there are some things to dastardly even for the conniving democrats)

The sad part is that many Reps really think that Dems are trying to do just that. Those same people completely ignore the existance and influence of Jude Wanniski who basically said that Reps should damage the economy in such as way that they can blame Dems.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Government spending isn't the problem. They are just trying to keep up with the hemorrage of money into the global economy caused by the trade imbalance. You can't take $400 Billion out of the domestic economy every year and expect a sound economy. The gov't has to borrow or print money to provide enough for the country to survive. The solution is unthinkable of course; tell our trading partners to buy enough of our exports to balance trade between our countries, or face tariffs and restrictions.

 

[Belk]

Government spending isn't the problem. They are just trying to keep up with the hemorrage of money into the global economy caused by the trade imbalance. You can't take $400 Billion out of the domestic economy every year and expect a sound economy. The gov't has to borrow or print money to provide enough for the country to survive. The solution is unthinkable of course; tell our trading partners to buy enough of our exports to balance trade between our countries, or face tariffs and restrictions.

So how much of the actual dollars are removed from the economy versus electronic dollars? Does the it make a difference electronic versus paper?

 

[PatrickM]

It's a zero-sum game here. Money's not taken out of the economy, M-1 or anything else. It's like water, it's gotta go somewhere!

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So how much of the actual dollars are removed from the economy versus electronic dollars? Does the it make a difference electronic versus paper?

Electronic money is no different than paper money. Anyone can convert electronic to paper by just 'cashing' a check. The banks obtain enough paper money from the Treasury to satisfy customers needs for cash. You can force the Treasury to print more actual paper money by simply 'cashing' all your paychecks at the bank. However, if you want to invest it and earn interest or dividends you must convert it back to electronic money.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So how much of the actual dollars are removed from the economy versus electronic dollars? Does the it make a difference electronic versus paper?

Electronic money is no different than paper money. Anyone can convert electronic to paper by just 'cashing' a check. The banks obtain enough paper money from the Treasury to satisfy customers needs for cash. You can force the Treasury to print more actual paper money by simply 'cashing' all your paychecks at the bank. However, if you want to invest it and earn interest or dividends you must convert it back to electronic money.

 

[new_wine]

Buck don't stop there any more?

Wow who would have thought.

Congress does the spending. The President can only accept or veto the spending bills the congress sends to him. So the real blame lies there, not with the White House.

 

[lordbt]

Buck don't stop there any more?

Wow who would have thought.

Facts are facts. The budget process is controlled by Congress. Thats not to say the the President is an innocent bystander, but that the real power to decide what is spent lies on Capital Hill, not with the White House. For reference, Tip Oneil used to declare Reagans budgets "Dead on arrival."