A poultry farmer can make more revenue cramming more chickens in to a shed at the cost the chicken's living conditions. Looks like we are no different to the ruling elite, same appears to be happening all over Europe, US and Australia. Despite our unemployment going higher with many meat n potato manufacturing jobs disappearing we're told we MUST spend trillions on infrastructure for all the new chickens we must cram in. Est doubling the chickens in the shed within 25 years. And people wonder why their wages arent keeping pace lol
So much for freedom and liberty. Who are you to tell me I can't invest overseas? Where do you get off thinking you can? Where does the government get the authority to tell me I can't invest internationally? And BTW what happens when those foreign countries like Korea and Japan and German and Austrialia say OK, we're telling our people the same, no more manufacturing plants in the US.
24.4% And in a struggling economy that rate should be growing, not falling. That is a much slower percentage increase in spending than the 8 years of the Bush administration. Lots of things A 46.5% increase in spending by Bush and the Republicans. A 17.5% increase in spending under the Democrats and partly under Obama. Care to justify that? That would still be a much lower spending increase than under Bush/Republicans. Or Reagan, for that matter. Care to justify that? - - - Updated - - - Spending was 20.0% last year.
Using your cherry picked dates: in $1,000's 2001 $1,862,846 2002 $2,010,894 2003 $2,159,899 2004 $2,292,841 2005 $2,471,957 2006 $2,655,050 2007 $2,728,686 $16,182,173 A 46.5% increase in spending by Bush and the Republicans. 2008 2,982,544 2009 3,517,677 2010 3,457,079 2011 3,603,059 2012 3,537,127 2013 3,454,000 2014 3,504,000 $24,055,486 A 17.5% increase in spending under the Democrats and partly under Obama. So if a 17.5% increase is "spiraling out of control" in your lexicon, what phrase would you use to describe the 46.5% increase under Bush and the Republicans? Care to justify that? - - - Updated - - - Utter nonsense. Making up numbers again, are we? Your linked page doesn't even have the word "deficit" in it. Conservatives make sense. If you make up numbers.
You have been so discredited in this "deficit" arena that its a joke. The change in the debt equals the budget surplus/deficit. Everyone knows that - except you.
The debt represents the amount of money the government spends in order to shore up demand. Since we are operating with very low demand relative to supply of labor and capacity, the government must spend even more to get us moving towards a fully employed and efficient economy. Once we get to that level, fiscal policy can be more restrictive if needed. The debt is a non-issue, the government can never run out of money. The government only taxes us so that they can regulate the economy by either slowing it down or speeding it up. Our national economy is not an income statement, the goals of an economy are completely different than the goals of an individual or company. The key is to release money into the hands of people who will spend it. We have trillions of dollars stashed away by individuals that serve no purpose whatsoever and are really the result of over borrowing by all of us over decades. Tax the living daylights out of it and get it back into circulation.
The Constitution has a commerce clause which empower Congress to dictate business rules. Those countries you mentioned use tariffs to protect their businesses and we should do the same. It's what our Founding Fathers demanded.
Sure thing. "Everyone knows" that there was a deficit in FY2000: Fox News Not one Republican member of Congress supported the Clinton Budget Bill of 1993. Yet eight years and 23 million new jobs later, President Clinton had converted the $300 billion into a $1 trillion surplus. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/...#ixzz2awsPHFBc New Republic Who Created The 1990s Surplus http://www.newrepublic.com/blog/jona...on-or-the-gop# Town Hall The four straight years of budget surpluses were 1998 through 2001. ... http://srnnews.townhall.com/news/pol..._in_gop_debate Free Republic Only a Republican Congress Has Run a Budget Surplus http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2161628/posts Fox News The four straight years of budget surpluses were 1998 through 2001. Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/01/24...#ixzz2awuBUGLI The Blaze THE FACTS: Actually, two. The four straight years of budget surpluses were 1998 through 2001. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012...ng-gop-debate/ CNS News. the government ran deficits. In 1998 and 1999, the government ran surpluses. Washington achieved surpluses for two years after that. - See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/fact....alNZMGwQ.dpuf Cato 1998: Yet today’s surplus is, ... http://www.cato.org/publications/com...balance-budget American Spectator As a result, the $200 billion annual federal deficits, which had prevailed for over 15 years, were transformed into record-breaking surpluses by 1998, peaking at $236 billion by 2000. http://spectator.org/archives/2011/1...gingrich/print Washington Times In fact, some Republicans insist Mr. Gingrich's reforms, which resulted in a balanced budget and a federal surplus http://washington-times.vlex.com/vid...-out-371347994 You know you are are true RW nutjob when you take positions that so blatantly partisan and incredible that even RW propaganda sources like Fox, Washington Times and the Conservative News Service would be too embarrassed to take it.
All I do is look at TreasuryDirect.gov to see there is no surplus. No matter how much obfuscation you attempt, you cannot change the Treasury numbers.
I never claimed we need to change Treasury numbers, which clearly say there was a surplus, as I have demonstrated many times.
No, you have repeated the restricted federal budget which ignores off budget items. You have fallen victim to the shenanigans of the politicians - as has been proven many times by many people, probably in every thread you paste your "there was a surplus" propaganda. Give it up, you are becoming a farce, people laugh at your "surplus" posts.
Fox News Not one Republican member of Congress supported the Clinton Budget Bill of 1993. Yet eight years and 23 million new jobs later, President Clinton had converted the $300 billion into a $1 trillion surplus. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/...#ixzz2awsPHFBc New Republic Who Created The 1990s Surplus http://www.newrepublic.com/blog/jona...on-or-the-gop# Town Hall The four straight years of budget surpluses were 1998 through 2001. ... http://srnnews.townhall.com/news/pol..._in_gop_debate Free Republic Only a Republican Congress Has Run a Budget Surplus http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2161628/posts Fox News The four straight years of budget surpluses were 1998 through 2001. Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/01/24...#ixzz2awuBUGLI The Blaze THE FACTS: Actually, two. The four straight years of budget surpluses were 1998 through 2001. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012...ng-gop-debate/ CNS News. the government ran deficits. In 1998 and 1999, the government ran surpluses. Washington achieved surpluses for two years after that. - See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/fact....alNZMGwQ.dpuf Cato 1998: Yet today’s surplus is, ... http://www.cato.org/publications/com...balance-budget American Spectator As a result, the $200 billion annual federal deficits, which had prevailed for over 15 years, were transformed into record-breaking surpluses by 1998, peaking at $236 billion by 2000. http://spectator.org/archives/2011/1...gingrich/print Washington Times In fact, some Republicans insist Mr. Gingrich's reforms, which resulted in a balanced budget and a federal surplus http://washington-times.vlex.com/vid...-out-371347994 Who knew Fox etc were "politicians" and people are laughing at them. You know you are are true RW nutjob when you take positions that so blatantly partisan and incredible that even RW propaganda sources like Fox, Washington Times and the Conservative News Service would be too embarrassed to take it
The theme of your post was 'raise effective taxes on the rich', by eliminating their ability to go elsewhere and seek more competitive rates. I'd your post had advocated raising taxes on any other group in society my response would have been the same: don't raise taxes on that group.
But what about the part of the debt the Government owes itself? Take the Social Security Trust Fund, for example... every year it runs a surplus, it uses the excess to purchase non-marketable Federal debt. If The Social Security Surplus is bigger than the overall Government surplus, then the gross debt will go up but the net debt will go down. The figure you need to watch is the debt held by the public (net debt) - this is the total (gross) debt minus the debt held in Federal Government Accounts and it's the part of the debt that actually affects the overall economy via the credit markets.
The intergovernmental debt is money the government borrows from itself, it still must be repaid and represents actual financial obligations. If a surplus in social security taxes is used to pay for other items (the government borrows it to pay for on-budget items as Clinton did to create his fake surplus), then the excess SS funds become a debt, those funds are spent and are not available any longer, the government cannot use them to pay SS obligations until the debt is repaid. That's why the unified budget is the only honest way to look at the federal spending. The politicians "budget" excludes various items and is misleading.
There was nothing "fake" about Clinton's surpluses - the Government did take in more than it spent (mainly due to post-Cold War Defense cutbacks and higher taxes). What the Social Security surplus did do is allow the Government to repay some of the maturing debt that was out in the credit markets driving up interest rates and crowding out private borrowing and replace it with nonmarketable debt it then owed to the Social Security Trust Fund. Of course it still needs to be repaid eventually - the only difference is now those dollars aren't competing with private sector borrowers and so the economy is healthier as a result.
Its still debt that must be repaid, as you admit in the above. Total debt increased every year of Clintons administration.
Agreed, but the net debt held by the public declined every year between FY98 and FY01 as a result of the surpluses. Besides, even the minimal growth in the Total Debt wasn't matched by the growth in the economy - your $500,000 mortgage is a lot easier to handle if your income rises from $80,000 to $100,000, does it not? If you look at the Gross Debt-to-GDP ratio, it went from 63.3% to 54.6% and the Net Debt-to-GDP ratio went from 44.5% to 31.4% over the FY98-01 time period. To put that into perspective, according to Obama's FY16 Budget, Gross Debt-to-GDP is projected to be 102.7% and Net Debt-to-GDP is projected to be 75.0%.
Only looking at debt held by the public is ignoring the full picture, its like ignoring your spouses spending in a household budget. The total government debt increased every year of Clintons term. Even if there was "minimal growth" in the debt, there was no budget surplus as some would like everyone to believe. Debt to GDP ratio and other secondary measures of financial health are not relevant in this issue, the issue is the false Clinton "surplus".
