Gov't Twice as Large as Ten Years Ago?

Fair enough, then likewise, the spending authorizations passed after January of 2011 are somewhat the responsibility of the republicans, anything passed before that couldn't be held against them.

 

The reality that you insane liberals would LOVE to spin is the THE DEBT is the problem, not the debt limit. Why have a debt LIMIT if you just automatically raise it at will? All the Republicans did was point out the insanity of such a ridiculous process. The same process that a junior Senator named odrama said "Was a failure of leadership!" He was right then and even more right now.
The REALITY is, YES, the Republicans did call the question. That should have been done years ago. Otherwise the Republicans inn the House, having had NO power to pass any bill since Jan 2007 are NOT in any way responsible for the insane spending we are doing. The REALITY is that before the Democrats took complete control of Congress in Jan 2007. This nation had NEVER had a deficit over half a trillion dollars. Since then the Democrats are averaging deficits well over a TRILLION dollars.

The Republicans are not blameless. They DID force Clinton into a surplus budget, but then they blew the surplus they created. That was bad. But NEVER did they go so insane as to create a HALF A TRILLION deficit. But now the Democrats think $1.5 TRILLION deficits are 'routine." That is total insanity. That is REALITY. NO SPIN!

 

Of course they can, even clinton is still partialy reponsible. When a congress or president leaves office that doesnt mean all his policy suddenly stops you know.

The war in iraq is a fine example, is any cost occured from that obama's fault?

 

Good question, why was it raised dozens of times without any debate?

The debt btw isnt the problem, the problem s&p and other were concerned is the unability for compromise and a blocked system resulting in a default. Nobody actually thinks the USA will be unable to pay its debt. Just look at the current flight into USA treasury bonds.

Complete BS, they blocked everything until they got what they wanted and they alone wanted.

The 4 trillion plan showed that nicely more cuts (what they wanted) but the 1.2 trillion in tax loopholes (a democratic demand) was unaceptable.

The plan they finally were able to accept among themselves will do absolutetly nothing and thus the whole debacle and resulting downgrade was all for nothing.

Thx republicans and tea party.

 

Do loony liberals stay up late at night trying to find ways to be even more wrong than usual?

The $4 T with $800 B in revenue was Boehner's plan and b.o. agreed to it. Then b.o. welched, and wanted more revenue. As in contract negotiations, rejecting part of a contract is rejecting the entire contract. b.o. welched on his word. At that point Boehner rightly decided to quit talking with a complete fool that knows next to nothing about the USA or money or negotiating.

As b.o. said in 2006, This is a failure of leadership on the part of the president. Probably the only right and true statement he's made since he reached puberty, if he has.

The DEBT and the debt limit 'crisis' are complete FAILURES on the part of the wholly incompetent idiot, clown, fool, odrama. The most dishonest, sleazy, and pizz poor preforming president in the history of this nation.


"Good question, why was it raised dozens of times without any debate? "

Utter foolishness on the part of politicians of both parties for decades. Part of why we desperately need stringent term limits. And to take law making powers away from unelected bureaucrats.

 

Good point. Then the half-trillion dollar shortage of medicare and social security is Roosevelt and Johnson's fault.

The fact is you can only blame your predecessor for so long before you have to take responsibility for how things are. Bush started the war, but Obama surged in Afghanistan and didn't pull out of Iraq fully - that part is all on him.

 

BS in negotationsdemocrats were willing to give plenty of concessions to republicans but barely got anything back. Fact is republicans rejected it, they rejected 4 trillions of cuts .

HImself? Tea party? The vast mayority of republicans?

Raising the debt limit to fight wars? Yep that is a failed leadership. Context something you obviously dont have a clue about.

No matter how many times you repeat that lie, its still a lie.

Nope because it doesnt really matter, its foolish to think you can MAKE debt for years but onces its time to pay it of run into this debt limit . Of coursez that probably too hard for you to understand.

 

Both were needed or the entire "investment" in lives and money would have been pointless.

Oh no doubt republicans would have loved to see obama pull out, they would have criticised him endlessly for that.

And bush is the same "age" as Roosevelt?

A recession that lasted the first year of obama as president doesnt matter? If he would have gotten the start bush had things would be quit different.

 

No matter how much you hide your head in the sand, the TRUTH will remain the TRUTH. Pull your head out of the sand and his gross, raging, incredible incompetence is crushingly obvious to anyone with the ability to think clearly.

What I don't understand? You might ask yourself why its called a debt LIMIT? It is called that because supposedly we should never OWE MORE than that amount. Can you say,,,,,,,,,NEVER?

odrama the incompetent's singular right and wise statement of his worthless parasitic life was in 2006 when HE voted against raising the debt LIMIT. Saying that asking that the debt limit be raised was a failure of leadership on the part of the president. What goes around, comes around. He was right about Bush and much more right about his own colossal failure as the "president." He is not even a good imitation of a real president. They should have elected Hillary, she has more balls than this pansy clown.

 

again you simply dont understand how things work, you are a kid with a credit card who a month and a spending binge later suddenly doesnt want to pay. The debt was already made, the debt limit broken probably years ago, this are just the bills coming in from that .


Either you take away the credit card or pay your bills the rest is simple stupidity.

Obama is doing what he can to the massive amount off bills pyling up, the most he has nothing to do,with. You of course dont like him, so you like to pretend its a 100% his fault.

And again obama votes against recless spending, like trillions for uneeded wars .

 

Lies, Danny. You've been snookered again. This is Boehner's hastily constructed cover story for having been yanked out of the White House talks when Cantor stabbed him in the back twice, first by locking out any agreement that included any tax increase at all. and second by ruling out any agreement with Obama, as that might have led people to believe that it was the President who was ultimately able to broker a deal, and we can't have Obama being able to get any credit for anything. That's when they all had to go running off to talk to Harry Reid instead. That's the deal, Danny. Boehner's version is bilge.

 

I don't understand? You have the foolishness to say I don't understand. I understand more about money and management than you'll ever learn. Realizing the absolute necessity to STOP spending has not one dam thing to do with not wanting to pay. Because you liberals want everything for free your mirror thinking allows you to erroneously think everyone thinks as horribly mixed up as you do. We want to stop spending so that we will have some chance to pay the bills that we must pay. Every dollar more of debt acquired, reduces our ability to pay by that much. Liberals are fiscally insane. Your post is clear proof of that. Your incompetent fool odrama's call for class warfare with his STUPID 'tax the rich chant is more proof of the complete fiscal insanity of liberals. Tax the rich.' is a complete smoke screen and a lie. A lie frequently told by your unqualified fool in the White House. odrama intentionally and with malice promotes 'tax the rich' class warfare while knowing full well that he is only talking about an extra $70 billion per year in revenue, IF THAT. He endangers the only active producers in this nation just to make himself look good to gullible fools.

He shouldn't be voted out in Nov. 2012, he should be impeached today!

Ignorant liberals tried to recall Republicans in WI for instituting State savings programs that ARE WORKING, and are keeping public employees on the job and saving the State money. Luckily there are actual intelligent people that sent the liberal and union thugs down to defeat. You want to recall a bad politician, recall the clown fool idiot odrama.

 

Why? Because you haven't knocked your piggy bank off the bureau yet? Your entire post is made up of confused babble and gibberish that would get you thrown out of a high school finance elective.

There is not so much the faintest glimmer of a reason to stop spending beyond your personal nightmares and partisan paranoia. Virtually every developed country in the world spends a higher percentage of its GDP through the public sector than we do. And that's even counting our recent emergency humanitarian spending associated with the Great Bush Recession, spending that only brought us even with peaks from Ronald Reagan's first term. The Boy Who Cried Wolf had a better story than yours.

No, those you childishly hope to insult by calling them liberals wish to PAY for stuff, which is why they call for tax and other revenue increases. None of them minds looking for potential spending cuts as well. They are after all not some bunch of whiny little brats like the right-wing, but rather mature adults willing to look at all options.

We haven't paid off the public debt since 1836. It will be at least that lomg again before anyone tries to. The only guy to pay down any part of it over the past 40 years was Bill Clinton. He did that with Clinton-era tax rates!!!

What a total sham! Tax Cuts for the Rich were the Pearl Harbor of class warfare. Getting rid of those tax cuts is a matter of self-defense and self-preservation. Real mean household income for all quintiles but the wealthy DECLINED in this country between 2000 and 2006. Hundreds of billions of dollars were diverted from the bottom 95% to the top 5%. While their tax rates were being lowered. The additional taxes the top 1% paid on the additional income they amassed over that 2000-06 timeframe came to an effective rate of 8.5%. The wealthiest of all Americans paid 8.5%. That's a little over $40 billion more in taxes out of a little over $475 billion more in income. That's class warfare. It's time for the counter-attack.

 

As long as everyone is fine with paying 42% and rising of total taxes to the Federal Reserve as interest on the digital entries made from thin air we won't solve the crisis. Repudiate the National Debt is the only solution.

 

Its not follishness its reality you show that in every post on the subject.

Perhaps but not in this subject, you fail to realise these are costs already occured, the debt limit isnt raised to make more debt, its raised to pay bills from the past. Untill you realise this you will never understand the actions taken.

Thats another discussion, yes everyone realises expenditures have to be brought down, thats why they cut several trillions and even obama was ready to cut a lot more.

Its also why obama wanted more revenue, of course refused by republicans who after all signed pledges never to raise taxes, some freedom LOL

 

Again you demonstrate your childish lack of knowledge and liberal brainwashing.

The debt limit was raised so we could borrow more money, NOT so we could pay our bills. And borrow our way out of debt [a liberal insanity] is both stupid and impossible. We take in over $210 billion per month. Not all of that is to pay our debt, which you erroneously called "costs.' We have both costs and debts to pay. The debts are established and become due over an extended period of time. The costs are out of control and need to be controlled. If costs were brought under control we could pay both our fixed costs and our debt obligations. But many would not get all the goodies they want and are used to getting. Too Bad, that is what austerity is all about.
Just as a business has to cut expenses to the bone, so does our governments, Federal and States. They have been acquiring too much debt, YES. but even worse, they have been overspending for many years. STOP the overspending, and there is enough to pay our obligations, both costs and accumulated debt without taking on more debt. Borrowing to get out of debt, is as stupid an idea as it is possible to have.

 

Nonsense, the debt limit was raised to borrow money to pay bills for expenditures already done. The debt was already made .

Wich I nor "the liberals" ever said.

And its quit possible that bussines has to borrow more to survive even trough a period of cutting back.

Or get more revenue, or even better combine both.

 

Liberals have constantly advocated borrowing our way out of debt. That is exactly what they have been attempting to do and failing.

I agree cut expenses and increase revenue. The part YOU and liberals get wrong is that more revenue does NOT mean higher taxes.

The most revenue this nation EVER took in was in FY2007 when our Federal revenue was $2,568 trillion. Now our revenue is $400 billion less. But the taxes were the same then and they are the same now. so the buffoon Bush managed $400 billion more in revenue with the same tax structure that the semi-brilliant odrama is unable to do.
And the dummy Bush managed to take in more revenue and spend MUCH less [$2,729 trillion] for a deficit of $161 billion. And now with revenue only $400 billion less [$395 less actually] the semi-brilliant odrama spends over $3,800 trillion for a deficit over 10 TIMES higher than the dummy, Bush, with the SAME tax structure.

Makes one wonder just who is the dummy and who is the semi-brilliant one.

Our GDP, rounded is $15 trillion. Increase our GDP to $16.5 trillion and we'd have revenue higher than we've EVER had before. But we would still have deficits over a trillion with this administrations spending.

 

How about we stop the wars that have added 15% or MORE to that total BESIDES regular military spending?

Government gets a lot smaller if we stop micromanaging the world for benefit of the multinationals!

 

Municipal budgets would be much smaller without a police force. But they don't have that choice. Neither does the USA. The world must be policed, no choice. Tell me how we can get anyone else to do that necessary job?

 

Fiscal year 2001: $1.86 trillion
Fiscal year 2002: $2.01 trillion
Fiscal year 2003: $2.16 trillion
Fiscal year 2004: $2.29 trillion
Fiscal year 2005: $2.47 trillion
Fiscal year 2006: $2.66 trillion
Fiscal year 2007: $2.73 trillion
Fiscal year 2008: $2.98 trillion
Fiscal year 2009: $3.52 trillion
Fiscal year 2010: $3.46 trillion
Fiscal year 2011 (estimate): $3.82 trillion

There's your proof. ^

What a waste if hard earned taxpayer money.

 

Really?

The "WORLD must be policed"????

You talk like Chicago actually needs to police Mexico City, or Des Moines, IA must police London!

Sure there may be things we may need to handle, but invading pathetic little places because of mythical "Domino Theories" has ALWAYS been an absurd excuse for using taxpayer money and troops lives to get profits for entities OTHER than the US taxpayer.

 

Fire about 250,000 federal workers immediately, and then we can start the government payroll reduction process for all the rest of the dead wood.

 

Yada, yada, yada. Your OPINION is noted. The fact is the world MUST be policed. I would much prefer we weren't the ones to do it, but no one else can. And I'm certain it is much better to be the police than to be the policed.

You'd prefer we hadn't stuck our noses in places we shouldn't have and made mistakes. Better we just stayed home so Russia could have sold their nuke technology to Iraq, Iran, Libya, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Cuba [that one would have been a gift] Venezuela, Bosnia, the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, and on and on. We wouldn't be missing the twin towers, NYC would be a glass lake.

 

Now that is a lie, they propose spending cuts and revenue increases to get out of the debt issue.

Sometimes it might sometimes it might not, seeing how low they already are in ther USA, there isnt really a lot off option then up.

You mean in the end state of a bubble with the econiomy the biggest ever? gee suprise LOL

So you actualmly advocate in creating another bubble? LOL



Its stupid comparisons like that that make you loose any cedibility. It might sound nice at first but when you think about it its pointless.

Glorifying bush who is the most reposnsible for the mess the USA is in now isnt really a credible argument.



Think I asked you this before but what would youre solution had been begin 2009?