Gov't Twice as Large as Ten Years Ago?

iraq has been pointless, thats not policing that bullying.



Funny how you defend spending 800 to 1.5 trillion on iraqi's but not a couple of hundred billion on the USA.

 

How about an example over the money spent that I am pointing out?

Vietnam, Iran, Afghanistan, over half of the bases we have operating ALL concern issues that have NOTHING to do with nuclear proliferation or any other "police" action.

 

Is this thread about Rick Perry's governance in Texas?

 

The best intelligence Bush had AND CLINTON HAD said they were a great danger to us and their neighbors. And total cost of Iraq and Afghanistan through Dec,2010 is right at $1 trillion. And I'm not for the Iraq war, I agree it was a mistake, but we did not have 20/20 hindsight at the start. Please remember that Democrat and Republican politicians APPROVED that war. And that odrama has had over 2 years to get out of Iraq. And WHY did he bomb Libya?
And Yemen?

And I'm not against spending a couple hundred billion in the USA. I'm against OVERSPENDING by $6 TRILLION OVER THE LAST 4 YEARS.

We took 230 years to accumulate a debt of $9 trillion, and only 4 years of Democrat control to increase it by $6 trillion to $15 trillion.

THERE IS NO POSSIBLE JUSTIFICATION FOR THAT KIND OF FISCAL INSANITY,,,,,,,,,

 

No, they didn't. They had "intelligence" that Cheney went to the CIA AND DEMANDED they produce evidence to "prove the danger".

That is NOT the "best intelligence", that is simply the excuses they were asking for to do what they wanted, to make Iraq safe for oil companies.

Economists double that figure, and add another trillion for future costs for all the disabled vets.

They knew Iraq was not a danger in 2004. Why are we still there?

Because the citizens do not rise up wholesale and DEMAND he get out. Instead, people like you keep coming up with excuses why we should stay or why any of that makes sense!

Why do you say 4 years? Bush was President! He had a veto pen that worked just fine. AND Bush demanded we bail out the banks for a trillion with NO questions OR accountability!! Yet you blame it on the Dems.

Don't blame the wreckage on the people who are having to clean it up!

Yes there is.

People need jobs or unemployment and food stamps and medical care, people need food and places to live.

And if we stop education, where will we be 10 years from now?

If we stop taking care of our already neglected infrastructure , what will we drive on? How will our cities survive? How will our businesses have infrastructure that means we can outcompete 2nd and 3rd world countries?

How will we recover to pay off the debt?

This idea we need to stop investing in our current and future needs is the road to nowhere, the plan for self-destruction and the kind of mediocre existence countries like Mexico and and all the other backwaters live in.

Its idiocy to think we will be a world power by abdicating our country's infrastructure and education.

 

1 trillion is the military costs, you also have "entitlements" extra for veterans, lost revenue from killed and wounded soldiers,...

In reality the cost will be has high as 2-3 trillion .

ANd please bush wanted to finish the war his daddy started, he wanted revenge on the man wo had tried to assasinsate his daddy. They picked the inteligence they wanted to hear, even ordered to find it and ignored the rest.

Iraq was NO danger for the USA.

Millions protested dozens of nations as well among them a lot of big ones who said there was not enough or no evidence. They were right because they didnt had an agenda to invade iraq.

Because khadaffi was about to masacre quit a large number of his civilians.

Part of that is tax cuts, part is the war, part is the economic crisis, part is recovery measures part is bank bailout.

You alway fail to aknowledge the republican responsability. Both spend, the difference is bush spent on war and the rich while obama on the economy and poor, you pick what is best.

 

And do you think that will help the Country get out of dept?



Here is why S&P downgraded The USA - very simple actually,

• U.S. Govt. (income Tax Revenues): $2,170,000,000,000
• Federal budget: $3,820,000,000,000
• New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
• National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
• Recent budget cut : $ 38,500,000,000
(about 1 percent of the budget)


It helps to think about these numbers in terms that we can relate to.
Let's remove eight zeros from these numbers and pretend this is the
household budget for the fictitious Jones family.

• Total annual income for the Jones family: $21,700
• Amount of money the Jones family spent: $38,200
• Amount of new debt added to their credit card: $16,500
• Outstanding balance on their credit card: $142,710
• Amount cut from their budget: $385

 

Bush and the Republicans increased the national debt from 57% of GDP to 69% of GDP in 8 years time. When you consider that it took over 222 years to get to 57%, a jump of 12 points in 8 years IS terrible. Now balance that against the FACT that the Democrats and odrama have increased the debt to GDP ratio by 31 point, to 100% in less than 3 years.

Bush bad! odrama,MUCH, MUCH worse. Only the incurably ideologically brainwashed do not see and understand that this president is the worst enemy this nation has ever faced. And it might be just because he's that stupid.

And I always say that the Republicans were bad. and I always say that I trust republicans only a tiny bit more than I trust Democrats and I don't trust Democrats AT ALL. However because our present situation shows, WITHOUT A DOUBT, that the Democrats are at the worst they EVER have been, my near equal dislike of Republicans has little time in the spotlight. I have NEVER been a registered Republican. I HAVE been a registered Democrat. I have belonged to a number of different unions. Not being born rich, I worked my way through college and worked in union jobs while doing so. Today I'm a registered Independent. I consider the Republicans to be the lesser of two evils, but right now, they are a very great deal less evil than the Democrats. If in 2012, Republicans take control of the Senate and White House, very likely, and retain control of the House, almost a lock, then I become very worried what they might do with their new found power. I can only hope the tea party holds down the Republican idiocy better than its held down the Democratic idiocy.

 

If you even dont understand that bit of reality there is little chance you might contribute smething worth to the discussion.

BS , S&P explained the downgrade and it was politicial inaction AND the very strange fact that in an AAA country like the USA SOME actually talked about letting it default.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_President.jpg


Bush increased it by almost 30%

Obama is continueing the trend set by bush unfortunatly. Increase about 20%

What you (of course) fail to relise is that policy doesnt stop the minute bush leaves the office.

BS, he has the worst economic situation any president had in memory, contrary to bush .

And wich republican then?

Sorry but for the moment there isnt 1 who has any better idea what to do, ALL have far worse idea's .

You might not like what democrats are actually trying to do to save the economy but I dont see any republican doing better, on the contrary.

 

Note on your "UNOFFICIAL SOURCE" [AGAIN] that the Bush increase meanders along until a vicious spike at the end. Notice also THAT is when the DEMOCRATS took over both Houses of Congress and thus, the national checkbook. So YES odrama is just continuing what the DEMOCRATS STARTED in FY2008.

NEVER in the HISTORY of the USA did a Republican Congress, or a split or mixed Congress EVER have a deficit of $500 billion dollars. NEVER!

Our DEMOCRATIC controlled Congress has not had a deficit below $1.293 TRILLION in 3 years. Their BEST was $458 billion in FY2008 and that was the largest deficit EVER. Little did we know that would be, "The good old days."

 

And if one thinks that getting into debt is going to get them out of debt then I question that person's sanity.

 

Sorry, you are wrong.

Here is what the S&P said!

It is the PROLONGED CONTROVERSY, not the ACTUAL debt, S&P is concerned with.

http://www.standardandpoors.com/ratings/articles/en/us/?assetID=1245316529563

 

So? You give a better source, thus far you have given 0 .

Bush created a bigger increase AND as we both know under quit good economic times .

With that logic all increases from 2011 are republican funny how you always try to shift the blame. LOL

Besides the current one you mean? LMAO


ANd its funny you dont respond to the question wich candidate is better, of course you dont have any answer because there isnt one.

 

And thats not what I said .

 

That is what the government is doing and that is why the Country will never get out of debt.

 

No its not, investing to get economic growth back and get out of debt is different from just "making debt to get out of debt"

 

Then how did the U.S got into debt in the first place and why did they need to raise the debt ceiling?

 

Although this is sometimes successful, it is a very risky idea. Many times you end up losing money in the deal. The government has shown to be especially bad at margin investing.

Consider their purchase of GM stock. They lost a lot on their last sale of the stock and need to have the price grow far past its 52 week high in order to break even. Or consider cash for clunkers - has the government recouped that expense yet?

I wouldn't trust people in congress, with their current track record, to make any profit with further margin investing.

 

odrama and the Democrats BLEW more than $2 TRILLION on that failed idea already. Near the end of 2010 there was some spark of life in the economy from the influx of $2 TRILLION magic dollars and the massive printing on worthless paper called "Dollars." THEN,,,,,,,,,,,the false economy ran out of money and the gains went away and the economy slumps again. Now the economy has to go it on its own again, but with a FEW TRILLION more debt to carry. And how is the economy going to do when that debt has to be repaid?

The simple answer, the private sector CREATES JOBS, the govt does NOT. odrama and the Democrats have passed, through legislation and bureaucratic edicts, about 5000 new regulations on businesses of every size and type. Costing business, large and small, hundreds of thousands of dollars. That is on top of the unemployment rate remaining high. That high rate looks bad for odrama, but that's window dressing. What that high rate means is UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS. And WHO pays those benefits? The State govt? NO! The Federal govt.? NO! The businesses that laid those people off pay those benefits. They have to pay premiums for unemployment insurance. That fills a "bank" for each employer. the State and the Feds DRAW from that bank and pay the benefits. As the bank is drawn down, the employer has to put more in. Over and over. What odrama and the Democrats have done is extend the unemployment benefits long past the normal cutoff. That's the only benefit money the govt is coming up with. The employers pay up to that point.

It IS in the employers best interest to get that person back to work and out of the employers 'bank.' But when the employers don't know how they can comply with massive new regulations or how to pay the cost of those regulations, plus they have NO way to calculate what obamacare will cost them. They MUST keep operating with the fewest employees possible. They cannot make a plan when they don't know what tomorrow may be.

In that atmosphere, we could dump $3 TRILLION MORE Stimulus and the pickup would again be short lived and shallow. And then when the phony money ran out, back in the 'ditch.' net gain, INCREDIBLE DEBT, nothing else.

And, using the word, "INVESTING" is not clever. We all know its odrama's cover word for SPENDING. If you think its worth doing, have the balls to call it what it is. Investing is just another LIE, spending, at least, is the truth.

 

You think that is a big increase, check out the spending on defense:

Year - Defense spending
2000 295.0
2011 689.1

Source: CBO.gov

That's a 133%, $400 billion a year increase.

And that doesn't include the costs of the wars.

 

Actually, the $689 billion does include about $160 billion specifically slated for the wars.

Part of the additional expense also includes war-related expenses that have to be paid out of discretionary funds - things like vehicle, weapons and equipment repair and replacement, additional deployment training, medical expenses related to combat injuries and many war-related transportation expenses often come out of regular discretionary funds, not out of operation-designated funds.

If we cut the wars completely, we could drop the budget by close to $200 billion immediately and after we had a couple of years to finish repairing and replacing damaged materiel we could drop it even more.

 

Get it through your head: The public debt NEVER has to be repaid and it NEVER will be.

LOL. Demand is the only thing that creates jobs. The government can create demand. The private sector tries to create profits. It doesn't care about jobs at all.

LOL! Both state and federal unemployment insurance premiums are paid for out of employee compensation. Employers merely send the checks off on behalf of their employees. And can you tell us whether these unbearable burdens upon workers come to more or less than three-quarters of one percent of total employee compensation?

Then it would have been in their best interests not to have fired 400K, 500K, and 600K workers per month, given that premium increases are increased on those who work for companies that fire people a lot. Who did that logic of yours stop in 2008-09?

Then they should not be business owners. Under the best of circumstances, no one ever knows "what tomorrow may be". Running a business is about contingency planning...about having options ready for use in responding to a variety of possible conditions. If people can't figure out how the prevailing regulatory environment applies to them, they should either hire someone who can or fold their freaking tents.

 

That's a change from Bush, who never put any war costs at all in his budgets as submitted. But at the end of the year, military spending is still military spending, whether it was in the original budget as submitted or in a supplemental passed outside of the normal budget process.

 

Cannot stomach responding to tripe.

You don't have the first clue about what it takes to run a successful business, so - without even engaging your terminal government mentality, I'll throw the tomato right back at you:

You shouldn't be a government employee with any say in fiscal matters at all if you cannot properly get your job right and run Government in such a way as to avoid harming business, and avoid downgrading our credit ratings, and causing irresponsible spikes in our country's taxes.