With the national debt at $15 trillion, the interest on the national debt is $700 billion per year. Pay off the national debt and the whole country will have $700 billion less in taxes. But to pay off the national debt at $30 billion per month(which is what the Iraq/Afghan wars were costing) it will take two thousand years. When Shrub Jr. took office the national debt was only $5.5 trillion with a $300 billion annual surplus. Six months after Shrub took the White House he added $3 trillion to the national debt by giving millionaires that much of a tax cut. Then Shrub started the Iraq/Afghan wars which added another $3 trillion to the national debt. Then the republican policies caused the 2007 economic collapse, which was left to Obama to dig us out of. Without the policies of Obama, this country would have revisited the GREAT DEPRESSION of 1929, which republican policies also caused. That's why it took the GOP 40 years to gain control of congress again. It is the president that submits the budget to the congress. It is the president that sets policy. Ronnie Raygun promised to balance the budget in his first four years as POTUS. In eight years, he never submitted one single balanced budget. And because of his defense policy, the national debt went from one trillion dollars to $2.5 trillion. He almost tripled the national debt! Then Shrub daddy almost doubled then national debt again in only four years, from $2.5 trillion to $4.5 trillion. Finally Bubba Clinton balanced the budget and had a $300 billion surplus when he left office. If that surplus would have been used to pay off the national debt, we would only have a $2.5 trillion national debt today. But NOOOOO, Shrub Jr. had to double the national debt yet again in his eight years, and destroy the whole global economy at the same time. So if you really want lower taxes, keep the (*)(*)(*)(*) republicans out of power!
Hmm. Doesn't look like anyone really cares about lower taxes or the national debt. It's just the American motto, "Fork you, me first." Most GOP voters really aren't rich enough to be supporting tax cuts for millionaires. Hey guess what, if millionaires get their taxes cut, that's just more for you to pay. Or you can just pass the bill on to your grandchildren. How low is that?
LOL. Why do people think "pay more taxes" is the only solution to our oversized government? We could easily have huge surpluses if we got our government under control, and kept taxes about the same for 5-8 years then BAM! Our debt wouldnt be gone, but at least back under control. Then we reduce taxes and really let the economy take off. Reduce taxes to a point where we still have a small surplus and allow our debt to be paid off over the next 15-20 years.
Reducing taxes makes LARGER deficits because of LESS revenue. That's why when Shrub gave millionaires a $3 trillion tax cut it was just added to the national debt. It wasn't payed for! But the GOP was demanding that the payroll tax cut for the middle class be payed for. Hypocrites!
We'll never balance the budget by raising taxes and taking more money from the private sector and giving it to the politicians to buy votes. The only possible way to balance the budget without government cuts is to get the economy growing exceedingly fast. Tax increases won't do that. It may be too late. Spending will be paid for, maybe in the form of runnaway inflation in the upcoming years to tap into the middle class. Millionaires don't have enough money to apy off our debt, even if we confiscated all of it.
Politicians are motivated to stay in office. They do that by reducing taxes, or raising benefits. Politicians will not do a thing to balance the budget. SSI, Medicare, and Medicaid make up the bulk of the spending - cutting those benefits will lose votes. Raising taxes across the board will lose votes. Raising taxes on the rich will lose campaign contributions. Raising capital gains taxes will impact many retirees, costing votes. It is far easier to borrow from the Fed, who owns the biggest piece of the debt, and retirees, who own the second largest piece of the debt. The only way out is for the government to go bankrupt. When that happens, retirees will lose SSI and Medicare. Politicians just hope that doesn't happen on their watch.
Milton Freidman said it best in the 1970's: Politicians, to get elected, will spend whatever they can tax plus whatever they can borrow. Bankruptcy (like Greece) is the only way out of a death spiral. At least after bankruptcy creditors will realize they can get burned and generally will clamp down on exorbidant lending.
I'll say it again. Bubba Clinton balanced the budget! He left office with a $300 billion surplus! Shrub turned that surplus into a $300 billion deficit by giving millionaires a $3 trillion tax cut! If that $300 billion annual surplus would have been used to pay off the national debt, our national debt would only be $2 trillion today. That means the interest on the national debt would only be $100 billion per year instead of $700 billion per year. That's more than a half trillion dollars less in taxes needed for the interest on the debt. Really, leaving this debt for your grandchildren is as low as it gets.
I agree with hangover, but I think Not Amused has a point too, especially when he says that raising taxes on the rich will lose campaign contributions. What we need here is campaign finance reform, and I am now convinced that limits need to be imposed on contributions, there needs to be some level of public funding, and obviously, something like Citizens United is a step in the wrong direction. In any democratic system, the politicians should be beholden to the people and not the money. -Meta
First we need a Supreme Court that knows that money is not free speech and corporations are not people.
Clinton balanced the budget by being in office during the dot.com boom, which created billions of stock market value, much of which later disappeared. The false boom created a false sense of security and a bubble in which spending and taxes were accelerated. Naturally, this came to an end.
You can make all the excuses you want. But the fact still remains that Shrub destroyed the surplus in his first six months as POTUS by giving millionaires a $3 trillion tax cut that was added to the national debt. And he added another $3 trillion with his Iraq/Afghan wars. And he destroyed the U.S. and global economies. Those are the facts Jack.
I certainly don't defend the big spending W. I just pointed out that Clinton fell into a nice situation with the dot.com boom which crearted the surplus. And don't tell me Clinton created the dot.com boom (or that Gore invented the internet).
No, you're confused. The Congress holds the purse strings. The President can't spend a nickel without congressional approval. The money spenders are on capitol hill. If they pander to the president, then shame on them.
It's the president that sets policy. It's the president that submits the budget to the congress. And yes, it's the obstructionist Republican congress that has been destroying all of Obama's economic recovery efforts. But the Republicans had no problem doubling the national debt and destroying the economy when Shrub was POTUS. Shame on them.
Not at all, nitwit. I don't wish to enter into a discussion with you. You aren't bright enough to refer to President Bush by his name and title, you aren't bright enough to acknowledge the tax cuts were for all taxpayers, which would of course predominatly be Republicans, and I don't wish to discuss anything with you. Good-bye.
Shrubs title is "the worst POTUS in history." He didn't even win the 2000 election, he was appointed by the S.C. without winning the popular vote or the electoral vote. He added more to the national debt than all the presidents in the previous 200 years. He destroyed all U.S. prestige and credibility by invading Iraq with lies about yellow cake. He destroyed the U.S. economy and the global economy. You aren't bright enough to know how stupid Shrub was. He couldn't even find the door when he was trying to escape questions. And you're so dumb, you don't even realize you WERE just discussing this with me. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHjIb6trxBI"]Bush Tries to Escape - YouTube[/ame] Duh, the ones the Cons have been obstructing. Duh!
Please list a few and how they will recover the economy. Two of the three years, Obama had free reign to fix the economy. I guess that was the Republicans as well.
How about the American Jobs Act? http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/reports/american-jobs-act.pdf
The words of the Republicans are hollow in this regard. Sure, they talk a tough talk but that is what it is... just talk. They want to end entitlements but when given the opportunity they don't. They had their opportunity to lower the deficit under Bush but they did not. Instead, they increased it! The only time they complain about the debt and deficit is when they are not the ones at the trough. They simply not willing do to what necessary to get the problem under control because it would mean making spending cuts that they don't want to make, ending kick backs to their cronies, and take the political heat that would result from it.
Same goes for Democrats. They all do it. It is a system problem. Spending buys votes. We're in a death spiral and only bankruptcy will provide the political cover to balance the budget. We'll get ther eventually, maybe sooner than later.
Sorry, I thought this was an anti-Republican rant thread . Kind of make one wonder if that is the end game; bankrupt the country and push the blame off to some external entity such as the IMF.
