Simple question, please do not troll. I view demorepublic rats as one entity, I am therefor being called an extremist. and given our financial crisis, this brings us to the main question: WHO got US into debt the extremists or the moderates?
Who is moderate and an extremist depends on who is doing the interpreting. The government is in debt because it spent more than it took in. Balanced budgets require that X (the amount of income people are willing to surrender to the government) be at least equal to Y (all the things people want). Unfortunately for a balanced budget, people desire a lot of Y but don't want X to be too high. Politicians are elected and reelected, for the most part, by how much they please their constituents. People love their assorted goodies (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, a global military, the FDA, the DEA, the ATF, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Education, etc.) and politicians are more than willing to legislate those goodies into existence, at whatever cost. Then there are economists (I'm not sure how serious they are, I suspect they are sincere) who assure the politicians that the waste of money isn't a waste of money, but an "investment" and they'll draw up all sorts of complicated accounting, charts, graphs, equations justifying it all. That's how we got into debt. And we deserve it.
In this highly opinionated and generalized scenario, moderates. I consider the people who got the United States into debt representatives of a plethora of political ideologies.
Maybe Austrian School economists who became very popular because they advocated everything the rich and powerful like. If I had to blame a single economist, it would be Milton Friedman.
What's funny is the people who hate the Govt and taxes the most are the ones that want to pay back the national debt the most. You do realize that is a conundrum? To pay the debt back the Govt has to tax it back and take it from us. And eventually if we paid the debt down to $0 we would have $0 left. If people just understood how our economy worked they wouldn't perpetuate such ridiculous ideas.
Uh, no. The government can simply spend less than it takes in. And then use that surplus to pay back debts.
I'm gonna try to keep this short. Corporations lobby for what is best for themselves and our politicians like their large contributions. Since the 1980s they have pushed for lower taxes which equals less revenue for our government. Corporations have pushed for free trade which allows corporations relocate their manufacturing out of the U.S. without penalty, causing us to produce less and import more, less manufacturing jobs mean less well paying jobs that pay more in taxes. The diversity of legal systems all over the world create loopholes to the benefit of corporations and private individuals, who can seek out havens from regulation and tax collection, decreasing government revenue. These are only a few reasons. I could go on.
What you are pointing out is a small reason why we have a 15 trillion dollar debt, although I would contend a few points you made. There are a plethora of other reasons why, too many for me to describe in one post. However, disregarding exorbitant government spending as a reason is ignorant. Here comes akphidelt.
Spending on what? What do we spend on now that we didn't in the past? Maybe you could argue the two wars, but those wars were also pushed for by the military industries and oil companies who thought we would be able to invade and snatch Iraqi oil. P.S. Take note I will say, all new government spending does directly benefit a corporation. Something to think about.
Spending on unconstitutional or redundant programs, initiatives, etc. Take ObamaCare as an example. The Affordable Care Act mandates that people by healthcare insurance from private sector companies. This is highly unconstitutional, which is why it has undergone review by the Supreme Court. Furthermore, while the intent was to lower healthcare costs, ObamaCare has caused healthcare costs to increase. The benefits do not outweigh the costs. Lets look at Social Security. We have been incompetent in regards to ensuring long-term solvency and surpluses in the program. Last year, the entitlement suffered from a $49 billion dollar deficit. However, in order to ensure long-term solvency, not just short-term payments, we must make the program more efficient. This requires significant reforms, including an alternative approach for indexing, raising the age requirements for future beneficiaries, and other economical proposals. Lets look at Medicare Part D. Medicare Part D is one of the most poorly constructed programs in the entitlement system. As an opponent of the Republican party, I oppose it for economic and political reasons. The political reason is that it was engineered by Republican Billy Tauzin, a man who was in bed with pharmacuetical lobbyists. The economic reason is that there are more efficient alternatives. I propose eliminating Medicare Part D in favor of a Department of Veteran Affairs style prescription drug program. It is more cost-effective for government, provides more access to medications, all while ensuring minimal out-of-pocket payments. I can delve into foriegn policy, departments and agencies, taxation, the Federal Reserve, or any other issue pertaining to the budget, deficit, or debt. The point is most federal government spending is unwarranted, unconstitutional, or unintelligent. Most of what the federal government does can be allocated to the states, where it can be run more effectively within the confines of balanced budget amendments, and where we the people have a greater say over what they spend on.
This. They knew how to play the markets; up and down, and did so. Each cycle they were on the "right" money making side, each cycle accumulating more and more wealth.
Everyone in the US has got us into debt - that is, everyone that has voted and/or expects some particular list of services from govt. Everyone has their list - no one wants to pay.
We had a tax cut and we are fighting two wars. We also destroyed our manufacturing base. Golly I wonder why we're in debt. Maybe it's clearer to me because I'm old enough to remember America before Reagan.
Most people probably don't even realize that over a third of the national debt matures each year. Last year the Govt auctioned off almost $5 trillion in securities. But no one ever hears about it because the Govt doesn't need any of us to pay off the debt. The national debt will never be paid off and it will always grow. Unless they change policy in which we take seigniorage of our money instead of having to introduce it through debt. The debt honestly is the least of our worries and once people learn this then we can stop handicapping our country because of ignorance.
