Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
On one side there is spending and on the other, there is income. When spending is greater, there is a deficit. To remedy the situation, you have to either:
1. Cut spending
2. Increase revenue
or
3. Some combination of the two.
Note that it increased every year during the Clinton presidency. It didn't rise as much because Republicans forced him to balance the budget. But the mere fact that it did increase proves there was never such a thing as a Deficit Surplus.
On one side there is spending and on the other, there is income. When spending is greater, there is a deficit. To remedy the situation, you have to either:
1. Cut spending
2. Increase revenue
or
3. Some combination of the two.
Agreed. But the point I'm making here uses spending in 2009 fixed at the same level as 2001. When we still see deficit show up, the problem is more than just spending alone. Should we not look into causes of that? To consider, how did THAT deficit come about? That we don't expect political leaders to debate and look for root causes is something that I'm concerned with. Most take their word, or of biased media and simply run around with it as if that is all there is to it.
Note that it increased every year during the Clinton presidency. It didn't rise as much because Republicans forced him to balance the budget. But the mere fact that it did increase proves there was never such a thing as a Deficit Surplus.
You didn't answer my question. What was the deficit in 2000 and 2001? And as I expected, and said, earlier, you would be quick to credit republican congress for any improvement in rate of debt increase while Clinton was in office. What, then, happened with republican congress after Clinton left office? Never mind, I know your response to that as well.
Agreed. But the point I'm making here uses spending in 2009 fixed at the same level as 2001. When we still see deficit show up, the problem is more than just spending alone. Should we not look into causes of that? To consider, how did THAT deficit come about? That we don't expect political leaders to debate and look for root causes is something that I'm concerned with. Most take their word, or of biased media and simply run around with it as if that is all there is to it.
I completly agree with you here. I don't trust politicians to examine the situation and give an honest assessment because of politics. The public allows them to get away with that. To really get a fair assessment, we need independent people, or at least a bipartisan group. I credit Obama with doing that with the debt commission. The insane part is that politicians act as though this group never met, and the public isn't outraged that their recommendations were never even taken seriously. That is an example of the politicians overtly playing politics with issue and the public buying into whatever the D's or R's tell them to think. I'm not saying all of the recommendations need to be implemented, but they're certainly worthy of debate by anyone who takes it seriously.
Last edited by Rggr; 02-17-2011 at 12:36 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
