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.
The last TRUE Surplus that the US had was 1957 under Eisenhower. A true surplus occurs when the national debt does not increase during the fiscal year. It is time that all people put aside their party identifications and stop making excuses. This is a real issue.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the the economy and employment tanked under Obama's first two years. Remember. Republicans(George Will was one) were saying the economy was doing fine in 2008 despite mainstream economists already deemed the economy was in a recession from December of 2007. It started under Bush, but the ramifications happened under Obama.
Debt to GDP is not bad. Japan's economy is doing just fine.
The explanation for that is so simple that it is in the category of a grade school math problem. All it means is more money is circulating as public credit rather than private credit because individual Japanese don't want to take on debt. All money in a central bank system is created at a debt. The ratio of public debt is high in Japan because they are savers. Its actually cheaper money than we have since they rent the money to themselves(private Japanese hold the debt).
Again if people try to treat this like their check book they are going no where.
The last TRUE Surplus that the US had was 1957 under Eisenhower. A true surplus occurs when the national debt does not increase during the fiscal year. It is time that all people put aside their party identifications and stop making excuses. This is a real issue.
The real issue is to address the funding of the operations of our government and separate this from the finacial reality that a dollar is a government IOU. I ask again. Do you want a depression?
The federal budget is two completely distinct things.
* funding for operations
* the monetary base.
What will replace the monetary base without government debt? That is all I ask.
The explanation for that is so simple that it is in the category of a grade school math problem. All it means is more money is circulating as public credit rather than private credit because individual Japanese don't want to take on debt. All money in a central bank system is created at a debt. The ratio of public debt is high in Japan because they are savers. Its actually cheaper money than we have since they rent the money to themselves(private Japanese hold the debt).
Again if people try to treat this like their check book they are going no where.
The explanation for that is so simple that it is in the category of a grade school math problem. All it means is more money is circulating as public credit rather than private credit because individual Japanese don't want to take on debt. All money in a central bank system is created at a debt. The ratio of public debt is high in Japan because they are savers. Its actually cheaper money than we have since they rent the money to themselves(private Japanese hold the debt).
Again if people try to treat this like their check book they are going no where.
That is not true. The recession, which if you remember began under another administration, is what has caused an increase in use of food stamps and housing vouchers.
Reality moment here.
The President, regardless of party, has little influence over the actual market itself. Negatively or positively. A point that is forgotten when the other guy is in office, for whatever reason.
What we should focus on as an electorate isn't the economy, but how much money the federal government is spending in proportion to GDP growth.
Better yet, compare the federal income and outlays to the GDP.
Here is GDP growth compared percentage wise to federal income growth and outlay growth.
Quote:
There are good things to spend money on, federally. But we should debate them on their merits rather then to say "Its always their fault, never mine"
American citizens, by overwhelming majorities, support food stamps and housing vouchers for anyone who is working. No one is going to stand by and watch a man or woman who is working starve or go homeless. Just a reality of the country we live in, we are a generous people. Doesn't mean there isn't waste to cut from them, but it doesn't mean we should abolish them or that increased use during economic downturns are a bad thing either.
Well, Clinton had no surplus...but leaving that aside for the moment, you're right. It is logical.
But here's the problem: You don't just "mention" Bush. You mention him to the exclusion of Obama.
And here's why that's a problem:
In 31 months of Barack Obama’s presidency, according to the Treasury and CBS News, the US has added $4 trillion to its national debt. That approaches the presidential record set by George W. Bush of $4.9 trillion, but there’s a catch to that. Bush set that record in two terms — in 96 months.
So why does ONLY Bush merit mention when Obama has spent money at more than triple the rate?
To them facts are irrelevant!! They see all the free stuff!! If they don't work and pay taxes, the stuff you provided means nothing to these people.
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.
