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.
We spend DOLLARS, not PERCENTAGE CHANGES. The reason that there has been larger PERCENTAGE REDUCTIONS in the annual deficits is because OBAMA RACKED UP THE LARGEST DEFICITS IN US HISTORY. Therefore, despite a large percentage reduction, we are left with massive deficits.
Now if we look at THIS BAR GRAPH, it tells a different story, as we SPEND DOLLARS, not PERCENTAGE CHANGES. We can see that last year's "outstanding deficit" by Obama was much larger than the average deficits under Bush. Of course to a liberal, a "good" deficit is 50% higher than the AVERAGE deficit for Bush, which were "bad deficits"! Libs are priceless..
Percentages matter.
When the US annual budget was, in inflation adjusted dollars, $100,000,000 and we spent $110,000,000, that would be significant because it was 10%, or $10,000,000 more than what was budgeted.
When the US annual budget was, in inflation adjusted dollars, $1,000,000,000,000 and we spent $1,000,010,000,000, that would be insignificant because it was 0.001%, but still only $10,000,000 more than what was budgeted.
The same goes for the deficit as a percentage of the GDP.
It is sad how many people just don't understand government debt.
A monetary sovereign government needs to run an annual deficit to grow the money supply. Stop complaining about surpluses. Surpluses are bad for the economy.
no it doesnt..
We've been through this before, it was just as laughable then as it is now.
Government debt is not a credit card. That analogy is simply wrong.
Nope, that is incorrect. The government stimulus is a direct injection into the private sector. The government needn't take a cent in taxes to operate. It can pay any bill at any time. This is not opinion, this is mechanics. I recommend you educate yourself on fractional reserve banking.
Hahaha.. Government injecting money into the private sector without taking money from the citizens through taxes devalues the currency...
YOU educate yourself and just stop babbling some theory you read from a Kracker Jack box somewhere.
Interest is a world wide commodity in the same way oil is..
What do you think will happen if China decides to start to pay something like 7% return and investors flock to buyup their debt dumping the US treasuries or not buying enough?
It wouldnt be very difficult for a nation like China or Russia to bankrupt the US with our staggering debt by simply encouraging people to not buy it.
We'd be forced to print money, devaluing our currency.
And what? That comment stands up fine with the previous comments.
If you want more commentary:
Obama supports and helps enact the largest trickle down policy in US history. Obama out-Reagan's Reagan on trickle down. Then Obama says that he opposes trickle down and his adoring throngs cheer while his trickle down continues...
Obama could sell a cup of salt water to a beachfront Floridian Democrat.
That article is full of nonsense. For one thing, one of it's main "points" is that QE has supposedly driven up commodity prices, problem is, over the last 3 years commodity prices have been generally DOWN (even taking into account the increase so far this year).
So much for THAT silly theory.
I'm aware something like 110 people died during the Great Depression due to starvation despite government (and the vastly larger and better run private charities you conveniently leave out) aid.
And I ask...so what? In a country of about 122,000,000 in 1930 you're talking lightning strike odds.
It was NOT "110 people". The fact is, there's no good statistics from the time to give us much of any idea of how many people died of starvation (not to mention those who died due to complications from poor nutrition).
And I never said the parasite class would be fine; they can sink or swim on their own. If you can support two kids on your own but have seven, that's your DNA's problem, not ours. Can't feed them? Don't breed them.
If they wish to get uppity about it they can be put down quickly enough. We do have something like 350,000,000 guns floating around after all.
And you don't think those "uppity" people can get access to those guns?
What? Are you deliberately TRYING to start a civil war in this country ? - because deliberately reducing people to starvation is a pretty good way to do that.
However I do have some heart; we could offer anyone in government housing and on food stamps the opportunity to keep them by pressing them into national service to compensate we the people. Buses pick them up every morning to maintain roads, pick up trash, sort trash, dig ditches..whatever needs doing.
ALL of which costs money - which YOU (in your early post) ELIMINATED from the budget in order to "get rid" of the deficit. You've just unraveled YOUR OWN plan.
As I said - it was totally unworkable from the get-go.
Purely voluntary; you can leave the program and your handouts at any time. Slavery it isn't.
Socialist enough even you could love it I bet.
Can you elaborate on where I said it is 1776 or the country is overwhelmingly rural?
It's in reference to your reference about the governments "Constitutionally defined role" and the nation "sticking to it" (in the past):
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kreutz
"world peace" is a wholly unrealistic concept with no historical precedent.
A United States where the government sticks to its Constitutionally defined role has been done. By breaking some special interests it could be done again.
At the time the Constitution was written, the country was overwhelmingly rural. Those days are long past - the gradual changes in the interpretation of the duties of the government under the Constitution.
And... that was a nifty deflection. How will you get spending to be at 1970 levels as well?
1970-29.91% of GDP
2013-36.21% of GDP
So I need to get rid of what? 6% of GDP....sooo 18% of Spending?
OK military spending is dropped in half-theres half of it (total military budget is 18% of the total budget)
(This by the way puts it at the level of the next 3 largest countries combined) So still pretty good.
Now believe it or not, 7% more of it is interest on the debt....Something NOT there to that level in 1970. So thats new.
But...We spend 17.9% of our GDP on healthcare.....Canada? 10.9.
We adopt the Canadian system of healthcare. theres another...7%....btw thats of GDP. So technically doing JUST that would put us at 1970 spending levels. But I figure ours would have some teething problems at first.
Im not deflecting at all, im just pointing out that we DO have choices, and we used to have much higher taxes to pay for our government.
BTW under my plan we pay less for healthcare, with better results in 90% of all categories (you can cherry pick parts that are the 10%), and we're far more competitive as businesses dont have to deal with healthcare anymore.
Now this is off the top of my head, given time I could probably run the numbers and get better results, but thats what i got.
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.
