Our National Debt

[Captain Worley]

Originally Posted by oz in SC

Anyone ever get the wild idea to simply go for it???

TO take all those credit cards,to do what is partiotic and buy, buy, buy!!!!

Of course next month when the bills arrive you can simply exclaim I can't pay and according to a lot of folks you should not be held accountable....

We could do a lot with that money IF we were so inclined.

Well, it would stimulate the manufacturing sector...

Originally Posted by Mr Floyd

Perhaps the powers that be think we, in general, can't read. Or at least don't read. That would explain much of the mortgage meltdown. Mortgages are not that complicated. Borrow X amount of money at Y rate of interest over Z amount of time. Increase any variable and increase the amount paid. Simple right? A variable rate mortgage just means "Y" will continue to change (likely rise) and payments will follow. I am having trouble being sympathetic to those who got caught up in all that. They should have known better. Their greed got the better of them. Why bail them out for being stupid?

Ditto the corporations that have dug their own holes through archaic business plans and questionable financial strategies.

Regardless of the slogans and jargon from the political parties, the government has continued to grow under either party. The Rethuglicans love to talk about less taxes even being quoted saying "No new taxes" but have our taxes decreased? Perhaps the Democraps are worse but at best it seems a "lesser of evils" kind of scenario.

I think as long as we continue to live a life based largely on convenience and entertainment, we will struggle. It does not seem sustainable. So as we party like there's no tomorrow, our spending will rise and taxes will increase to pay for it.

Someone mentioned the Elite taking a bigger and bigger share. Sounds a bit far out but not impossible. I mean look at the crap we consume watching TV. We are being reduced to idiot status by that crap. The negativity of the news keeps us fearful which has historically proven to be an effective control. Who is responsible ultimately for the programming? We sit. We watch. We complain to each other but do nothing but go back and consume more. Apathy, stupidity and gluttony (sp?). What a combination.

Yeah the elite. Perhaps. But maybe it's the Illuminati. The lizard people. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !

Reps to you. But you got it wrong about the lizard people. The Teleprompters will get us long before the lizards or the Illuminati.

[fatchance2005]

Originally Posted by momonkey

In the past, Republicans have cut taxes while allowing the deficits to increase in hopes of forcing spending reductions. This practice is called starving the beast. Looks like today the Democrat's strategy for starving the beast means spend, spend, spend then try to force tax increases.

This is a very informative story on our national debt and how we got where we are now.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tentrillion/

I think this is the crux of what's been on everyone's mind. What is the proper role, or the main responsibility of government? Is it as some argue today, to maintain a sound economy with a positive cash flow? Or does a government of by and for the people sometimes need to provide for the needs of the people directly? The Carter and Reagan years were about getting a handle on the national debt and slowing the rate of growth with the goal of a balanced budget, yet the government and the debt both grew. Spending cuts occurred. Almost all were in the Social programs. Why is that? Because Reagan hated poor people or something? Don't be silly. It's because that's where almost all the money is being spent. Things like tuition assistance and medical care for the poor. People always said stuff like, well cut the Space Program. The budget for NASA is slightly less than the amount that's misplaced annually in the HUD budget. So where should the point of balance be? Cut off all the programs that provide services directly to people? Go on the theory that if Big Business prospers they will take care of the rest of us? That idea is probably as true as it was when it was first voiced by people like Morgan and Getty. In recent times we've seen plenty of examples of how well they take care of themselves, and how well they look out for the rest of us. Or should Corporate profits be limited to the size of the GNP of a medium-sized country and the difference returned to the people who provide the goods and services? I think at this point we can safely discard the idea that if the government stays out the Corporations will do that themselves.

[momonkey]

Originally Posted by RD5050

Approximately 9 TRILLION of our 10.6 TRILLION National Debt was created by Republican Presidents ... who were "starving the beast" with their tax cuts.

I guess the "end-result" of their tax-cuts speaks for itself!

"Section 7. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills."

"Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

LII: Constitution

The Republicans of the Republican Revolution gave Bill Clinton the line item veto. It was challenged by Sen Byrd (D) of WV and Mayor Gulliani of NYC and was eventually overturned by the Supreme Court, but only after WJC used it eleven times to veto pork. Last I heard the Democrats were disinterested in it at this time and for obvious reasons. Sens McCain and Feingold are presently working on a new version that may take the form of a Constitutional Amendment (Byrd is still around).

"In a major blow to President Clinton and Republican leaders of Congress, a Federal judge ruled today that it was unconstitutional for the President to veto individual items in spending and tax legislation, rather than signing or rejecting the entire bill."

U.S. JUDGE RULES LINE ITEM VETO ACT UNCONSTITUTIONAL - The New York Times

Just curious, where did you go to school that they didn't teach civics and history? Since when does a president rule by decree....I mean before BHO obviously.

[RD5050]

Originally Posted by ViewFromThePeak

The deficits are already planned. Discuss the matter with your opponent Obama if you disagree with them.

I don't disagree with Obama at all.

Obama is possibly the smartest president this country has ever had ... and I fully trust his judgement!

But I think it's completely ridiculous for the Republicans to be "ranting and raving" about Obama's budget, when they have no idea of what it's end-results will be!

They assume all the spending will be a one-way street, with nothing to show for it, except a higher National Debt???

Have the Republicans ever considered that Obama's spending will be creating millions of new jobs, and putting millions of Americans back to work?

Have the Republicans ever considered that having millions of people working again, means more taxes collected by federal and state governments, and therefore more money to pay down our National Debt?

Have the Republicans ever considered that having millions of people working again, means the government won't have to pay out unemployment benefits, welfare, etc., and therefore will have more money to use for other government programs and to pay down our National Debt?

Sorry ... but all Republicans love to do is criticize Obama. It's the only thing they know how to do these days!

[oz in SC]

The above post explains a lot of things.....