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.
But 2 things happened that stopped Bush's debt lowering plan. First was a round of supply side tax cuts, second was 2 very expensive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In 2001 we had a government structure that gave us surpluses, and we had the ability to pay down our national debt. Why can't we go back to that 2001 government structure and start to pay down our debt?
Elect someone who won't go to war, and will stop cutting taxes to historic lows.
GW Bush said the following in 2001, "we have big enough surpluses to pay down our national debt by $2 trillion dollars in the next 10 years, join me to do it." And at the moment GW Bush said that I believe it was fully possible.
But 2 things happened that stopped Bush's debt lowering plan. First was a round of supply side tax cuts, second was 2 very expensive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In 2001 we had a government structure that gave us surpluses, and we had the ability to pay down our national debt. Why can't we go back to that 2001 government structure and start to pay down our debt?
Bush was wrong.
In Clinton's last Fiscal Year, we were running a deficit of $133 Billion. We didn't have a surplus to start paying down the national debt with.
That was a rosy projection that would never come to fruition as it assumed everything would be perfect - bigger GDP growth when it didn't grow during that FY. It assumed more tax revenue from stock profits as opposed to a loss in revenue from stock loss write offs. Etc....
However, your larger point about Bush and Obama making the problem worse are correct, but we were not in a situation to go forward and lower debt. We still aren't today. Although, Afghanistan was more necessary than Iraq and I think even Gore would have done Afghanistan.
It doesn't matter. No one will do anything until there's a problem. Sometimes learning the hard way is the best way.
Agreed -- and since there never will be a problem, it's best to understand that the national debt is a political football, nothing more. We can carry our current level of debt indefinitely. The government doesn't need to pay off its mortgage or plan for retirement.
Regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum, I think it's hard to argue against anything this woman said: Yahoo!
I disagree with her.
This woman, along with most politicians, economists, and voters in America today, are lost in the 1970's in terms of their understanding of monetary policy. They all think that the federal government operates with the same monetary constrants as a household, a corporation, or a state government. They seem to think that the U.S. national debt drives inflation, while ignoring the role played by U.S. private sector debt.
Central banks in both the UK and the United States have explained how the system actually works, but nobody pays them any attention. Not even other "mainstream economists." They all go on pretending as if high levels of US debt constitute a 'crisis.' They all think that 'the market' can somehow magically 'force' US interest rates to go higher -- contrary to what the Fed, the Bank of Japan, the Bank of England, etc., have said, and contrary to how the global financial system has actually operated for the past 25-30 years.
In 2001 we had a government structure that gave us surpluses, and we had the ability to pay down our national debt. Why can't we go back to that 2001 government structure and start to pay down our debt?
Not true. The "surpluses" were actually Social Security surpluses, which the mealy mouths in the congress spent. The Treasury then placed an IOU in the Social Security trust fund account. Those IOUs are now becoming due and the congress is borrowing and printing to redeem them. See photo below of the file cabinet where SS trust fund IOUs are kept.
Kasich talked about it at every stop. In fact, Kasich would often give his speeches with a debt clock behind him as he mentioned his success in DC and Ohio on the topic.
Kasich was the only candidate to have a realistic plan to get us to a balanced budget...people didn't care.
Why be an adult and solve the problem when you get votes for promising more services for less taxes?
Greece, here we come.
I think Kasich will be viewed as a missed opportunity come the first Wednesday in November.
Ironically the last President to really address spending thoroughly was Bush. And he got hammered from all sides & watched as many of the proposals that cost him support or had short term negative impact paid great dividends during Clinton's tenure.
That's because there are more pressing issues, such as:
- Why did Trump waffle on his statement to release his tax returns
- Why did Hillary waffle on *insert issue
- Why Bernie will win the west coast - but won't win the DNC nomination.
- Why do more children like chocolate ice cream over vanilla?
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.
