Debt Crisis is Worse than we Think

apdst · Jul 31, 2011

sangha said:
And yet, when the repubicans controlled the house, the senate AND the white house, they spent like mad, and increased deficits and doubled the national debt.

Not nearly as madly as the Democrats have since 2007. Remember the trillion+ dollars spent on, "economic stimulus"? How's that working for you?

apdst · Jul 31, 2011

sangha said:
More assertions devoid of any supporting facts

The fact is, the more money they have, the more money they're going to spend. Raising taxes isn't going to fix a goddamn thing.

sangha · Jul 31, 2011

apdst said:
Not nearly as madly as the Democrats have since 2007. Remember the trillion+ dollars spent on, "economic stimulus"? How's that working for you?

Wrong. Spending has increased due to republican spending. A the stimulus wasn't more than a trillion, and much of it was tax cuts and credits.

And it saved many jobs.

sangha · Jul 31, 2011

apdst said:
The fact is, the more money they have, the more money they're going to spend. Raising taxes isn't going to fix a goddamn thing.

But, but doesn't cutting taxes result in more revenue? So won't cutting taxes result in more spending?

At least, that's what the rightwingers say, except when it's not convenient to say so

cpwill · Jul 31, 2011

sangha said:
And yet, when the repubicans controlled the house, the senate AND the white house, they spent like mad, and increased deficits and doubled the national debt.

you are sort of correct - Democrats picked up the Senate and then after 2006 they had both chambers.

but certainly I agree neither party can be trusted. that, after all, is why we need a balanced budget amendment

Иосиф Сталин · Jul 31, 2011

Goodbye USA! I hope you enjoyed all these years of might and prosperity because the party is NOW OVER. The lights are going out. You're going to collapse as a superpower. Your middle class is being eroded. There aren't any good jobs left anymore. Military personnel will have to accept huge cutbacks. Goodbye incentives. And little by little, investors are going to flee the USA as new markets and possibilites are emerging all over the globe.

Guy Incognito · Jul 31, 2011

Иосиф Сталин;1059700906 said:
Goodbye USA! I hope you enjoyed all these years of might and prosperity because the party is NOW OVER. The lights are going out. You're going to collapse as a superpower. Your middle class is being eroded. There aren't any good jobs left anymore. Military personnel will have to accept huge cutbacks. Goodbye incentives. And little by little, investors are going to flee the USA as new markets and possibilites are emerging all over the globe.

Better dead than red, comrade.

apdst · Jul 31, 2011

sangha said:
Wrong. Spending has increased due to republican spending. A the stimulus wasn't more than a trillion, and much of it was tax cuts and credits.

And it saved many jobs.

Hows the view from fantasy land?

pragmatic · Jul 31, 2011

sangha said:
And yet, when the repubicans controlled the house, the senate AND the white house, they spent like mad, and increased deficits and doubled the national debt.

In the last 50 years how often has the GOP controlled both houses and the presidency?

Answer is 4 years. The economic mess that the country is currently in didn't happen all at once. Your partisanship seems to have you blinded. Both parties get/deserve their share of credit for the fiscal debacle we are experiencing.

.

Flyersfan314 · Jul 31, 2011

The stimulus was 800B. About 230B of tax cuts. After it was passed unemployment slowed and jobs started coming back. However we lost trillions, 800B of stimulus including 230B of saved (useless) tax cuts are not going to fix this economy. We should have spent more and farther lowered business taxes instead of income taxes.

sangha · Jul 31, 2011

cpwill said:
you are sort of correct - Democrats picked up the Senate and then after 2006 they had both chambers.

but certainly I agree neither party can be trusted. that, after all, is why we need a balanced budget amendment

BBA's are ineffective. The govt can still issue bonds (a form of debt) that is not on the budget.

There's only one way to stop politicians from spending too much; elect politicians who won't do that.

But they always do, regardless of party, and regardless of what they say.

IMO, it's a fools errand to try to stop it. The best we can hope for is to limit the spending to that which we can afford by growing the economy, which requires spending

sangha · Jul 31, 2011

Cole said:
In the last 50 years how often has the GOP controlled both houses and the presidency?

Answer is 4 years. The economic mess that the country is currently in didn't happen all at once. Your partisanship seems to have you blinded. Both parties get/deserve their share of credit for the fiscal debacle we are experiencing.

.

I agree that both parties share some responsibility, but I do hold the republicans responsible for more spending than the dems for several reasons

1) The dems don't campaign on cutting spending as an ideological matter. Sometimes they advocate for more spending, sometimes for less, depending on the economic situation

2) The dems don't campaign for a small govt

3) The dems haven't increased spending when they were in control the way republicans have

4) The republicans only complain about spending when there's a dem in the white house

5) Most of the debt was accumulated under republican presidents with the republican base remaining quiet about it

Flyersfan314 · Jul 31, 2011

I also found this

Distribution of Effective Individual Income Tax Rate, 2010, Baseline: Current Law with AMT Patch

This is after stimulus and is more detailed. I find it interesting.

dontworrybehappy · Jul 31, 2011

sangha said:
I agree that both parties share some responsibility, but I do hold the republicans responsible for more spending than the dems for several reasons

1) The dems don't campaign on cutting spending as an ideological matter. Sometimes they advocate for more spending, sometimes for less, depending on the economic situation

2) The dems don't campaign for a small govt

3) The dems haven't increased spending when they were in control the way republicans have

4) The republicans only complain about spending when there's a dem in the white house

5) Most of the debt was accumulated under republican presidents with the republican base remaining quiet about it

1. So in other words, you damn well know democrats spend too much, but because they don't campaign not to do so, it's not their fault? Are you serious or is this entire post a joke?

2. Just a rehash of number 1.

3. Bull, take a look at the debt per day of the past 3 presidents and come back to me on this one.

4. The republican platform is about small gov't and freedom. They have always stuck to this. No matter who is in office.

5. Uh, wanna check out when the tea party was originally formed? :roll:

Damn, I'd given you credit for having at least an ounce of knowledge about history. Now I think you dropped out of that class before they took roll the first day.

sangha · Jul 31, 2011

dontworrybehappy said:
1. So in other words, you damn well know democrats spend too much, but because they don't campaign not to do so, it's not their fault? Are you serious or is this entire post a joke?

2. Just a rehash of number 1.

3. Bull, take a look at the debt per day of the past 3 presidents and come back to me on this one.

4. The republican platform is about small gov't and freedom. They have always stuck to this. No matter who is in office.

5. Uh, wanna check out when the tea party was originally formed? :roll:

Damn, I'd given you credit for having at least an ounce of knowledge about history. Now I think you dropped out of that class before they took roll the first day.

Not what I said at all

1) I hold the dems responsible for the share of debt that they created.

2) Not exactly the same, but related.

3) I have. My position is unchanged

4) repubs have expanded the size and the role of govt. Can you say Medicare D and the PATRIOT Act?

5) I know when the teabaggers started...when bush* was almost out of office and it was clear that a dem would be winning the white house

TheNextEra · Jul 31, 2011

dontworrybehappy said:
4. The republican platform is about small gov't and freedom. They have always stuck to this. No matter who is in office.

Really? Free speech zones, Homeland security (bloated government), Patriot Act, Medicare D, flag burning amendment that have tried and failed to pass (Republican sponsered), amendment against gay marriage that failed to pass (Republican sponsered).

Oh you meant freedoms REPUBLICANS support only. small govenerment and freedom my ass. And that was just when Bush was president. Republicans can lie and say they are for freedoms and small government, however, they are the ones that like to expand government and use it against freedoms they don't agree with.

And before someone says that I am giving a free pass to Dems, I'm not they do it as well with other issues.

It's really sad that politics today has come to this and has caused the problems it has. Politicians used to be public servants a long time ago, now they expect the public to be their servants.

sangha · Jul 31, 2011

TheNextEra said:
Really? Free speech zones, Homeland security (bloated government), flag burning amendment that have tried and failed to pass (Republican sponsered), amendment against gay marriage that failed to pass (Republican sponsered).

Oh you meant freedoms REPUBLICANS support only. small govenerment and freedom my ass. And that was just when Bush was president. Republicans can lie and say they are for freedoms and small government, however, they are the ones that like to expand government and use it against freedoms they don't agree with.

And before someone says that I am giving a free pass to Dems, I'm not they do it as well with other issues.

It's really sad that politics today has come to this and has caused the problems it has. Politicians used to be public servants a long time ago, now they expect the public to be their servants.

I don't know why, when the evidence is so weighed against it, but they really believe that the repubs say what they mean, and mean what they say

Taylor · Jul 31, 2011

sangha said:
And yet, when the repubicans controlled the house, the senate AND the white house, they spent like mad, and increased deficits and doubled the national debt.

Not this myth again.

Looking back the past 40 years:

Spending was at its lowest when Republicans had complete control.
Spending was at its highest when Democrats had complete control.
Spending was also quite high in the Reagan/Tip O'Neill years
Spending was moderate by comparison when Congress was controlled by the opposing party

If you instead want to go the "House control the purse-strings" route, you'll also find a large difference between the parties:

Democratic House: 21.0%
Republican House: 19.2%

sangha · Jul 31, 2011

Taylor said:
Not this myth again.

View attachment 67114847

Looking back the past 40 years:

Spending was at its lowest when Republicans had complete control.

Spending was at its highest when Democrats had complete control.

Spending was also quite high in the Reagan/Tip O'Neill years

Spending was moderate by comparison when Congress was controlled by the opposing party

If you instead want to go the "House control the purse-strings" route, you'll also find a large difference between the parties:

Democratic House: 21.0%
Republican House: 19.2%

That chart is nonsense. It doesn't indicate what years, and it doesn't indicate any split congresses where one party holds one half of congress, and the other party the other. It's a mess

And the Y axis isn't even labelled. Yeesh, what a mess

Flyersfan314 · Jul 31, 2011

Its not just spending its tax cuts without cutting spending. That chart is not a practical view of our economic situation. Spending is one half of the budget. Sometimes spending is a good thing.

Taylor · Jul 31, 2011

Also,

For all the crap Bush takes about spending by Dems, Independents, Repubs, the media...
in reality he spent less than most or all of his cohorts since '71 (yes, "W").

Looking back 40 years, there have been 20 sessions of congress. All four associated with Bush are in the top 8, along with 2 of Nixon's and 2 of Clinton's. The big spenders were of course Reagan and Bush Sr., who occupy the bottom 8 along with 1 each from Clinton and Obama.

sangha · Jul 31, 2011

Taylor said:
Also,

For all the crap Bush takes about spending by Dems, Independents, Repubs, the media...
in reality he spent less than most or all of his cohorts since '71 (yes, "W").

Looking back 40 years, there have been 20 sessions of congress. All four associated with Bush are in the top 8, along with 2 of Nixon's and 2 of Clinton's. The big spenders were of course Reagan and Bush Sr., who occupy the bottom 8 along with 1 each from Clinton and Obama.

He increased the debt more than any other president. I think it was around 5-6 trillion

As someone else pointed out, spending is just half the problem

Flyersfan314 · Jul 31, 2011

Look we need to cut spending. But until we do no tax brakes. Thats what I dislike about the tax cuts, in addition they didnt create many jobs. Doesn't make any sense. Also any tax hikes should accompany cuts to the mandatory budget.

Taylor · Jul 31, 2011

sangha said:
That chart is nonsense. It doesn't indicate what years, and it doesn't indicate any split congresses where one party holds one half of congress, and the other party the other. It's a mess

And the Y axis isn't even labelled. Yeesh, what a mess

I'm glad you at least figured out that R stands for Republican, D for Democrat, Prez for President and Cong for Congress. As to what you did find confusing:

"It doesn't indicate what years" - It goes back 40 years, see chart title
"the Y axis isn't even labelled" - Read the chart title
"it doesn't indicate any split congresses where one party holds one half of congress" - See the big purple bar that's labeled "SpltCong," that's the 2nd bar if you're color blind.

If you need more help, let me know.

sangha · Jul 31, 2011

Taylor said:
I'm glad you at least figured out that R stands for Republican, D for Democrat, Prez for President and Cong for Congress. As to what you did find confusing:

"It doesn't indicate what years" - It goes back 40 years, see chart title

"the Y axis isn't even labelled" - Read the chart title

"it doesn't indicate any split congresses where one party holds one half of congress" - See the big purple bar that's labeled "SpltCong," that's the 2nd bar if you're color blind.

If you need more help, let me know.

It doesn't label each category by years which makes it difficult to tell if it's accurate

OK, but it's wasn't clear

Where is D pres, split congress?

Debt Crisis is Worse than we Think

apdst

apdst

sangha

sangha

cpwill

Иосиф Сталин

Member

Guy Incognito

apdst

pragmatic

"Pawn in game of life"

Flyersfan314

Member

sangha

sangha

Flyersfan314

Member

dontworrybehappy

sangha

TheNextEra

sangha

Taylor

sangha

Flyersfan314

Member

Taylor

sangha

Flyersfan314

Member

Taylor

sangha