• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Govt. borrows 46 cents of every dollar it spends

Spending is the problem.

The Marx School of PONZI Schemes is the problem.

Parasite Nation is the problem.

Denying reality is the problem.

Ignorance is the problem.


Hail to Parasite Nation... Hail!

I agree, spending is a problem. We need to cut spending on the Millitary first. Most of that money goes to defense contractors that charge way too much for what we get. But the defense contractors have lobbiests that pay off congressmen to accept contracts that are way too high. We need to cut spending on the oil companies that have billions in profits. We need to cut spending on all corporate welare, with the exception of corporations who create jobs here in the US.

The corporate Parasites are a huge problem, I agree. They cost us billions and do very little to help the economy. The CEOs ship jobs overseas and pay themselves millions in bonuses. Huge problem.

Denying reality by watching Fox news is also a huge problem. Fox viewers are the most uninformed viewers in the US. Yes, ignorance is a problem, but its a free country so if the Fox news fans want to believe the manufactured news, so be it.
 
Before we start Hairytic... 46 cents of every dollar spent having to be borrowed is not due to the military. It is due to Socialism, to the omnipresent, omnipotent and inescapable destructive forces Parasite Nation breeds. Once in the vortex of Parasite Nation's spending... the solution is to...?
Stop and phase out the ridiculous spending on Socialist schemes.


I agree, spending is a problem. We need to cut spending on the Millitary first.
Typical Parasite Nation supporter. The only thing they ever see worth cutting is the military.

This is about the only spending government should be involved with... defense and policing our borders... but it is what Socialists always want to cut. They want to kill the deterrent effect of a strong military. It's absurd, but that's the Socialist Left for ya.

Most of that money goes to defense contractors that charge way too much for what we get.
Freedom and protecting it comes with costs.

But the defense contractors have lobbiests that pay off congressmen to accept contracts that are way too high.
I am happy you are against lobbyists. Do you know how to get rid of them?
Get government out of the business of handing out goodies... problem solved.

We need to cut spending on the oil companies that have billions in profits. We need to cut spending on all corporate welare, with the exception of corporations who create jobs here in the US.
Well... I agree... get the federal government out of business... out of socialist PONZI schemes, out of education, out of school lunches, shut the DEA and HUD and gut the EPA... OSHA... just get rid of it. Let states do their thing. If they want that stuff, they can fund it.

The Feds should be put into the little box designed for them... strong where they should be strong (national defense) and weak where they should be weak... (all the socialist engineering crapola).

The corporate Parasites are a huge problem, I agree. They cost us billions and do very little to help the economy. The CEOs ship jobs overseas and pay themselves millions in bonuses. Huge problem.

Denying reality by watching Fox news is also a huge problem. Fox viewers are the most uninformed viewers in the US. Yes, ignorance is a problem, but its a free country so if the Fox news fans want to believe the manufactured news, so be it.
 
Last edited:
Before we start Hairytic... 46 cents of every dollar spent having to be borrowed is not due to the military. It is due to Socialism, to the omnipresent, omnipotent and inescapable destructive forces Parasite Nation breeds. Once in the vortex of Parasite Nation's spending... the solution is to...?
Stop and phase out the ridiculous spending on Socialist schemes.



Typical Parasite Nation supporter. The only thing they ever see worth cutting is the military.

This is about the only spending government should be involved with... defense and policing our borders... but it is what Socialists always want to cut. They want to kill the deterrent effect of a strong military. It's absurd, but that's the Socialist Left for ya.


Freedom and protecting it comes with costs.


I am happy you are against lobbyists. Do you know how to get rid of them?
Get government out of the business of handing out goodies... problem solved.


Well... I agree... get the federal government out of business... out of socialist PONZI schemes, out of education, out of school lunches, shut the DEA and HUD and gut the EPA... OSHA... just get rid of it. Let states do their thing. If they want that stuff, they can fund it.

The Feds should be put into the little box designed for them... strong where they should be strong (national defense) and weak where they should be weak... (all the socialist engineering crapola).

The corporate Parasites are a huge problem, I agree. They cost us billions and do very little to help the economy. The CEOs ship jobs overseas and pay themselves millions in bonuses. Huge problem.

Denying reality by watching Fox news is also a huge problem. Fox viewers are the most uninformed viewers in the US. Yes, ignorance is a problem, but its a free country so if the Fox news fans want to believe the manufactured news, so be it.

Throwing money at the millitary won't give us a strong defense. We should spend money wisely in all areas of spending. Now, I would be all for raising the wages of the men and women who fight for us, but paying out big money to defense contractors who jack their prices up isn't a wise way to spend money. We can lower the amount of money we spend on the military and be more effecient.
I think it is important to spend money on social programs because we are only as strong as our weakest link. It is a benefit to society to make sure it's citizens are healthy and have the opportunity to thrive. I see spending money on social programs as an investment in our people.
We will have to agree to disagree on this point.
 
Although we've always had debt, Obama has taken it into overdrive and there is no one to stop him. The establishment of both parties do not want to stop spending no matter what they say. Government grows every day and the private sector shrinks.

The spending might be in overdrive because of the wars, the recession and an aging population but is the government itself really getting bigger?



"...According to BLS data, total federal government employment was 3.103 million in January 1990. Preliminary numbers for November 2010 are 2.837 million....

While official workforce figures have gone down in recent decades, use of government contractors has exploded, especially in the defense sector following the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

In fiscal 2000, the government spent $208 billion on contractors. In fiscal 2009, that figure was up more than 150 percent, to $540 billion.

What does that mean for the workforce? Well, if you consider government contractors federal employees and view grantees -- like universities -- as employing people on behalf of the federal government ("Nuclear labs are run by universities, but are clearly federal agencies," said Light), the numbers have rocketed...."

PolitiFact Virginia | Rep. Gerry Connolly says federal workforce hasn't grown since 1990

So guess what needs to be cut if you really want a smaller government?



As a side, I heard something on NPR radio the other day that was very interesting. The guest talking said that before the Great Depression senior citizens were the poorest segment of society. Today they are the wealthiest. Federal money spent on seniors as part of GDP is about 20.4 percent and Medicare (13.1 percent). But here's the kicker, Federal money spent on children is only about 2.5% of GDP. The reason: children can't vote and they don't have lobbyists. Children in the US are born with economic disadvantage the moment they come out of the womb. Another thing I recently heard is that based on living standards, income, health care, safety, etc, the US is not the best country to bear and raise children any more. It's not even in the top ten....instead it rates 16th down on the list....

World's Best Countries To Be Born In For 2013

This countries priorities are really screwed up.
 
Spending is the problem.

The Marx School of PONZI Schemes is the problem.

Parasite Nation is the problem.

Denying reality is the problem.

Ignorance is the problem.


Hail to Parasite Nation... Hail!

NOT funding programs you start is the problem. We began this HUGE debt that Bush created up to $13 trillion before he left office by NOT funding two wars, tax cuts for the rich (removing money from the budget) and a HUGE pharmaceutical socialist program in Medicare. When you have a party like the republicans who STILL outspend on pork barrels any democrat, then you have fiscal irresponsibility.
 
NOT funding programs you start is the problem. We began this HUGE debt that Bush created up to $13 trillion before he left office by NOT funding two wars, tax cuts for the rich (removing money from the budget) and a HUGE pharmaceutical socialist program in Medicare. When you have a party like the republicans who STILL outspend on pork barrels any democrat, then you have fiscal irresponsibility.


Did GW Bush overspend? Hell yes....However, the spending Bush did in 8 years, is nothing compared to Trillion dollar deficits per year this destroyer n chief is spending. Bush added $5 Trillion in 8 years, Obama has added another $6 Trillion in 4 years.
 
It's like being a passenger in a 747 headed for the ground, and watching the pilot on the left blame the pilot on the right, and vice versa, while neither one does anything to pull the nose back up.

The bottom line is the federal government is dysfunctional.

This is the sad, yet simple, truth. Each of our morons in DC has their own re-election as priority one. Every gov't dept., agency and program is "off the table" for cuts by far too many in DC; as they depend on those that benefit from it for either campaign cash or directly buying votes. To assert that this nation now "needs" a federal gov't that spends 24% of GDP is insane.
 
Government of, by, and for the people doesn't work if the people aren't paying attention.

I think a lot of people are paying attention, there are just a lot of different views on how to fix the problems we face. The majority want compromise so we can get our problems fixed.
 
The spending might be in overdrive because of the wars, the recession and an aging population but is the government itself really getting bigger?



"...According to BLS data, total federal government employment was 3.103 million in January 1990. Preliminary numbers for November 2010 are 2.837 million....

While official workforce figures have gone down in recent decades, use of government contractors has exploded, especially in the defense sector following the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

In fiscal 2000, the government spent $208 billion on contractors. In fiscal 2009, that figure was up more than 150 percent, to $540 billion.

What does that mean for the workforce? Well, if you consider government contractors federal employees and view grantees -- like universities -- as employing people on behalf of the federal government ("Nuclear labs are run by universities, but are clearly federal agencies," said Light), the numbers have rocketed...."

PolitiFact Virginia | Rep. Gerry Connolly says federal workforce hasn't grown since 1990

So guess what needs to be cut if you really want a smaller government?



As a side, I heard something on NPR radio the other day that was very interesting. The guest talking said that before the Great Depression senior citizens were the poorest segment of society. Today they are the wealthiest. Federal money spent on seniors as part of GDP is about 20.4 percent and Medicare (13.1 percent). But here's the kicker, Federal money spent on children is only about 2.5% of GDP. The reason: children can't vote and they don't have lobbyists. Children in the US are born with economic disadvantage the moment they come out of the womb. Another thing I recently heard is that based on living standards, income, health care, safety, etc, the US is not the best country to bear and raise children any more. It's not even in the top ten....instead it rates 16th down on the list....

World's Best Countries To Be Born In For 2013

This countries priorities are really screwed up.

I have to agree with you on our priorities. We should care more for our children than we do. When people talk about cutting food stamps and lunch programs, I think of all the children that will suffer for it. Why cut these programs? We should start by cutting the spending we do on corporations that do not benefit our economy. We can't be a great nation if we allow our children to starve.
 
Did GW Bush overspend? Hell yes....However, the spending Bush did in 8 years, is nothing compared to Trillion dollar deficits per year this destroyer n chief is spending. Bush added $5 Trillion in 8 years, Obama has added another $6 Trillion in 4 years.

When you concider that Bush started with a surplus and burned through that surplus and added trillions to the debt, you get a better picture.
 
When you concider that Bush started with a surplus and burned through that surplus and added trillions to the debt, you get a better picture.

What picture is that? Obama is running up the defict at over twice the rate that Bush did. Facts are not your friend using that lame argument. Under Bush, federal taxation was 17% of GDP and federal spending was 20% of GDP, under Obama, taxation is still 17% of GDP but spending is now 24% of GDP, that is a 20% increase in federal spending. Yes he did!
 
What picture is that? Obama is running up the defict at over twice the rate that Bush did. Facts are not your friend using that lame argument. Under Bush, federal taxation was 17% of GDP and federal spending was 20% of GDP, under Obama, taxation is still 17% of GDP but spending is now 24% of GDP, that is a 20% increase in federal spending. Yes he did!

You do know the country is still recovering from a rather nasty recession don' you? Remember the adage: There are lies, damned lies and then there are statistics

If the economy is not doing as well as it once performed, tax revenues will be down - so even when expenditures are being cut, the percentage of revenues being spent may increase.
 
I think a lot of people are paying attention, there are just a lot of different views on how to fix the problems we face. The majority want compromise so we can get our problems fixed.

I think t hat's what the majority wants, yes. It doesn't look like they're going to get what they want any time soon, does it?
 
I think t hat's what the majority wants, yes. It doesn't look like they're going to get what they want any time soon, does it?

Not while we maintain this two party system. But I digress.

Is there an estimated return on the 46 cents we borrow per dollar? I would think not, or it would be negative. The solution (if they make one) is going to hurt at the end of the month.
 
Not while we maintain this two party system. But I digress.

Is there an estimated return on the 46 cents we borrow per dollar? I would think not, or it would be negative. The solution (if they make one) is going to hurt at the end of the month.

Oh, the solution will hurt, which is why they don't want to come up with one. The main goal seems to be to make sure that the other party gets blamed for any pain that takes place.
 
You do know the country is still recovering from a rather nasty recession don' you? Remember the adage: There are lies, damned lies and then there are statistics

If the economy is not doing as well as it once performed, tax revenues will be down - so even when expenditures are being cut, the percentage of revenues being spent may increase.

So, in your opinion, the gov't should attempt to take more taxes when the economy is "down"? Just what exactly is the gov't doing to get the economy to improve? I never mentioned the percentage of revenue to expendatures (deficit/surplus), I mentioned the ratio of federal taxation/spending relative to the GDP. Cranking up the gov't spending (supported by borrowing) is only of value if it goes to improve the nations economic production, not to simply redistribute income from those that are still working to those that are not.
 
Last edited:
What picture is that? Obama is running up the defict at over twice the rate that Bush did. Facts are not your friend using that lame argument. Under Bush, federal taxation was 17% of GDP and federal spending was 20% of GDP, under Obama, taxation is still 17% of GDP but spending is now 24% of GDP, that is a 20% increase in federal spending. Yes he did!

You fail to see that a part of what has been spent under the Obama administration was obligated during the Bush administration. The most honest way to view this is to take in to account what each president's policies have cost the country. Here is a chart by Ezra Kline that explains it better than I can.
Obama’s and Bush’s effects on the deficit in one graph - The Washington Post

debt%20changes%20under%20bush%20obama.jpg
 
You fail to see that a part of what has been spent under the Obama administration was obligated during the Bush administration. The most honest way to view this is to take in to account what each president's policies have cost the country. Here is a chart by Ezra Kline that explains it better than I can.
Obama’s and Bush’s effects on the deficit in one graph - The Washington Post

View attachment 67139144

Perhaps a look at reality is in order. Look at the Bush tax cuts effect on federal revenue (2003-2008) and the Bush spending during that time. Then look at 2009-present. Obama decreased federal revenue and increased federal spending (with one less "Bush war") to give us our current "wonder economy" and recent massive federal debt increase. Pay particular attention to these revenue/spending figures in relation to GDP. In spite of Obama "not liking" the Bush taxation/spending policies he kept all of it and added even more tax cuts and spending increases of his own. Yes he did!

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200
 
Perhaps a look at reality is in order. Look at the Bush tax cuts effect on federal revenue (2003-2008) and the Bush spending during that time. Then look at 2009-present. Obama decreased federal revenue and increased federal spending (with one less "Bush war") to give us our current "wonder economy" and recent massive federal debt increase. Pay particular attention to these revenue/spending figures in relation to GDP. In spite of Obama "not liking" the Bush taxation/spending policies he kept all of it and added even more tax cuts and spending increases of his own. Yes he did!

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

yes, he did, with the advise and consent of Congress.

and the voters returned him to Washington, along with most of Congress. What are we to make of that?
 
yes, he did, with the advise and consent of Congress.

and the voters returned him to Washington, along with most of Congress. What are we to make of that?

Vote buying, ignorance of the voting public and a drooling, cheerleading press corps that embraced his moronic "class warfare" and "blame Bush" nonsnense. Yes they did!
 
I think most can agree, that our government is spending too much.
The real question, is what and how to cut to fix it.
Rising taxes is like increasing a junkie's heroine supply.
We have to trim government.
 
Vote buying, ignorance of the voting public and a drooling, cheerleading press corps that embraced his moronic "class warfare" and "blame Bush" nonsnense. Yes they did!

Yes, all of that, and the idiots who based their votes on party loyalty and/or those negative TV ads purchased for hundreds of millions in special interest dollars.

Why is it that the voters can't see that campaign ads are made up almost entirely of pure, unadulterated BS?
 
Yes, all of that, and the idiots who based their votes on party loyalty and/or those negative TV ads purchased for hundreds of millions in special interest dollars.

Why is it that the voters can't see that campaign ads are made up almost entirely of pure, unadulterated BS?
Propaganda and advertising are opposite sides of the same coin, they both convince people to
buy or vote for something they don't really need, (and may not want):mrgreen:
 
So, in your opinion, the gov't should attempt to take more taxes when the economy is "down"? Just what exactly is the gov't doing to get the economy to improve? I never mentioned the percentage of revenue to expendatures (deficit/surplus), I mentioned the ratio of federal taxation/spending relative to the GDP. Cranking up the gov't spending (supported by borrowing) is only of value if it goes to improve the nations economic production, not to simply redistribute income from those that are still working to those that are not.


Don't know if this was deliberate obtuseness or you just refuse to see reality

My words "If the economy is not doing as well " does, at least to me, indicate that the GDP is not as high as it was previously (inflation adjusted) therefore - even when the feds don't spend as much as previously, the amount spent may still be a larger percentage of GDP, despite a reduction in spending
 
I agree, spending is a problem. We need to cut spending on the Millitary first. Most of that money goes to defense contractors that charge way too much for what we get. But the defense contractors have lobbiests that pay off congressmen to accept contracts that are way too high. We need to cut spending on the oil companies that have billions in profits. We need to cut spending on all corporate welare, with the exception of corporations who create jobs here in the US.

The corporate Parasites are a huge problem, I agree. They cost us billions and do very little to help the economy. The CEOs ship jobs overseas and pay themselves millions in bonuses. Huge problem.

Denying reality by watching Fox news is also a huge problem. Fox viewers are the most uninformed viewers in the US. Yes, ignorance is a problem, but its a free country so if the Fox news fans want to believe the manufactured news, so be it.

Great, another person who wants to do something but wants his choice to be done first. We need the fiscal cliff.
 
Back
Top Bottom