• 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

To be fair please answer the following simple question: What was the Bush increase in the defict/national debt about, if not simply to "tax, borrow and spend and give free stuff"? The outrage is not so easy to believe when the basic policy was not changed, only the "magnitude" of the gap (deficit). Hmm...

9/11 was a horrendous thing that happened very early in GW's term and that certainly had an effect on the economy and spending.

Obama's spending priorities, while doubling, appear to be more mysterious.
 
Congress controls, or fails to control, spending.

Not the president.

Whether the president has an R or a D after his name means little.
 
And where were the "debt concerned" GOP members during the Bush era of tac cuts, borrow, spend and give free stuff?

The simple fact is Obama is continuing a method that got Bush elected twice. No, I'm not just blaming Bush. Let's get real though, how can anyone who voted for Bush twice be complaining about Obama's spending without being a hypocrite?

First I'm critical of any president borrowing money, I don't care who he his. Take your logic, for every person who voted for Obama approved of Bush's spending and loves how Obama is borrowing and spending, even more.

As for Obama continuing a method that got Bush elected twice. Obama has taken that method and tripled it. So liberals are really happy now the more liberal Obama and clan spend the more they love the guy. Obama is Santa Clause.
 
Congress controls, or fails to control, spending.

Not the president.

Whether the president has an R or a D after his name means little.

Interesting, whey is Obama even talking to the leader of the house?
 
Do people really see the Bush Tax Cuts as a addition to the debt? I would think even the simplest logic would conclude that yes, while that money did not come into the government; it was used for goods, services and investments. Those add to the economy which creates money to be taxed which brings in more money. Or would that statement open a can of worms?
 
I never mentioned NAFTA or anything else. What I said was that he left Bush with an almost $6 trillion dollar debt. Do you understand that part before you move on elsewhere?
I never mentioned Clinton either and yet here we are. So what are you trying to say, that Clinton was responsible for Bush debt? Do you think Obama's debt would be as high now if he had inherited Clinton's debt and budget surplus instead of Bush's debt and policies? Because I sure don't. In fact, I don't think we would have even had a 9/11 if Gore had been elected. <sigh> if wishes were fishes....
 
Do people really see the Bush Tax Cuts as a addition to the debt? I would think even the simplest logic would conclude that yes, while that money did not come into the government; it was used for goods, services and investments. Those add to the economy which creates money to be taxed which brings in more money. Or would that statement open a can of worms?
Sorry but that is to put it mildly, naive to think that cutting taxes without reducing spending won't reduce revenue. The notion that the money was put to good use is baloney since all we have to show for it is a recession, two failed wars and a shrinking middle class.
 
Interesting, whey is Obama even talking to the leader of the house?

Possibly because any legislation that is passed has to come from Congress? Maybe an agreement is necessary because the Congress has to pass the legislation, and the president approve it? It just might be that some remnants of the Constitution are still in operation.

But, that's just a wild guess.
 
And where were the "debt concerned" GOP members during the Bush era of tac cuts, borrow, spend and give free stuff?

The simple fact is Obama is continuing a method that got Bush elected twice. No, I'm not just blaming Bush. Let's get real though, how can anyone who voted for Bush twice be complaining about Obama's spending without being a hypocrite?

Bush had two very weak candidates running against him and if you look back at the record you'll see that Conservatives also turned on Bush because of his spending, the Pharmacy program for seniors among them. Many conservatives actually believed Obama when he said he would reduce spending and the deficit but of course they were conned.
 
I never mentioned Clinton either and yet here we are. So what are you trying to say, that Clinton was responsible for Bush debt? Do you think Obama's debt would be as high now if he had inherited Clinton's debt and budget surplus instead of Bush's debt and policies? Because I sure don't. In fact, I don't think we would have even had a 9/11 if Gore had been elected. <sigh> if wishes were fishes....

You should have mentioned Clinton because he left trillions in debt for Bush who in turn left further trillions for Obama. You made it appear that Bush got the country $10 trillion in debt over 8 years, which is not true. Of course Obama has doubled down on all the previous spending and put the United States in an impossible situation.
 
Sorry but that is to put it mildly, naive to think that cutting taxes without reducing spending won't reduce revenue. The notion that the money was put to good use is baloney since all we have to show for it is a recession, two failed wars and a shrinking middle class.

Reducing spending does not reduce revenue. Revenue is a result of the government taxing, and has nothing to do with spending. If you want to talk about improving our debt situation, then yes, increasing revenue while reducing spending would be the fastest solution.

The fact that you pile wars and the recession onto the tax cuts is amazing, they aren't related. What is related is that with the increase in money, middle class and lower class had more disposable income. The more disposable income they have, the more they spend on the direct economy.
 
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.
If only that were true - because then nothing would get done.
Unfortunately, the government always finds the ability to spend.
 
I never mentioned Clinton either and yet here we are. So what are you trying to say, that Clinton was responsible for Bush debt? Do you think Obama's debt would be as high now if he had inherited Clinton's debt and budget surplus instead of Bush's debt and policies? Because I sure don't. In fact, I don't think we would have even had a 9/11 if Gore had been elected. <sigh> if wishes were fishes....

<sigh> if bubbles were surplus...
 
Reducing spending does not reduce revenue. Revenue is a result of the government taxing, and has nothing to do with spending. If you want to talk about improving our debt situation, then yes, increasing revenue while reducing spending would be the fastest solution.
A penny saved is a penny earned. If you're not spending revenue then it stands to reason there is going to be more revenue saved.

The fact that you pile wars and the recession onto the tax cuts is amazing, they aren't related. What is related is that with the increase in money, middle class and lower class had more disposable income. The more disposable income they have, the more they spend on the direct economy.
They are related. The revenue to pay for almost everything government does comes from taxes. So if you decrease revenue (incoming) and increase spending (outgoing) then you're eventually going to broke. It's just that simple.
 
This is mostly because federal spending buys votes.

I'm not so sure. I think the voters are getting a little bit nervous about that 16 teradollar and growing debt. The problem is, no one wants their favorite government program ended, nor do they want their taxes raised. They want someone else's program ended, and someone else's taxes raised.
 
A penny saved is a penny earned. If you're not spending revenue then it stands to reason there is going to be more revenue saved.

They are related. The revenue to pay for almost everything government does comes from taxes. So if you decrease revenue (incoming) and increase spending (outgoing) then you're eventually going to broke. It's just that simple.

So you are talking about debt and not revenue?
 
I'm not so sure. I think the voters are getting a little bit nervous about that 16 teradollar and growing debt. The problem is, no one wants their favorite government program ended, nor do they want their taxes raised. They want someone else's program ended, and someone else's taxes raised.
Well, that's true as well - but it all boils down to votes.
If you campaign to cut off subsidies, those who get those subsidies will likely not vote for you.
 
Well, that's true as well - but it all boils down to votes.
If you campaign to cut off subsidies, those who get those subsidies will likely not vote for you.

Right. And since many of the recipients of subsidies are also deep pockets that finance campaigns, it is even less likely that subsidies will be ended any time soon.
 
I'm not so sure. I think the voters are getting a little bit nervous about that 16 teradollar and growing debt. The problem is, no one wants their favorite government program ended, nor do they want their taxes raised. They want someone else's program ended, and someone else's taxes raised.

They should have got nervous before the election. it's too late now.
 
Back
Top Bottom