The U.S. national debt is rising by $1 trillion about every 100 days

[MSgt]

Interesting revisionism here.

No, simple fact-based reality.

Regarding the balanced budget during the Clinton Presidency, that was written and passed by Republicans and signed in to law by Clinton when he lost power in the first Mid year election.

You are wrong about how helpful Republicans were. I will prove it, simply. Clinton vetoed the Republican budget schemes in 1995 and in 1999, forcing them to play ball, afyer he and the Democrats planted the necessary seeds to economic recovery. ALL that I write here, is easily verified with a simple Google search:

1) The very Republicans you refer to, rejected George H.W. Bush because he talked of having to raise taxes (in the wake of Reagan's tax cuts) to fix Reagan's debt. This is how Clinton was elected in 1992. The Republicans split their votes (not for Clinton) over repairing bad Republican tax-cuts (that created the 1%.) In other words, Republicans were fine with debt if fixing it meant having to raise taxes on their wealthy donors.

2) Before Clinton took office in Jan 1993, Bush (as the last conservative Republican President) signed the 1993 appropriations bill that began attacking Reagan's debt. The 102nd Congress at the time (Jan 1991 ~ Jan 1993) was Democrat. Then Clinton pushed through the Tax Reform Act of 1993, which increased taxes on upper-income taxpayers in his first year to further attack Republican debt. But it also cut taxes in appropriate places, which helped to encourage that dot.com boom. How did he do this? Because the 103rd Congress (Jan 1993 ~ Jan 1995) was not Republican. It was Democrat. Clinton's later fiscal 1994 budget also contained spending restraints. It proposed a 34% increase in federal revenue and a 21 percent increase in federal spending over the next five years. So, by the time that Republicans took Congress back the following year (1995), the fiscal conservative seeds were planted, by Democrats.


****

Once Republicans got control of Congress in 1995, Clinton had to wheel-and-deal, even repealing Glass-Steagall for them, to keep focusing on removing Reagan's debt. But throughout, the Republican idea to fix the budget was to simply keep attacking social programs while cutting taxes. This is why Clinton vetoed the Republican budget schemes in 1995 and in 1999. Yes, even then, Republicans were attacking Social Security and Medicare. Why? Because one of Reagan's expressed goals, despite originally being a Democrat, was to continue the senseless Republican fight to end Roosevelt's New Deal. This is where Glass-Seagal became a victim in 1999; and near a decade later (2007) Republicans gave us the bank-caused Great Recession. Clinton's way to get Republicans to play ball was to offer incentives within their obnoxious tax-cut schemes and to court wealthy conservative donors. And it screwed America.

So, no, heaping praise on Republicans for this, who fought tooth and nail against Clinton, is an insult to truth. Maybe you weren't politically aware at the time, but even then, Republicans were pure dicks.

 

[L88]

No, simple fact-based reality.



You are wrong about how helpful Republicans were. I will prove it, simply. Clinton vetoed the Republican budget schemes in 1995 and in 1999, forcing them to play ball, afyer he and the Democrats planted the necessary seeds to economic recovery. ALL that I write here, is easily verified with a simple Google search:

1) The very Republicans you refer to, rejected George H.W. Bush because he talked of having to raise taxes (in the wake of Reagan's tax cuts) to fix Reagan's debt. This is how Clinton was elected in 1992. The Republicans split their votes (not for Clinton) over repairing bad Republican tax-cuts (that created the 1%.) In other words, Republicans were fine with debt if fixing it meant having to raise taxes on their wealthy donors.

2) Before Clinton took office in Jan 1993, Bush (as the last conservative Republican President) signed the 1993 appropriations bill that began attacking Reagan's debt. The 102nd Congress at the time (Jan 1991 ~ Jan 1993) was Democrat. Then Clinton pushed through the Tax Reform Act of 1993, which increased taxes on upper-income taxpayers in his first year to further attack Republican debt. But it also cut taxes in appropriate places, which helped to encourage that dot.com boom. How did he do this? Because the 103rd Congress (Jan 1993 ~ Jan 1995) was not Republican. It was Democrat. Clinton's later fiscal 1994 budget also contained spending restraints. It proposed a 34% increase in federal revenue and a 21 percent increase in federal spending over the next five years. So, by the time that Republicans took Congress back the following year (1995), the fiscal conservative seeds were planted, by Democrats.


****

Once Republicans got control of Congress in 1995, Clinton had to wheel-and-deal, even repealing Glass-Steagall for them, to keep focusing on removing Reagan's debt. But throughout, the Republican idea to fix the budget was to simply keep attacking social programs while cutting taxes. This is why Clinton vetoed the Republican budget schemes in 1995 and in 1999. Yes, even then, Republicans were attacking Social Security and Medicare. Why? Because one of Reagan's expressed goals, despite originally being a Democrat, was to continue the senseless Republican fight to end Roosevelt's New Deal. This is where Glass-Seagal became a victim in 1999; and near a decade later (2007) Republicans gave us the bank-caused Great Recession. Clinton's way to get Republicans to play ball was to offer incentives within their obnoxious tax-cut schemes and to court wealthy conservative donors. And it screwed America.

So, no, heaping praise on Republicans for this, who fought tooth and nail against Clinton, is an insult to truth. Maybe you weren't politically aware at the time, but even then, Republicans were pure dicks.

I get it. You're in the Dem tribe and Kascih and Gingrich were dicks. The bottom line is, Clinton was the best Republican President we've had. Add to that the Clinton Crime bill.

The Balanced Budget Act was introduced on June 24, 1997, by Republican Ohio Representative John R. Kasich. There were three short titles that the act was also known as in the House of Representatives. In the House, this act was also called the Child Health Assistance Program of 1997, the Expansion of Portability and Health Insurance Coverage Act of 1997, and the Veterans Reconciliation Act of 1997.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/105th-congress/house-bill/2015

 

[EnigmaO01]

How about both sides start cutting spending. We can start by cutting aid to both Israel and Ukraine.

You really need to do your homework. Foreign aid from the U.S. doesn't amount to much compared to other country's percentage of GDP. Ukraine aid is still only about 1.5 percent of the U.S. budget.

 

[EnigmaO01]

We have to dramatically reduce federal expenditures and raise taxes, and be open on the fact that the consequences of this will be harmful, including to the vulnerable, and the only reason we are doing it is to avoid worse.

But you forget our congress critters will absolutely not do anything that could jeapardize their reelection. Reelection and maintaining power is # 1 and doing what is right or for the country is farther down the list. So we are ****ed.

 

[MSgt]

I get it. You're in the Dem tribe...

Clearly not. I presented you easily verifiable black/white evidence, simple facts, and common sense. Your links were senseless, but thanks for directing me to what the Republican Party is, what the United States House of Representatives is, and clear proof that Kasich is a Republican, and what the 105th Congress was, AFTER two consecutive Democrat Congresses planet the seeds.

Drop the partisan (tribe) crap to the side, and simple facts might matter to you too.

 

[Revelation]

No, half of us would not put up with any higher taxes in any form. The other half would welcome it so long as its only on the rich. However, our debt problem is caused by spending, not taxes. So its moot.

A trillion every 100 days is not a crisis, YET. Because we have a huge economy. But we'll see.

no a trillion every 100 days is not sustainable but they do not plan on sustaining us in present form.

eventually america will be merged with canada and mexico and become the north american union. even our dollar will be obsolete and worthless; enter stage right the cbdc into the New Fascist Order world wide.

stay tuned.

i deal with this in the Beliefs and Skepticism of this web site.


blessings, 2 weeks..........

 

[L88]

Clearly not. I presented you easily verifiable black/white evidence, simple facts, and common sense. Your links were senseless. Drop the partisan (tribe) crap to the side, and simple facts might matter to you too.

The links provided were to Congress.gov. Do you dispute the history of who wrote the bill? When you say Repubs bad, Dems great, yeah you are a tribalist if you believe either of these parties' motivation.

 

[MSgt]

The links provided were to Congress.gov. Do you dispute the history of who wrote the bill? When you say Repubs bad, Dems great, yeah you are a tribalist if you believe either of these parties' motivation.

No, all can click on your links. Your links went to Wikipedia pages telling me the definition of the Republican Party, the definition of the United States House of Representatives, clear proof that Kasich is indeed a Republican politician, and what the 105th Congress was. So, nothing in the way of promoting the debt-creating Republican Party as being a part of leading this balanced budget during Clinton's watch. As I proved, they were a clear obstacle that Clinton had to constantly negotiate after 1996.

Again, the 105th Congress (Republican) followed the 103rd and 104th, which were both Democrat, both of which had already done the heavy lifting (with former President Bush's help). So whatever you think posting a link to the 105th Wiki page was supposed to do, as Clinton went on to veto the Republicans' 1996 and 1999 Budget schemes until they modified and got on the same page, is beyond my understanding.

 

[L88]

No, all can click on your links. Your links went to Wikipedia pages telling me the definition of the Republican Party, the definition of the United States House of Representatives, clear proof that Kasich is indeed a Republican politician, and what the 105th Congress was. So, nothing in the way of promoting the debt-creating Republican Party as being a part of leading this balanced budget during Clinton's watch. As I proved, they were a clear obstacle that Clinton had to constantly negotiate after 1996.

Again, the 105th Congress (Republican) followed the 103rd and 104th, which were both Democrat, both of which had already done the heavy lifting (with former President Bush's help). So whatever you think posting a link to the 105th Wiki page was supposed to do, as Clinton went on to veto the Republicans' 1996 and 1999 Budget schemes until they modified and got on the same page, is beyond my understanding.

Here, I'll make it easy for you

https://www.congress.gov/bill/105th-congress/house-bill/2015

 

[MSgt]

Here, I'll make easy for you

https://www.congress.gov/bill/105th-congress/house-bill/2015

So, again, you provide the same link to the 105th Congress as if that is supposed to mean something. Shall I tell you that the sun is about to explode, and provide a link that declares that the sun is indeed yellow? See how that link helps to provide nothing in the way of the point?

AGAIN, the 105th Congress (Republican) followed the 103rd and 104th, which were both Democrat, both of which had already done the heavy lifting (with former President Bush's help). So whatever you think posting a link to the existence of the 105th Congress was supposed to do for you, as Clinton went on to veto the Republicans' 1996 (105th Congress) and 1999 (106th Congress) Budget schemes until they fell in line, is still beyond my understanding.

 

[L88]

So, again, you provide the same link to the 105th Congress as if that is supposed to mean something. Shall I tell you that the sun is about to explode, and provide a link that declares that the sun is indeed yellow? See how that link helps to provide nothing in the way of the point?

AGAIN, the 105th Congress (Republican) followed the 103rd and 104th, which were both Democrat, both of which had already done the heavy lifting (with former President Bush's help). So whatever you think posting a link to the existence of the 105th Congress was supposed to do for you, as Clinton went on to veto the Republicans' 1996 (105th Congress) and 1999 (106th Congress) Budget schemes until they fell in line, is still beyond my understanding.

That's funny considering Clinton was on the ropes at that time. He's the best President Republicans ever had. I also miss his crime bill.

 

[EnigmaO01]

no a trillion every 100 days is not sustainable but they do not plan on sustaining us in present form.

eventually america will be merged with canada and mexico and become the north american union. even our dollar will be obsolete and worthless; enter stage right the cbdc into the New Fascist Order world wide.

stay tuned.

i deal with this in the Beliefs and Skepticism of this web site.


blessings, 2 weeks..........

Riiiight.

 

[MSgt]

That's funny considering Clinton was on the ropes at that time.

Yes, it was very funny how Republicans were even then showing partisan loyalties above country as their 1980s debt was being handled by Democrats; and as Clinton/CIA were pointing at the threat of al-Qaeda as a "mere distraction." But what does the Lewinski case have to do with this?

He's the best President Republicans ever had. I also miss his crime bill.

The cliché that Clinton was the best president Republicans ever had has always just been about pretending that there is such a thing as a Republican fiscal conservative. This is why, every so often, people like yourself push the very false and debunked narrative that the later Republican Congresses, not Clinton and the earlier Democrat Congresses, balanced the budget. The last fiscal conservative in the Republican Party was George W. Bush, and Republicans fired him for it. It's been a sham ever since. Job creation, fiscal conservatism, focusing on the Middle-Class for tax-cuts....it's all been on the Democrat side.

The facts are: Clinton vetoed the Republican Congress' 1995 and 1999 budget plans because they sought to take the recovery off script. They sought to return to what made the debt in the first place, while cutting Social Security and other social systems. Clinton had to work with them and he gave concessions, but he forced them onto the path that Democrats' 103rd, & 104th Congress paved.

 

[L88]

That's funny considering Clinton was on the ropes at that time. He's the best President Republicans ever had. I also miss his crime bill.

Yes, it was very funny how Republicans were even then showing partisan loyalties above country as their 1980s debt was being handled by Democrats; and as Clinton/CIA were pointing at the threat of al-Qaeda as a "mere distraction." But what does the Lewinski case have to do with this?




The cliché that Clinton was the best president Republicans ever had has always just been about pretending that there is such a thing as a Republican fiscal conservative. This is why, every so often, people like yourself push the very false and debunked narrative that the later Republican Congresses, not Clinton and the earlier Democrat Congresses, balanced the budget. The last fiscal conservative in the Republican Party was George W. Bush, and Republicans fired him for it. It's been a sham ever since. Job creation, fiscal conservatism, focusing on the Middle-Class for tax-cuts....it's all been on the Democrat side.

The facts are: Clinton vetoed the Republican Congress' 1995 and 1999 budget plans because they sought to take the recovery off script. They sought to return to what made the debt in the first place, while cutting Social Security and other social systems. Clinton had to work with them and he gave concessions, but he forced them onto the path that Democrats' 103rd, & 104th Congress paved.

Too Funny , and the Great Society programs are in what kind of shape currently?​

CLINTON VETOES GOP'S 7-YEAR BALANCED BUDGET PLAN​

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1995/12/07/clinton-vetoes-gops-7-year-balanced-budget-plan/e7a56467-ea2d-467e-a818-790640a4f5d8/

since you're throwing out a Red Herring
There were 3 terrorist attacks during Clinton's Term including the World Trade Center.
The Clinton retaliation was a few missiles.
Great strategy.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Raise taxes and lift the contribution ceiling.

Raise taxes when the CPI is in the stratosphere.... yeah... that's gonna work.

 

[L88]

Yes, it was very funny how Republicans were even then showing partisan loyalties above country as their 1980s debt was being handled by Democrats; and as Clinton/CIA were pointing at the threat of al-Qaeda as a "mere distraction." But what does the Lewinski case have to do with this?




The cliché that Clinton was the best president Republicans ever had has always just been about pretending that there is such a thing as a Republican fiscal conservative. This is why, every so often, people like yourself push the very false and debunked narrative that the later Republican Congresses, not Clinton and the earlier Democrat Congresses, balanced the budget. The last fiscal conservative in the Republican Party was George W. Bush, and Republicans fired him for it. It's been a sham ever since. Job creation, fiscal conservatism, focusing on the Middle-Class for tax-cuts....it's all been on the Democrat side.

The facts are: Clinton vetoed the Republican Congress' 1995 and 1999 budget plans because they sought to take the recovery off script. They sought to return to what made the debt in the first place, while cutting Social Security and other social systems. Clinton had to work with them and he gave concessions, but he forced them onto the path that Democrats' 103rd, & 104th Congress paved.

Raise taxes when the CPI is in the stratosphere.... yeah... that's gonna work.

The Government wastes over 250 billion a year. Even worse during the COVID years. Where would a logical person start with Budget reform?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Raise taxes when the CPI is in the stratosphere.... yeah... that's gonna work.

The choice is either raise SS FICA ‘payroll’ tax revenue, cut SS benefits or use general revenue to cover the shortfall.

 

[MSgt]

The Government wastes over 250 billion a year. Even worse during the COVID years. Where would a logical person start with Budget reform?

And you think if that $250B stopped being "wasted," $35T would just go away?

A logical person would accuse Republicans of their never-ending obnoxious tax-cuts for the 1 percenters and their ultra-wealthy corporations as they pretend that "spending" is the problem. The proven scam of "Trickle-Down" is the cause of this. It created the 1% under Reagan. Bush started two mismanaged wars while cutting taxes for the first time in American history. Trickle-Down was proven a lie during the Great Recession as the 1% and the banks hoarded billions from the public. So, AGAIN, a Republican created unnecessary massive debt and handed it off to a Democrat. Shall I even mention that it was Republicans and Clinton who repealed Glass-Steagall and caused the Great Recession? Trump then completely perverted the tax-code in 2017 and handed the wealthy permanent tax-cuts, which helped to add $8T to the debt, with another $1.9T to go by 2025. AGAIN, a Republican handed off massive debt to a Democrat. Shall I mention the horrible mismanagement of Covid that increased that debt? All the while blaming "spending" as Republicans exponentially reduced the government coffer and freed their donors of their tax burdens. But not you, right? Your tax-cuts are always temporary. This is YOUR debt. Besides that, historically, it is the Republicans who are the actual spenders! Think I'm wrong? Just look:



FACT: The GOP has historically been the grand spender and debt creator since Gerald Ford.

FACT: Starting two wars while cutting taxes forced the treasury to issue never-ending bonds to countries like China just to keep up with the madness, which kicked off today's unnecessary debt.

FACT: After passing the 2017 Tax-Cut and Jobs Act, the GOP announced that their wasn't enough money for their wall or the military in the budget. <--- Odd, since there was money before the massive tax-cut Bill for the wealthy.

FACT: Then, on December 6th, Paul Ryan announced that the GOP is attacking Medicaid and Medicare spending in 2018. <--- Odd, since Republicans say they don't do this, and this wasn't a problem before Reaganomics

FACT: The Republican Congress, in February 2018, approved a Bill to clear the way for massive spending increases; AND the Bill paved the way for major military and domestic program spending increases.


So, Republicans blame Democrats for the spending, despite the "entitlement" programs going back to the New Deal (Roosevelt), and despite Republicans being the massive spenders. But Republicans will also push for massive tax-cuts, giving the wealthy permanent cuts, and then turn around and tell America that this is just unsustainable, as if it is the Democrats who are doing it!

 

[MSgt]

Too Funny , and the Great Society programs are in what kind of shape currently?​

CLINTON VETOES GOP'S 7-YEAR BALANCED BUDGET PLAN​

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1995/12/07/clinton-vetoes-gops-7-year-balanced-budget-plan/e7a56467-ea2d-467e-a818-790640a4f5d8/

I already told you that Clinton vetoed the Republican Party's scheme to return to what made the debt in the first place. Great Society and New Deal programs were in fine shape before Reaganomics and the Trickle Down scam. One may not take seventy dollars out of hundred, flush it, and then say that the reason you are in debt is because of your continued "spending." You maliciously reduced your own revenue and then kept spending.

since you're throwing out a Red Herring
There were 3 terrorist attacks during Clinton's Term including the World Trade Center.
The Clinton retaliation was a few missiles.
Great strategy.

Clinton retaliation sucking aside, the point was that while Republicans were playing their "gotcha" games to impeach a President, that President was dealing with their debt and trying to warn us about al-Qaeda's threat. All he got from Republicans were accusations that he was just trying to create a distraction. 9/11 was pretty distracting, huh? And then Republicans went on to screw that retaliation up too, didn't they?

 

[L88]

The choice is either raise SS FICA ‘payroll’ tax revenue, cut SS benefits or use general revenue to cover the shortfall.

The

And you think if that $250B stopped being "wasted," $35T would just go away?

What was the deficit last year?
You have to get over the trickle-down thingy and being a Republican-only thingy.
The supply-side approach has been used by the Obama Admin and currently the Biden Admin. And Supply Side Theory has never been applied in full measure ever.
The income limits have been increasing on SS and should continue to be increased.
Republicans have been no better than Democrats when it comes to budget management and other issues. Hence Trump is a factor.

Oh, by the way, thank you for your courteous and thoughtful debate.

 

[L88]

They were in fine shape before Reaganomics and the Trickle Down scam. One may not take seventy dollars out of hundred, flush it, and then say that the reason you are in debt is because of your "spending." You maliciously reduced your own revenue and then kept spending.




Clinton retaliation sucking aside, the point was that while Republicans were playing their "gotcha" games to impeach a President, that President was dealing with their debt and trying to warn us about al-Qaeda's threat. All he got from Republicans were accusations that he was just trying to create a distraction. 9/11 was pretty distracting, huh? And then Republicans went on to screw that retaliation up too, didn't they?

First, thank you for your service.
My opinion is, as frustrating as it appears to the extreme left and extreme right, I think the government worked pretty well until 4 years after 9/11 as Bush IIs Iraq war became endless without a beneficial goal.
The impeachment that went beyond the real issue and into Clinton's lying about a sexual tryst was embarrassing at best for this country.

 

[MSgt]

You have to get over the trickle-down thingy and being a Republican-only thingy.

So that Republicans can excuse themselves and keep doing it?! You might want to tell the Republican Party to acknowledge the simple facts and "get over their Trickle-Down thingy." Fixing this debt is 100% about correcting the tax code, since perverting it is what created it.

 

[L88]

So that Republicans can excuse themselves and keep doing it?! You might want to tell the Republican Party to acknowledge the simple facts and "get over their Trickle-Down thingy." Fixing this debt is 100% about correcting the tax code, since perverting it is what created it.

I have no more friends in the Republican Party than I do in the Democrat Party.
Time and again it has been shown, that there is not enough money in the private sector to cure the government spending ills.
It needs to be approached from Waste, Spending, and Revenues to cure the deficit part. If we could do that, in theory the debt would become less of a factor over time.
A hard look needs to be taken at SS and Medicare. Currently, they are insurance programs for people who live past the age of 60 which did not statistically happen when SS was implemented.
You might want to ask the Democrat party why they want special tax exemption for wealthy people who live in expensive homes in the Northeast.

 

[MSgt]

First, thank you for your service.

Don't mention it. Paycheck, and all. Receiving that sweet socialism for the rest of my life.

My opinion is, as frustrating as it appears to the extreme left and extreme right, I think the government worked pretty well until 4 years after 9/11 as Bush IIs Iraq war became endless without a beneficial goal.

It was working just fine, until Bush decided that significantly cutting taxes while starting two massive ground wars was a good idea. The two things are horribly incompatible. And later handing significant permanent tax-cuts to the 1% proved equally idiotic. One may not do this in 2017, add $8T to the debt by 2020, with absolutely no American project to explain it, and say, "Oh, it's because of the spending." No wall. No infrastructure. No over-haul of ObamaCare. Nothing. At least Bush can claim his mismanaged wars.

The impeachment that went beyond the real issue and into Clinton's lying about a sexual tryst was embarrassing at best for this country.

Yeah, that's what I mean. It was unnecessary distraction from the real issues. If dude broke laws, hold dude responsible. But they didn't bust him for the adultery. They maneuvered and prodded him before the entire world until they could catch him lying about it under oath, and then they busted him for lying! Impeachment should never be a partisan tool. And now we have this Biden impeachment crap that has gone on for three years, with nothing to show, and we just found out that the one guy that Comer and Jordan hung this whole thing on a Russian asset who secretly received $600,000 in 2020 from Trump's associates, the same year he began spreading the lies! I mean, you impeach for an obvious, publicly recognized crime. Not to hopefully find one (or create one in both Clinton's and Biden's case).

 

[L88]

Don't mention it. Paycheck, and all. Receiving that sweet socialism for the rest of my life.

That's not socialism, but I'm not going to get into that now.
Have a great day.