Obama Has DOUBLED the National Debt!

[JD Barleycorn]

Wait! I thought that Clinton balanced the budget? That is what the left keeps saying. So wouldn't the debt decrease for at least one year? I guess not!!!

Though a president can lead it takes Congress to spend the money. A president can influence but he can't control the spending. We had a democratic Congress until 1994.

You're all using percentages which are a little misleading and you haven't discussed the circumstances. Reagan did spend more than Carter because Carter almost turned our military into enuchs. GW Bush (who is Bush Jr.?) inherited a poor international position that turned into 9/11. Do you think you can cut the man some slack for one of the worst attacks this country has ever sustained or do you suffer from Bush derangement?

[waverunner234]

If you read 10 articles for the National Debt, it has 10 different amounts. According to
Wikipedia Obama is kind of small in the debt raise versus Bush. No way he doubled it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...es_public_debt

[waverunner234]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Wait! I thought that Clinton balanced the budget? That is what the left keeps saying. So wouldn't the debt decrease for at least one year? I guess not!!!

Though a president can lead it takes Congress to spend the money. A president can influence but he can't control the spending. We had a democratic Congress until 1994.

You're all using percentages which are a little misleading and you haven't discussed the circumstances. Reagan did spend more than Carter because Carter almost turned our military into enuchs. GW Bush (who is Bush Jr.?) inherited a poor international position that turned into 9/11. Do you think you can cut the man some slack for one of the worst attacks this country has ever sustained or do you suffer from Bush derangement?

Some slack for Bush?
If you decide that the country wants to start 2 wars then you have to ask the country: "Are you willing to pay for those wars".
If not, you can't have the wars period.

His huge tax cut should have been a much huger tax increase, otherwise he should not have started any war. You can't have both.

Really a 16 year old kid can better balance his budget.

And as far as Obama's spending for health care, it is a shame for the US that it is his problem.
Should have been taken care of 40 or 50 years ago like in other civilized countries.

[CuteOldGuy]

You're living in the past, Wave. The Bush Presidency was so three years ago.

[waverunner234]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You're living in the past, Wave. The Bush Presidency was so three years ago.

Bush is not dead yet. He can still be blamed.

[CuteOldGuy]

If it makes you feel better, but blaming him does not solve the problem. Obama is not solving the problem either, and is making it worse. The out of control spending has to stop.

[waverunner234]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

If it makes you feel better, but blaming him does not solve the problem. Obama is not solving the problem either, and is making it worse. The out of control spending has to stop.

That is where I agree with you.
But how? Its so easy to say stop spending. But if a super committee fails to cut a little bit, then how could whoever do it? It's not the president alone you know.

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by waverunner234

That is where I agree with you.
But how? Its so easy to say stop spending. But if a super committee fails to cut a little bit, then how could whoever do it? It's not the president alone you know.

It requires tough decisions.

You wouldn't expect to see them emanating from someone with a history of voting "present" on virtually every controversial issue while serving in the Illinois State Senate, would you?

As I said in a nearby thread, the Simpson-Bowles commission, although it isn't perfect and does not go far enough in some areas, offers a set of good recommendations.

But Obama, after calling for the formation of the commission, responded by extending his middle finger toward it.

[Whirlaway]

Presidential leadership, which Obama is absent on the big issue of our times.

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

It requires tough decisions.

You wouldn't expect to see them emanating from someone with a history of voting "present" on virtually every controversial issue while serving in the Illinois State Senate, would you?

As I said in a nearby thread, the Simpson-Bowles commission, although it isn't perfect and does not go far enough in some areas, offers a set of good recommendations.

But Obama, after calling for the formation of the commission, responded by extending his middle finger toward it.

[Guest050715-1]

Roothead – Amen!

Captain Midnight – As always thanks for the unemotional, factual and intellectual take on all things economic.

Originally Posted by waverunner234

That is where I agree with you.
But how? Its so easy to say stop spending. But if a super committee fails to cut a little bit, then how could whoever do it? It's not the president alone you know.

How about across the board spending cuts and tax increases? I’ll bet there’s enough low hanging fruit in every department in the federal, state and local bureaucracies to cut at least 5% if not 10%. We can start with the God damed House, Senate, POTUS and VEEP and take away their better and forever healthcare and pensions. Then we can go to every department and cut office supplies and $10,000 toilet seats to the military. Close buildings that are inefficient or no longer used. Manage the energy bills effectively. Curb spending on ergonomic chairs or other “necessities”, stop funding blueberry growth cycle programs, encourage multi-species farming and stop monospecies farming so we can stop all farmering welfare. Get out of the wars – and not at election time, but on “Day One” like the Anointed One said. I don’t know, you tell me. If you got a 10% pay cut, you’d manage.

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

The system is irreversibly broken, unless we can stop electing Democrats and Republicans.

This is why I probably won’t vote in the Texas Republican primary. If I vote in the primary, I am intelligible to sign the petition to get Ron Paul on the ballot. Not saying he’s the best, but I am saying he’s an alternative to the current two party system.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Every third-party movement since the Civil War has been co-opted by either the Democrats or the Republicans.

Independents are now 42% of the voters, maybe We have enough mass to generate a true change. It’s time We spoke up and have our vote felt. Not just in a macabre way where the village idiot of Texas ends up getting elected or his daddy, a perfectly good president, looses his job, but in a real way where someone other than the quid pro quo Red or Blue POTUS and congressmen get elected. It’s time for the people that got us into this mess to loose their jobs instead of just the electorate loosing theirs.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by waverunner234

That is where I agree with you.
But how? Its so easy to say stop spending. But if a super committee fails to cut a little bit, then how could whoever do it? It's not the president alone you know.

It is ABSOLUTELY not the President alone, but he has the bully pulpit, and has a great deal of influence over policy. This President doesn't want to cut spending. The $2 Trillion dollar cuts he mentioned last night are only reductions in the proposed increases in spending. Spending does not go down at all in the foreseeable future.

Ultimately, and I believe sooner rather than later, the debt will reach a point of critical mass and we will experience a depression of biblical proportions. This will allow our enemies to have a free hand in controlling us, and taking us over. (Of course, we have paved the way for them with bills like the NDAA and their ilk.)

It's a choice between substantial pain now, or possible death later. We need a radical change in this nation's foreign and domestic policy. We are not going to get the leadership we need from Republicans or Democrats. We need a non-violent, peaceful revolution, which will also never happen, because it might interfere with a football game or American Idol.

Look at your own budget. Can you spend 1/3 more than you earn for years on end, and not expect a day of reckoning? Do you think your lenders will forget about you, and just keep letting it slide? If so, I have some property for sale I want to talk to you about.

[Texas Contrarian]

But COG, this is America!

Since we have the world's primary reserve currency, in times of crisis almost everyone around the world wants to buy our treasury debt, even if the yield on 10-year notes is lower than the rate of inflation.

Eventually we'll learn that there's not an unlimited appetite for U.S. Treasuries, but not to worry. With a few keystrokes, the Federal Reserve can create another trillion dollars or so any time it wishes, and use its expanded balance sheet to buy however much debt it wants to directly from the Treasury -- QE3, QE4, QE5, QE6, etc. Whatever it takes. Debt monetization is so much more fun for politicians than taxing the hell out of the middle class like a typical European social democracy!

What could possibly go wrong with a sound plan like that?

[Roothead]

OK.... simple math/logic here....

you don't spend more than you make
you don't spend even more just because you have a surplus.... surpluses come and go
when you run a deficit, it is what it is.... you cut your spending to equal things out
no scared cows... everything gets a haircut and everyone has a little pain
you make the rules simple.... every dollar of income over $XXX base is taxed @ 25%
you make everyone pay SS on every dollar of income earned, not just up to $110k....
if you are over 65 and have income sources of over $150/yr, you get NO SS
if you are on any kind of public assistance - be it unemployment, food stamps, etc, you earn said benefit by doing some nominal work for the public good... schools need painting, public spaces need cleaning up... no one is to good to break a sweat....
pass a balanced budget amendment
budget is transparent... no creative accounting allowed
and it goes on from there....

Just writing this out pisses me off more and more....

[Guest050715-1]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

............................
Eventually we'll learn that there's not an unlimited appetite for U.S. Treasuries, but not to worry. With a few keystrokes, the Federal Reserve can create another trillion dollars or so any time it wishes, and use its expanded balance sheet to buy however much debt it wants to directly from the Treasury -- QE3, QE4, QE5, QE6, etc. Whatever it takes. Debt monetization is so much more fun for politicians than taxing the hell out of the middle class like a typical European social democracy!

What could possibly go wrong with a sound plan like that?

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

It's nice to envision some sort of "reform party" riding to the rescue, but I don't see it happening -- at least, not any time soon.

It seems to me that at least one of the two major parties better begin morphing itself into a responsible "reform" party very soon, or we're all in a heap of trouble.

As should now be obvious to anyone who hasn't been living in a cave for the last couple of decades, handing all the levers of power to either of our dysfunctional political parties is like handing a 500 HP muscle car to an overtestosteroned 17-year-old.

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

This may be the ideal election for a third party to have a significant effect. A third party won't win, but we could begin a trend away from these other clowns, or at least put them on notice that we are fed up with the choices we have. I mean, Obama v. Romney or Gingrich? No one wins with that choice.

of course a third party won't win. the road blocks are there to prevent a 3rd party from ever reaching critical mass.

the states put them there via election laws and some come in the form of some obcure law that serve as legal dirty tricks.

getting signature to get on the ballot is one of those road blocks. you all saw what happened in Virginia when couple of the candidates didn't the required signatures to get on the ballot.

this getting signatures to get on a ballot is bullshit!

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Every third-party movement since the Civil War has been co-opted by either the Democrats or the Republicans.

that is the case some of the time. but they don't always keep those ideas prefering to dump them when the time is convenient.