2bits, you are absolutely wrong on your assumptions. Conservatives
do not want to really reduce the debt. That is just a talking point they use to
attack democrats. But they are definitely not serious about it. Nobody is
serious about debt reduction if their position is for increasing defense
spending, getting involved in more wars (Iran) and cutting taxes. You are also wrong about what led to the increase of debt after the Clinton
years. You claim increased spending did this. You are wrong. Increaed spending
AND cutting taxes did it. You cannot have huge spending increases, including two
wars, AND massive tax reductions and expect anything BUT a huge increase in
deficit and debt. Also the people that did this WERE conservatives. You might
want to run away from that, but Cheny and Bush and the Republicans in Congress
WERE conservatives. Also, are you aware that if W Bush had followed
the debt reduction plan left for him by Clinton the national debt would have
been paid off in full long ago? It's true. We would not have a national
debt right now if Bush and the conservatives had not messed it up.
Let's put the blame where it belongs: regardless of the administration
it's the House that must initiate spending bills, and the House that can
refuse to fund.
Shaun,No, I do not think Republicans care about deficits or the national
debt, but Conservatives do. Not all Republicans are Conservatives, just as all
Democrats are not Liberals. ===History shows
Republicans spend almost as much as Democrats.The last time we
actually CUT the deficit was during the Clinton Administration. And lest you
think Clinton did it... you need to realize that CONGRESS controls the budget
(not the President). That's why I don't join the
bandwagon blaming Obama for all our budget problems and our debt. The President
sets the priorities, but he doesn't set the budget. Only Congress can cut
the deficit.The Congress we had during the Clinton Administration
cut entitlements (remember "welfare reform", and "contract with
America", and the "first 100 days" promise)? It worked (but not
permanently). We eventually slid back into yearly debt increases because most
voters really WANT spending on entitlements (both parties). Even though they
won't admit it, BOTH parties like votes, and spending buys votes. CUTTING spending is painful (especially for politicians who need votes).
Eventually the majority loses sight of the target and want liberal spending
What a crock. Both parties are bought and paid for by offshore globalist
bankers. This whole thing is just a dog and pony show to distract you from the
real issues like fukushima radiation off the coast of California.
Maverick and Roland. This article is about the debt, not the deficit and yes I
know the difference. The deficit is what causes the debt to increase and
comparing the deficit to the GDP is irrelevant and not an honest measurement of
our economy. Did congress just raise the debt ceiling again or didn't it?
That is exactly the point. All the deficit tells us is how fast the debt is
going up, nothing more.
Mountain man, please stop getting debt and deficit confused. They're not
the same thing.
Mountanman: Nowhere in my post did I discuss the national debt.
@ Roland Kayser. You and others need to be called out about using false numbers
about the GDP and the national debt. According to Wikipedia, "The United
States' nominal GDP was estimated to be $17.1 trillion in December 2013,
approximately a quarter of global nominal GDP." Since we know the actual GDP
is about $17.1 trillion and our national debt is now about $17.3 trillion, our
GDP to national debt is over 100% and increasing. Please stop trying to deceive
@2bits. Do you honestly think republicans care about deficits and the national
debt? If you do, then how do you explain Reagan's, Bush Sr and GWB
contribution to the national debt?
Passed again. Tea party loses again big-time. tough to take a no compromise
stance that leads to compromises.
"and now the President is asking for yet another blank check to keep
increasing our debt without doing anything to reform Washington’s spending
problem,” Still dont get it, eh?Raising the debt
ceiling allows the country to pay for things that they bought in the past. It
has nothing to do with future spending.That is the job of congress.
It has nothing to do with the president. Every dollar spent was voted on in the
house and the senate. And passed both.Not the bill is due.It is not a tough concept, but one that so may seem to either misunderstand or
@ Real Maverick, So if in 200 or so years, your company or family or
whatever, went into debt by 100,000 dollars. Then there is a new person in
charge and in 4 years, they bring the debt up to 170,000. They do this in just
4 years! Would you say that he or she was not as big of a spender as previous
leaders of your group? Instead of just saying "the fact is", use facts
please. Roland's argument is much more convincing.
“I intend to object to any effort to raise the debt ceiling on a 50-vote
threshold. I will insist instead on a 60-vote threshold, and if Republicans
stand together we can demand meaningful spending restraint to help pull our
nation back from the fiscal and economic cliff.”The bill
passed 55 - 43. Hopefully the first step in the senator's road to
Judging from 2 bits first post, it's pretty obvious that he got the
sequester and the tea party government shutdown mixed up.The truth
is, Obama isn't near the spender Reagan or Bush were. If you don't
want big spending then please don't vote republican.
@2bitsThe sequestration was not what the Obama team and Democrats wanted,
they wanted a clean debt ceiling increase. It was Republicans who forced there
to be cuts, and because there was no agreement on which things to cut from
that's where the sequestration came from. Defense is one of the
highest rated things in surveys of what Americans want to cut. It's still
below 50% supporting those cuts but less than 50% support any category of cut
when asked about a particular other than foreign aid. People want defense, they
just don't think we should spend as much as the next 10 highest nations in
defense spending combined.If the debt ceiling isn't increased
spending would have to be slashed around 20% instantly (was 30% in 2011 but our
deficits are smaller now) which is going to affect things a lot of people like
in some form or another. Whatever is chosen there'd be complaints.
I wasn't talking about the shutdown (but you have to admit the
administration tried to insure that was as painful as possible too).===I was talking about Sequestration. The last time Congress got
tough on increasing the debt limit. Remember the administration's threats
to cut only stuff Americans want (Defense)?Remember the standoff
when Congress stood firm on the debt limit unless cuts were made to entitlement
programs? The Administration refused to cut anything unless Defense was cut
equally (or more)? So there was a standoff. So they had to resort to
sequestration. Remember the painful sequestration cuts?Goggle
"Budget sequestration 2013"...Sequestration was setup as a
fail-safe in the standoff between the Administration and Congress in the Budget
Control Act of 2011 (BCA), and were postponed by two months by the American
Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 until March 1 when this law went into effect.The Administration insisted DEFENSE be cut first... which is what most
Americans want the Federal Government to fund (it's in the
Constitution).There are also examples of threats to cut law
enforcement and education first (IF Congress dares not increase the debt limit).
@2bits"the current administration has already proven that they will do
everything in their power to make the cuts as painful to the American people as
possible (And that's NOT the way to do it)."Those
weren't cuts. That was what happens when there's a gov't
shutdown. By law those things (parks, etc.) were unfunded and had to be shut
@2 Bits;What planet are you living on?
I think we need to wait on any debt limiting measures until there is a
Republican administration in Washington. If we pass limits now... the current
administration has already proven that they will do everything in their power to
make the cuts as painful to the American people as possible (And that's NOT
the way to do it).We can't just cut across the board, or cut
some non-critical temp workers, or paper-pushers, or admin staff. We have to
make sure the first things cut are the most painful to the people (military,
police, national parks, education, etc). No wonder people have been
trained to hate cutting back. Even though we COULD do much of it painlessly...
to play politics with it in Washington... they must make it as painful and
noticeable as possible.If there were a Republican in the White House
when spending easing starts... he may have an interest in making sure it's
sustainable and as pain free as possible (instead of cutting the most important
things first).IF you cut spending now... I guarantee the
administration will make it as painful and intrusive to our lives as they
The budget deficit for FY 2009 (Bush's last budget) was 9.6% of GDPThe deficit for the current fiscal year is 3% of GDP, and for next year is
projected to be 2.6% of GDP, which is about for the last 40 years.You just can't make the case that the President has not been dealing with
spending and budget concerns.