Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Bush & Congress's Mess: US Spending Up 25% '01-'07  
User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8123 posts, RR: 26
Posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1533 times:

It was suggested in another thread that the next President, whoever they are, is doomed to a one-term deal. Here's more fuel for that fire. Among the many pertinent issues either being given lip service or ignored entirely on the campaign trail is the fact that the sitting PotUS and Congress are saddling the federal debt rolls like never before in recent memory.

The latest numbers from the Heritage Foundation and Moody's analysts are beyond ugly. Hillary and Obama might as well jettison their pie in the sky healthcare "proposals" now...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120183030007834031.html

According to the Concord Coalition, a fiscal watchdog group, the shortfall in Social Security and Medicare through 2080 will total $72.3 trillion, a number that dwarfs the impact of Mr. Bush's spending and tax cuts.

...

When Mr. Bush took the oath of office in 2001, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected $5.6 trillion in federal budget surpluses through 2011. Through most of his tenure, the president managed to have his guns, butter and tax cuts without creating enormous budget deficits, at least as measured by their share of GDP. One reason was a surprise increase in federal tax receipts from corporations over the last couple of years. Now those revenues have flattened out and the economy is teetering on the edge of recession.

Mr. Bush and Congress, meanwhile, increased federal spending by 25% between 2001 and 2007, adjusted for inflation, according to Brian Riedl of the conservative Heritage Foundation. By Sept. 30, the U.S. will have spent almost $800 billion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. A new Medicare prescription-drug benefit for seniors costs almost $80 billion a year. Mr. Bush's signature tax cuts, in 2001 and 2003, sapped tax receipts and sliced the projected budget surplus by about $1.7 trillion through 2011, according to the CBO.


All of this is chief among the primary reasons I'm hesitant to support any Democrat for the White House.


If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineRJdxer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1527 times:

While I whole heartedly agree that President Bush and both the gob and dnc led Congresses he has had to work with have spend entirely too much money there are a few errors and contradictions in the story.

Quoting Aaron747 (Thread starter):
projected $5.6 trillion in federal budget surpluses through 2011

The key world there is "projected". Those "projected" surpluses did not take into account a recession nor war. It was based on a continued growing economy at peace. Furthermore, as long as social security taxes go to the general fund, as they have for 20 years now, and as long as there is a national debt, there never will be a surplus. And there never should be one either. Government is not a "for profit" business. After the bills are paid any left over money should be returned to where it came from, the people.

Quoting Aaron747 (Thread starter):
the president managed to have his guns, butter and tax cuts without creating enormous budget deficits, at least as measured by their share of GDP.

This is true but no one can dispute deficits did rise because of necessary spending on defense, and unnecessary spending in several other key areas.

Quoting Aaron747 (Thread starter):
One reason was a surprise increase in federal tax receipts from corporations over the last couple of years.

Why does the author consider it a "surprise"? Every time tax rates have been lowered the same result has occurred, an increase in tax receipts. When you give more money to the people and companies that earn it, they inexorably spend it which creates more tax revenue. Before anyone posts, following that logic we should tax at 0%, think about the choke on a lawn mower. Too much choke (higher taxes) it runs great for a minute and then dies. Too little choke (lower taxes) it never starts at all. There is balance in everything including tax policy.

Quoting Aaron747 (Thread starter):
Now those revenues have flattened out and the economy is teetering on the edge of recession.

It's a little early to say they have "flattenend out". Recession is a natural part of the economic cycle. The trick is how to make it as mild as possible.

Quoting Aaron747 (Thread starter):
Mr. Bush and Congress, meanwhile, increased federal spending by 25% between 2001 and 2007, adjusted for inflation

Some of that 25% is unavoidable due to the ever and automatic increasing entitlement spending. 2007 marked the 62nd anniversary of the baby boom. Those early boomers are now retiring and collecting their social security. Entitlement spending is about to explode and it already dwarfs defense spending.

Quoting Aaron747 (Thread starter):
A new Medicare prescription-drug benefit for seniors costs almost $80 billion a year.

How much will a universal healthcare law add to that 80 billion?

Quoting Aaron747 (Thread starter):
Mr. Bush's signature tax cuts, in 2001 and 2003, sapped tax receipts and sliced the projected budget surplus by about $1.7 trillion through 2011, according to the CBO.

This completely contradicts the above statement that, "One reason was a surprise increase in federal tax receipts from corporations over the last couple of years." There is simply no denying that the tax cuts shortened the recession President Bush inherited and has provided far more money to the Treasury than it would have gotten under the old tax policy.

Quoting Aaron747 (Thread starter):
All of this is chief among the primary reasons I'm hesitant to support any Democrat for the White House.

We've reached a point where it doesn't really matter whom you vote for. With the flood of boomers about to retire, some sort of universal healthcare a virtual certainty, added taxes and fees not to mention higher costs of doing business to combat "global warming", as well as Congresses flat out refusal to do away with ear marks or pork if you will, we are certainly headed back to the bad old days of the late 70's. I've said it before, we will be the authors of our own demise and we will spend our way there with every good intention.


User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8123 posts, RR: 26
Reply 2, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1522 times:

Can't disagree with anything in the last paragraph there RJ. The fiscal state of the union is a train with failed brakes on its way down a very long hill.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 1):
The key word there is "projected". Those "projected" surpluses did not take into account a recession nor war.

True enough, but the CBO projection is one of the few ways to measure trends in the government's overall fiscal management at any given point in time.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 1):
Why does the author consider it a "surprise"? Every time tax rates have been lowered the same result has occurred, an increase in tax receipts. When you give more money to the people and companies that earn it, they inexorably spend it which creates more tax revenue.

I'd say this owes to the fact that the WSJ in general has been focusing on large increases in US corporate spending and investment overseas, so the fact that there has actually been an appreciable increase on the home front as well is indeed surprising.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 1):
Some of that 25% is unavoidable due to the ever and automatic increasing entitlement spending.

All the more reason for the administration and Congress to have taken hard positions on spending restrictions if they had any intention of actually doing their jobs.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 1):
How much will a universal healthcare law add to that 80 billion?

Hillary claims in the neighborhood of $110 billion...but that sounds like more of the same shameless number fudging we heard when the WH claimed the regime change and stabilization of Iraq would cost $60-$80 billion.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 1):

This completely contradicts the above statement that, "One reason was a surprise increase in federal tax receipts from corporations over the last couple of years." There is simply no denying that the tax cuts shortened the recession President Bush inherited and has provided far more money to the Treasury than it would have gotten under the old tax policy.

I would still argue that consistent efforts by middle to large-sized companies to aggressively pursue overseas sales and investment was more responsible for that than anything, on balance.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineEvilForce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1517 times:



Quoting Aaron747 (Thread starter):
All of this is chief among the primary reasons I'm hesitant to support any Democrat for the White House.

Are you kidding? Did you not see what having a balanced budget, with restrained spending did for the economy? When the government is in the credit markets borrowing 1/2 trillion a year to fund it's operations consumers don't need to compete for that money. Interest rates stay low.

The moron in office now created a prescription med entitlement program that now will NEVER, EVER go away. All of course without funding it. Good job!

And health care spending is something we ALL already are paying for. We are spending almost 17% of our entire GDP on health care. Universal care means taxes go up, but the fees and monthly payments we make to our current insurance carriers goes down or away completely.


User currently offlineRJdxer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1513 times:



Quoting EvilForce (Reply 3):
Are you kidding? Did you not see what having a balanced budget, with restrained spending did for the economy?

The balanced budget, which really wasn't balanced, did not occur until 1997 and then only after welfare reform and the decimating of our military had taken place. And I might mention, a truly conservative Congress was voted in.

Quoting EvilForce (Reply 3):
The moron in office now created a prescription med entitlement program that now will NEVER, EVER go away. All of course without funding it. Good job!

The part about it not going away and not being funded is true, but then you advocate a universal health care plan which will cost far more.

Quoting EvilForce (Reply 3):
Universal care means taxes go up, but the fees and monthly payments we make to our current insurance carriers goes down or away completely.

So instead of choosing how much I want to pay for my health insurance, whether I want more or less coverage, higher or lower deductibles, an HMO or the ability to see the private practitioner or my choice, I'll have no choice in how much it costs me since I have to pay my taxes or go to jail and will have no control over whom I see or when I see them. Gosh, that sounds fair. BTW have you got a plan for all those displaced insurance company employees that will be tossed out on their ear?


User currently offlineEvilForce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1508 times:

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 4):
The balanced budget, which really wasn't balanced, did not occur until 1997 and then only after welfare reform and the decimating of our military had taken place.

There was no need to spend any additional money on the military at that time. Even in hindsight there was no need for the funding to be any more than it was. In fact, it should have been trimmed even more.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 4):
The part about it not going away and not being funded is true, but then you advocate a universal health care plan which will cost far more.

The USA is currently spending almost double what the next major country is in health care cost as per GDP. Our health care is the most expensive in the world, while not the best for everyone. For some universal care is better. For others, the current system is better. Perhaps a hybrid system would work as an acceptable compromise. *shrug*

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 4):
I'll have no choice in how much it costs me

Don't kid yourself. You really have no choice now. Can you "go without", sure. Would any rational or sane person? Nope. In the big scheme of things it's arguing do you want to pay it out of your left pocket? Your right pocket? Or your back pocket? You and I, who are paying insurance via our employers, already are paying for the uninsured via higher premiums.

Personally you either deal with an amazing array of complicated bills and reimbursement notices now, and have to badger the person you pay money to every month to pay something they are supposed to. Or go insane trying. I've seen a lot of other health care systems out there. We could do better. Will we? I doubt it. Nothing will get done, as usual.

[Edited 2008-02-02 07:28:29]

User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1507 times:



Quoting Aaron747 (Thread starter):
US Spending Up 25% '01-'07

Meanwhile the economy has grown by 38%.

Look, we can throw around all sorts of statistics, but I will agree with you about Medicare costs.

The solution? The elimination of Medicare. We can keep those that are already on it, but everyone else needs to look after his own medical insurance solution. The government can help in structuring standard coverage and flat pricing, but really needs to get out of the medical business.


User currently offlineEvilForce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1502 times:



Quoting Cfalk (Reply 6):
The solution? The elimination of Medicare.

Never going to happen. Ever.

So we can talk all day about the wherefores and whyfores of said proposal, but really it won't change a thing. That large and popular of a program is never going away.


User currently offlineRJdxer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1490 times:



Quoting EvilForce (Reply 5):
There was no need to spend any additional money on the military at that time.

That is some seriously short sighted thinking.

Quoting EvilForce (Reply 5):
Don't kid yourself. You really have no choice now.

I have a choice every year of 6 different plans, all with differing benefits at differing costs. I have plenty of choices.

Quoting EvilForce (Reply 5):
You and I, who are paying insurance via our employers, already are paying for the uninsured via higher premiums.

Wrong, in the end we pay for the uninsured through our taxes.

Quoting EvilForce (Reply 5):
doubt it. Nothing will get done, as usual.

Wrong, it is looking more and more like universal health care will be upon us, whether we want it or not, sometime in the next 4-8 years.


User currently offlineEvilForce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1487 times:



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 8):
Wrong, in the end we pay for the uninsured through our taxes.

*sigh* We pay for it in many ways my dear boy. One thru taxes yes. But we pay much through premiums too. A huge number of bankruptcies are from medical related filings. The doctors / hospitals / clinics don't get paid. Approximately 30% of our entire health care spending is for shuffling paperwork back and forth, back and forth, back and forth. Hospitals have to charge more. Doctors do. Drug companies, you name it. In any event, we are all paying for it currently one way or another. For a family of 4 or 5 if the breadwinner gets laid off, often times they are looking at a COBRA payment of $1,000 a month. In a lot of states unemployment benefits are a whole lot more than that. Especially in the red states. Now because a temporarily unemployed person can't pay for health care.... a subset end up needing it during their unemployment / unisured timeframe and run up huge bills, of which they simply can't pay.

But as a country we'd rather graduate more lawyers instead. Any effective makeover of the healthcare system will require tort reform as well. Hence, things will move on... nothing will get done. Maybe. But I would be surprised actually.


User currently offlineAGM100 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 5407 posts, RR: 16
Reply 10, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1480 times:

So does this mean I will not have to pay for my neighbours health care ? Could it be that the socialist may not have the money to have government fix everything for us ?

If so, I am good with that .



You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1479 times:



Quoting EvilForce (Reply 7):
Quoting Cfalk (Reply 6):
The solution? The elimination of Medicare.

Never going to happen. Ever.

So we can talk all day about the wherefores and whyfores of said proposal, but really it won't change a thing. That large and popular of a program is never going away.

Which brings me to another post of mine where I explained how people want things but are not willing to pay the price for it. It's a simple choice. Eliminate/drastically downsize medicare, or go bankrupt.

Tik, tok, tik, tok, tik, tok...

Quoting EvilForce (Reply 9):
Any effective makeover of the healthcare system will require tort reform as well.

One thing that would help is for us to stop electing lawyers to Congress and the presidency, because they protect their buddies. I make an exception for prosecutors, but my basic rule is: If you are a lawyer, or graduated from law school, I cannot vote for you.


User currently offlineRJdxer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1472 times:



Quoting EvilForce (Reply 9):
For a family of 4 or 5 if the breadwinner gets laid off, often times they are looking at a COBRA payment of $1,000 a month.

And if no one is sick, they don't pay that nor do they need too. Additionally, with unemployment where it is, finding a job is not hard to do, even if it is just a carry over job until the person gets back to where then want to be. I've worked 2 and 3 jobs plenty of times in my life, it can be done.

Quoting EvilForce (Reply 9):
Now because a temporarily unemployed person can't pay for health care.... a subset end up needing it during their unemployment / unisured timeframe and run up huge bills, of which they simply can't pay.

And that subset would be what percentage? If it makes up even .5 percent of the population I'd be surprised. When a person does not have insurance, unless they are in a life threatening situation, they are referred to the county hospital. Who pays for that hospital? We all do, through our taxes. Quit cutting and pasting liberal junk points and you'll gain some credibility.


User currently onlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8472 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 1441 times:



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 1):
Entitlement spending is about to explode and it already dwarfs defense spending.

I don't know if "dwarfs" is the right word. By some standards our defense budget is already $1 trillion per year. That's 8% of our economy. After all, entitlements are a large part -OF- the defense budget, as well.

The defense spending was a totally optional expense that we didn't need to do. Even if you were in favor of the Iraq invasion (which is absolutely horrendous if true). Even if you love the Iraq occupation, it was a huge money wasting venture.

Our nation has terribly inefficient health care and education. We could slash health care budgets and still have great health care. We could cut our school budget by 1/2 (largely a state funding responsibility). And we could still have good schools. Other countries do.

We don't realize how rich we really are. Running out of money is NOT always a money problem. Sometimes it is a brain problem.


User currently offlineRJdxer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1424 times:



Quoting Flighty (Reply 13):
don't know if "dwarfs" is the right word. By some standards our defense budget is already $1 trillion per year. That's 8% of our economy. After all, entitlements are a large part -OF- the defense budget, as well.

I don't know where you are coming up with those numbers but I don't think they are right. This article is a couple of years old but still illustrates the problem very well.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10609044/

WASHINGTON - Three growing entitlement programs consumed nearly half of all federal spending in 2004, and budget analysts expect them to make up an even bigger share in the future.

Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid accounted for more than $1 trillion in the 2004 budget year, according to the Consolidated Federal Funds Report released Tuesday by the Census Bureau.

Overall federal spending was $2.2 trillion, an increase of 5 percent from 2003.


This is from the 2008 budget request.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/budget/BudgetFY2008.pdf

The President's 2008 Budget provides $481.4 billion for the Department of Defense's base budget -- a 62 percent increase over 2001. In addition to base funding, the request includes $93.4 billion in supplemental appropriations for 2007, and an additional $141.7 billion in 2008. It also includes a $50 billion allowance for 2009. This combined request will ensure a high level of military readiness, enabling the Department to respond to evolving and adaptive enemies, while sustaining traditional advantages in U.S. conventional warfighting capabilities by:
Supporting operations in the War on Terror: As a nation at war, the top priority is to ensure servicemembers have the resources necessary to fight and succeed in the War on Terror. To date, $426.8 billion has been provided in supplemental appropriations for the War on Terror; the 2007 and 2008 request would increase this amount to $ 661.9 billion.

Although I have no feelings one way or the other about Ron Paul, he does summarize the situation we find our selves in financially pretty well.

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst040207.htm

To summarize, Congress proposes spending roughly $3 trillion in 2008. When I first came to Congress in 1976, the federal government spent only about $300 billion. So spending has increased tenfold in thirty years, and tripled just since 1990.

About one-third of this $3 trillion is so-called discretionary spending; the remaining two-thirds is deemed "mandatory" entitlement spending, which means mostly Social Security and Medicare. I'm sure many American voters would be shocked to know their elected representatives essentially have no say over two-thirds of the federal budget, but that is indeed the case. In fact the most disturbing problem with the budget is the utter lack of concern for the coming entitlement meltdown.

For those who thought a Democratic congress would end the war in Iraq, think again: their new budget proposes supplemental funds totaling about $150 billion in 2008 and $50 billion in 2009 for Iraq. This is in addition to the ordinary Department of Defense budget of more than $500 billion, which the Democrats propose increasing each year just like the Republicans.


So yes, entitlement spending does indeed "dwarf" defense spending.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 13):
The defense spending was a totally optional expense that we didn't need to do.

Incorrect, read the Constitution.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 13):
Even if you were in favor of the Iraq invasion (which is absolutely horrendous if true). Even if you love the Iraq occupation, it was a huge money wasting venture.

Guess it's horrendous then because that is something that needed to be done, if not in 2003 then sometime in the future, and is actually something that should have been done years earlier. Nobody want to go fight a war, but sometimes ugly things have to be done.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 13):
Our nation has terribly inefficient health care and education.

I disagree. If you need an operation, you can get it fairly quickly. In other countries, you get put on a list. Communities pride themselves in having good schools and you can find out about them online. It is part of how we decided to settle where we did when we moved to Houston.


User currently offlineQuantasA380 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1422 times:

25% is actually not that bad. Over the 6 year period that is only 4.1% per year. Well within standard annual rates of inflation. George Bush is doing a fine job!

User currently offlineEvilForce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1422 times:



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 14):
I disagree. If you need an operation, you can get it fairly quickly. In other countries, you get put on a list.

Link?

** As a side note the 2009 budget the President released only covers $ 50 billion or so for Iraqmire, as he openly acknowledges. He was "gracious" enough to include the $50 billion so the new President has a couple of months to be in office before needing to ask Congress for more money to stay/withdraw/sit&spin/whatever.


User currently offlineEvilForce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 1415 times:

Quoting QuantasA380 (Reply 15):
25% is actually not that bad. Over the 6 year period that is only 4.1% per year. Well within standard annual rates of inflation. George Bush is doing a fine job!

That's because it's simply untrue.

In the 2001 budget that Bill Clinton's passed the spending was $ 1,863,200,000,000 (source: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy08/pdf/hist.pdf) . In Bush's 2009 Presidential budget he has requested approx. $ 3,050,000,000,000. This assume over $200 billion in cuts to Federal Health Care programs that will not come to pass. So we are really talking $ 3.25 trillion. Even at the lower number that's a 65% jump in spending. Not 25%.

[Edited 2008-02-02 19:00:30]

User currently offlineRJdxer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1393 times:



Quoting EvilForce (Reply 17):
Even at the lower number that's a 65% jump in spending. Not 25%.

And that is only half the math. Since all figures for 2009 are estimates, and your link comes back file not found, let's check an actual link that works:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy08/sheets/hist01z1.xls
Tax receipts for 2006, which are facts, were up 82% from 2001 and that is rounding down. Projected 2009 figures are still 71% higher than in 2001. I agree that we have spent too much money but again, 2/3rds of that spending is entitlement spending and can't be touched. Until there is a President and a Congress with the politcal courage to tackle entitlement spending, the situation will only get worse. Interestingly enough, if you were to take away social security taxes that go to the general fund, in 2001 we would have had a 33.52 billion dollar deficit. As I have also said many times. We will never have a true surplus as long as social security taxes go to the general fund.

http://money.cnn.com/2001/10/29/economy/budget/
excluding the Social Security system, the U.S. government ran a $33.52 billion deficit


User currently offlineEvilForce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 1385 times:



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 18):
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, but Clinton, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, but Clinton,blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, but Clinton,blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, but Clinton,blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, but Clinton,blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, but Clinton,blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, but Clinton,blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, but Clinton,blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, but Clinton,blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, but Clinton,blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, but Clinton,blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, but Clinton,blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, but Clinton,blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, but Clinton,blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, but Clinton,blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, but Clinton,blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, but Clinton,blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, but Clinton,

Spare me the lectures on what your party is going to do. The Republican's had the White House, the Senate, and the House. What did you do? You had one big massive orgasmic orgy of spending. Give me a break. The Republicans / Bush's legacy when he leaves office will be a national debt of $ 10 TRILLION. But hey, what's a doubling of our debt anyway? How long did it take us to run up the first $ 5 trillion? 70 years? Bush and Co did the same in 8 years....great job guys. You are for smaller govt eh? LMAO! Whatever, you and your cronies have no cred on this issue.


User currently offlineRJdxer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1372 times:



Quoting EvilForce (Reply 19):
Whatever, you and your cronies have no cred on this issue.

What part of:

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 18):
I agree that we have spent too much money

don't you understand? And there is a difference between being a conservative and being a republican.


User currently offlineThreeIfByAir From United States of America, joined exactly 7 years ago today! , 674 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1350 times:



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 4):
The balanced budget, which really wasn't balanced, did not occur until 1997 and then only after welfare reform and the decimating of our military had taken place. And I might mention, a truly conservative Congress was voted in.

I'm not even going to attempt to disagree with you on that, except to ask: How can a balanced budget not really be balanced?

Entitlement spending is the real issue, as the OP states:

Quoting Aaron747 (Thread starter):
According to the Concord Coalition, a fiscal watchdog group, the shortfall in Social Security and Medicare through 2080 will total $72.3 trillion, a number that dwarfs the impact of Mr. Bush's spending and tax cuts.

While it is true that neither party has a great track record in balancing budgets and cutting costs, I fail to see how a Republican administration will address this $72,300,000,000,000 hole better than a Democratic administration would. It is a ridiculoudly large amount of money which can't be found by simply cutting benefits, unless you want people to die.

I've yet to hear a reasonable plan to address the shortfall from ANY candidate. We have 2 problems here: candidates are afraid to touch the issue, and most voters will be dead before it affects them.


User currently offlineRJdxer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1314 times:



Quoting ThreeIfByAir (Reply 21):
How can a balanced budget not really be balanced?

Because it includes FICA taxes that in reality should be going into a separate column. In effect the government is borrowing money and not showing it as such. If you took those taxes away, the budget would not be balanced but in deficit.

Quoting ThreeIfByAir (Reply 21):
I fail to see how a Republican administration will address this $72,300,000,000,000 hole better than a Democratic administration would. It is a ridiculoudly large amount of money which can't be found by simply cutting benefits, unless you want people to die.

Agreed.

Quoting ThreeIfByAir (Reply 21):
I've yet to hear a reasonable plan to address the shortfall from ANY candidate. We have 2 problems here: candidates are afraid to touch the issue, and most voters will be dead before it affects them.

And you won't either. Social Security is the DNC's security blanket. A link to the past they always point to to say "We take care of you". Any Republican candidate that speaks of changing the arrangement is instantly tarred and feathered by the DNC and accused of wanting old people to eat dog food. Unfortunately most people have come to see Social Security as some sort of old age pension fund they have paid into all their working days and expect to see much more out of it than they really will. It's an expectation that very shortly the government, no matter who is in charge, will be unable to fulfill.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
March LAS Meet, 23-25 Mar 07, Part 4 posted Fri Dec 22 2006 18:38:32 by ANCFlyer
Beeing A Bush Pilot In The US posted Wed Oct 11 2006 12:53:41 by Oldeuropean
Bush Tells Congress: "Fight Terror On My Terms." posted Fri Sep 8 2006 07:15:08 by Gunsontheroof
Bush & Illegal Immigration: I Admire Him. posted Fri May 19 2006 00:01:31 by SFOMEX
Bush & Life posted Tue Mar 22 2005 23:58:49 by DC10GUY
Plse Help : Joke About Bush & China posted Fri Jan 21 2005 17:54:39 by Levent
Bush's & Kerry's Plans For The Next 4 Years!? posted Tue Oct 26 2004 23:52:28 by FJWH
US Giving Up On Iraq Already? posted Fri May 2 2003 10:49:04 by Eg777er
Will Bush & Co. Really Give Iraqis What They Want? posted Sat Apr 26 2003 02:59:36 by Ilyushin96M
Bush & Blair's Broadcasts posted Thu Apr 10 2003 16:18:21 by Saintsman