deficits, economy, and republicans

[SR_]

Ok,

Ive noticed a lot of my fellow republicans (and nearly every liberal) are a little confused about our current economic status and the current budget that was just passed in relation to the deficit.

The accepted theory is that government deficits are extremely bad. This is true in a sense, deficits are bad when compared to a balanced budget or a surplus..BUT.. government deficits are not the end of the world. Not even the one as large as what we'll have in the coming fiscal year.

Conservatives and republicans need not look any further than the 1980's to see how budget deficits can help a struggling economy. Did they kill the nation or destroy the economy? of course not. In fact, even by conservative fiscal principals, government deficits CAN induce necessary stimulus and dramatically quicken the demise of strong recessions.

Republicans dont need to oppose government spending deficits simply on the principal of deficits, what we need to oppose is what that money is spent TO BUY. This is where republicans made an error in the debate on capitol hill.

It is not a solution to an economic crisis to just oppose deficit spending in total. It is not a solution to an economic crisis to oppose spending increases during a recession on the part of the government. In fact it only goes to ensure a lengthier recession and economic downturn, which continues to shrink revenues and INCREASE deficits, not to mention that weak economic progress increases entitlement dependence, crime, declined property values, diminished retirement savings and pensions.

Reagan, proved that running enormous deficits can be a very wise, it was wise because of what the money was spent on, which enabled other causes and effects that made our nation even stronger!! If he had embraced this notion that during economic downturns and recessions that the government should freeze spending, and only CUT taxes, then we wouldnt have the economic prosperity we have today... the world wouldnt exist as it does today where the US isnt facing a strong USSR.

Right now investments in Education, Healthcare, and the Energy (which are the talking points for the Obama Admin) should be something we as conservatives support, and we should have supported it from the beginning because then we couldve helped dictate HOW this money is spent. History has shown that recessions are cyclical, they are not never ending. This country will recover, we again will be living the highlife, and this kind of government spending will inevitably help, that money doesnt just dissappear it exists in the supply and will go through every door. Once again, even a deficit this large will be picked away at and possibly removed just like the massive deficits that Reagan ran up. Revenues will again increase, and just like history has shown us, subtle tax increases (lets face it, we're still well below 50's to 70's tax rates) are not the end of the world either. Just because we scream it over and over doesnt make it true, if it were true we wouldnt be the most powerful nation on earth.

What im saying is politics is one thing, but arguing that we're turning into socialists is an argument that isnt playing well, partly because... we arent socialists. Arguing that deficits and debt will kill the nation sounds GREAT, except one of our most popular modern Presidents who was a republican proved that it doesnt... in fact it showed that it can lead to unimaginable economic prosperity.

Business owners will tell you that in order to make money you have spend money, and when you have no money to spend, you stagnate and die off. We fiscal conservatives should not support the idea of stagnation, we also cant lose sight of the fact that some fiscal situation require solutions that are realistic. The best way to get back to a balanced budget, or even surplus's is to get the nation out of a recession, to invest money is growing economic sectors, reducing our looming entitlement obligations and keeping money inside the US where possible. As much as we might not want to accept it, this includes addressing healthcare, education, and energy. This needs to happen, this shouldnt matter if youre a conservative or a liberal, these issues need addressing. We have a massive healthcare waste pit that increases entitlement dependence, a better educated population is less likely to be dependent on entitlements and MORE productive in the marketplace, and sending more wealth to foreign energy providers (the largest transfer of wealth on the planet) is something that we need to address.

Its HOW we invest in these sectors that matters and we couldve and shouldve taken the seat at the table to influence whats going to happen. We didnt.

and its going to cost us so much in the long run.

SR

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Ok,

Ive noticed a lot of my fellow republicans (and nearly every liberal) are a little confused about our current economic status and the current budget that was just passed in relation to the deficit.

The accepted theory is that government deficits are extremely bad. This is true in a sense, deficits are bad when compared to a balanced budget or a surplus..BUT.. government deficits are not the end of the world. Not even the one as large as what we'll have in the coming fiscal year.

Conservatives and republicans need not look any further than the 1980's to see how budget deficits can help a struggling economy. Did they kill the nation or destroy the economy? of course not. In fact, even by conservative fiscal principals, government deficits CAN induce necessary stimulus and dramatically quicken the demise of strong recessions.

Republicans dont need to oppose government spending deficits simply on the principal of deficits, what we need to oppose is what that money is spent TO BUY. This is where republicans made an error in the debate on capitol hill.

It is not a solution to an economic crisis to just oppose deficit spending in total. It is not a solution to an economic crisis to oppose spending increases during a recession on the part of the government. In fact it only goes to ensure a lengthier recession and economic downturn, which continues to shrink revenues and INCREASE deficits, not to mention that weak economic progress increases entitlement dependence, crime, declined property values, diminished retirement savings and pensions.

Reagan, proved that running enormous deficits can be a very wise, it was wise because of what the money was spent on, which enabled other causes and effects that made our nation even stronger!! If he had embraced this notion that during economic downturns and recessions that the government should freeze spending, and only CUT taxes, then we wouldnt have the economic prosperity we have today... the world wouldnt exist as it does today where the US isnt facing a strong USSR.

Right now investments in Education, Healthcare, and the Energy (which are the talking points for the Obama Admin) should be something we as conservatives support, and we should have supported it from the beginning because then we couldve helped dictate HOW this money is spent. History has shown that recessions are cyclical, they are not never ending. This country will recover, we again will be living the highlife, and this kind of government spending will inevitably help, that money doesnt just dissappear it exists in the supply and will go through every door. Once again, even a deficit this large will be picked away at and possibly removed just like the massive deficits that Reagan ran up. Revenues will again increase, and just like history has shown us, subtle tax increases (lets face it, we're still well below 50's to 70's tax rates) are not the end of the world either. Just because we scream it over and over doesnt make it true, if it were true we wouldnt be the most powerful nation on earth.

What im saying is politics is one thing, but arguing that we're turning into socialists is an argument that isnt playing well, partly because... we arent socialists. Arguing that deficits and debt will kill the nation sounds GREAT, except one of our most popular modern Presidents who was a republican proved that it doesnt... in fact it showed that it can lead to unimaginable economic prosperity.

Business owners will tell you that in order to make money you have spend money, and when you have no money to spend, you stagnate and die off. We fiscal conservatives should not support the idea of stagnation, we also cant lose sight of the fact that some fiscal situation require solutions that are realistic. The best way to get back to a balanced budget, or even surplus's is to get the nation out of a recession, to invest money is growing economic sectors, reducing our looming entitlement obligations and keeping money inside the US where possible. As much as we might not want to accept it, this includes addressing healthcare, education, and energy. This needs to happen, this shouldnt matter if youre a conservative or a liberal, these issues need addressing. We have a massive healthcare waste pit that increases entitlement dependence, a better educated population is less likely to be dependent on entitlements and MORE productive in the marketplace, and sending more wealth to foreign energy providers (the largest transfer of wealth on the planet) is something that we need to address.

Its HOW we invest in these sectors that matters and we couldve and shouldve taken the seat at the table to influence whats going to happen. We didnt.

and its going to cost us so much in the long run.

SR

I respectfully have to disagree with you on this. Our national debt has indeed been around a long time, since the days of Andrew Jackson, if I'm not mistaken. So, it is true, we can function as a nation, with a concurrent national debt, and we've been doing so for years. The problem is this, our annual deficits have been increasing each year, this compounds into the national debt. We have now reached a point to where our interest on the debt alone, is our single biggest expenditure. The amount of the national debt, while it hasn't been the end of the world in the past, is quickly becoming a crisis, because we can't afford the maintenance on the debt. We can pay it because we don't have another choice, but our economy suffers as a result.

It is true that Reagan did increase deficit spending, but Reagan was also burdened with a Democrat majority in both houses, and was never given the Line Item Veto he requested. This would have given President Reagan the ability to zero out lines of the budget without rejecting it in its entirety. Had he been able to do that, it is likely he could have balanced the budget, and would have done so. Yes, we still enjoyed massive economic growth under Reagan, but it was NOT because we were burdened with a bloated national debt! Had we not been tied to the interest payments on the debt, there is no telling how much that may have impacted economic growth.

but arguing that we're turning into socialists is an argument that isnt playing well...

First of all, WE aren't turning into anything, liberal democrats ARE Socialists. The reason that isn't "playing well" is because liberal democrats completely control the media, and do everything in their power to combat this perception, by portraying those who make the charge, as right-wing wacko extremists. The fact remains, the policies and initiatives supported and endorsed by liberal democrats, are SOCIALISM! There isn't a more 'diplomatic' way to say it, there is not a way to sugar-coat it... What they advocate, and what they are pushing for, is basic European Socialism, plain and simple.

Now, you can "believe" whatever you wish, it's America! But what is happening is, many young mush-brains, who haven't a clue what Socialism is, are being manipulated and lied to, and fed constant propaganda from the Socialist left. Socialism can be a very alluring ideology, because it is full of Utopian wishful thinking, which every idiot moron out there, is inclined to glom onto, because they are mostly emotionally-driven pinheads. When you break down Nationalized Health Care, it is Socialism. When you nationalize the banks and financial institutions, that IS Socialist! Every initiative and measure sought by this Democrat congress and administration, is pure unadulterated, Karl Marx Socialism 101.

What is quite disturbing to me is, I know you have conservative views, and I know you aren't a left-wing loon, but here you are, cow-twoing to liberals, trying to put a nice "spin" on deficit spending and the behemoth national debt! You are essentially saying the same thing Democrats have been saying since Reagan (when they are in power). That the deficits don't matter, the national debt is meaningless... of course, when the president's name is Bush, that's a different story altogether. But I have to ask myself, why would you attempt to make such a stupid and lame conservative argument as this?

Yes, the national debt does matter, and no, it's not the end of the world if we don't pay it off. No, the stimulation of the economy has nothing to do with the national debt, in fact, the interest on the national debt is responsible for slow or stagnated economic recovery. Simple basic third-grader math will tell you, if we annually increase the debt (deficit spending) then we will never decrease the debt. Simple economic logic will tell you, if we never decrease the debt, we will eventually reach a point where the interest on the debt can't be maintained. We're getting close to that now. The Obama administration budget will likely not be balanced. Some estimates have it at nearly a trillion dollars in the red annually. That's TRILLION with a "T" man! We simply can't afford to continue piling on the debt with deficit spending by out of control political parties and politicians. At some point, we are going to have to regain our sanity and start operating ON BUDGET, and kill things we can't afford to pay for. No one wants to do that now, because the left in this country, is not interested in making that sacrifice, and some on the right (like yourself) are willing to overlook the problem completely.

 

[SR_]

I respectfully have to disagree with you on this. Our national debt has indeed been around a long time, since the days of Andrew Jackson, if I'm not mistaken. So, it is true, we can function as a nation, with a concurrent national debt, and we've been doing so for years. The problem is this, our annual deficits have been increasing each year, this compounds into the national debt. We have now reached a point to where our interest on the debt alone, is our single biggest expenditure. The amount of the national debt, while it hasn't been the end of the world in the past, is quickly becoming a crisis, because we can't afford the maintenance on the debt. We can pay it because we don't have another choice, but our economy suffers as a result.

Dixie,

I agree with everything youre saying. What you arent addressing and what my specific point was in reference too is the current situation of the economy and our current political reality as the minority party. This is where theory and principle MUST coincide with reality. Youre right, the national debt is too large... we are in a recession, the quicker we get out, the more productive the nation is, the larger our revenues will be and work on the national debt and the deficit can begin.

It is true that Reagan did increase deficit spending, but Reagan was also burdened with a Democrat majority in both houses, and was never given the Line Item Veto he requested. This would have given President Reagan the ability to zero out lines of the budget without rejecting it in its entirety. Had he been able to do that, it is likely he could have balanced the budget, and would have done so. Yes, we still enjoyed massive economic growth under Reagan, but it was NOT because we were burdened with a bloated national debt! Had we not been tied to the interest payments on the debt, there is no telling how much that may have impacted economic growth.

This isnt entirely accurate. Reagan advocated for dramatic increases in spending, especially in defense spending which made up the majority of his budget requests. We enjoyed economic growth under Reagan because these government expenditures flowed into the economy, these defense programs spurred other innovations in the market. You see the money that the government or any entity spends into the flow does not dissappear, this was one reason for the inflation in the 80's. My point wasnt that deficits spur economic prosperity, the point demonstrated by Reagan is the deficits spur economic RECOVERY. Again we come back to the practical application to what our current situation is. The national debt as % of GDP is where the real concern lies, and as of right now... we're okay. We have experienced great times of economic growth and prosperity with a much higher % of GDP in the debt. What im trying to say, is that as a fiscal conservative you need to look at what is BEST for the fiscal health of the nation, it doesnt really mean you need to be against spending simply on principle.

First of all, WE aren't turning into anything, liberal democrats ARE Socialists. The reason that isn't "playing well" is because liberal democrats completely control the media, and do everything in their power to combat this perception, by portraying those who make the charge, as right-wing wacko extremists. The fact remains, the policies and initiatives supported and endorsed by liberal democrats, are SOCIALISM! There isn't a more 'diplomatic' way to say it, there is not a way to sugar-coat it... What they advocate, and what they are pushing for, is basic European Socialism, plain and simple.

Now, you can "believe" whatever you wish, it's America! But what is happening is, many young mush-brains, who haven't a clue what Socialism is, are being manipulated and lied to, and fed constant propaganda from the Socialist left. Socialism can be a very alluring ideology, because it is full of Utopian wishful thinking, which every idiot moron out there, is inclined to glom onto, because they are mostly emotionally-driven pinheads. When you break down Nationalized Health Care, it is Socialism. When you nationalize the banks and financial institutions, that IS Socialist! Every initiative and measure sought by this Democrat congress and administration, is pure unadulterated, Karl Marx Socialism 101.

Nationalizing health care is not tantamount to the United States changing its economic system and the country becoming socialistic. We arent nationalizing banks as a matter of policy. Actions are being taken in direct response to the current situation. Its hard for me to believe that a fiscal conservative would support the idea that we need to allow 5 of our top financial institutions to just fail, to even further the decline of our economic prosperity. And what im saying is this specific argument against pragmatic realistic action without any input is BAD for the republican party AND for fiscal conservatives. Its good talking points, but any realistic person, certainly every true fiscal conservative cant just be against something because the opposition is FOR IT. We currently spend TRILLIONS of dollars on healthcare, mostly waste. We cant continue to support a system that wastes money when savings could exist. We cant continue to support a system that ever increasingly is not affordable for most Americans. IT COSTS MORE to pay to take care of them then it would be to invest in solutions. And what im saying is these are things that conservatives especially fiscal conservatives should be pushing FOR so that they can have input in the discussion. Just simply saying, "nope, im against it, its socialist.." ensures that our input will not be included, it ensures that our values are not represented. How is this in anyway a useful strategy IF YOURE A FISCAL CONSERVATIVE?

What is quite disturbing to me is, I know you have conservative views, and I know you aren't a left-wing loon, but here you are, cow-twoing to liberals, trying to put a nice "spin" on deficit spending and the behemoth national debt! You are essentially saying the same thing Democrats have been saying since Reagan (when they are in power). That the deficits don't matter, the national debt is meaningless... of course, when the president's name is Bush, that's a different story altogether. But I have to ask myself, why would you attempt to make such a stupid and lame conservative argument as this?


Im not cowtowing to anything. I dont believe deficit spending is a GOOD THING, or that they dont matter. Im saying that as a conservative I want the economy to recover and do well. Theres no reason for deficits during good times.. and yet, even with republican control we ran deficits. As you might have noticed we are NOT IN GOOD times. And the only prudent fiscal thing to do is to run a deficit with the intention of investing in the future in order to spur economic recovery. As a fiscal conservative i support this action.

Yes, the national debt does matter, and no, it's not the end of the world if we don't pay it off. No, the stimulation of the economy has nothing to do with the national debt, in fact, the interest on the national debt is responsible for slow or stagnated economic recovery. Simple basic third-grader math will tell you, if we annually increase the debt (deficit spending) then we will never decrease the debt. Simple economic logic will tell you, if we never decrease the debt, we will eventually reach a point where the interest on the debt can't be maintained. We're getting close to that now. The Obama administration budget will likely not be balanced. Some estimates have it at nearly a trillion dollars in the red annually. That's TRILLION with a "T" man! We simply can't afford to continue piling on the debt with deficit spending by out of control political parties and politicians. At some point, we are going to have to regain our sanity and start operating ON BUDGET, and kill things we can't afford to pay for. No one wants to do that now, because the left in this country, is not interested in making that sacrifice, and some on the right (like yourself) are willing to overlook the problem completely.

Everything youre saying is correct in principle. But youre talking like we need to balance the budget before we right the economy. This is fiscally retarded, not fiscally conservative.

Im not suggesting abandoning principle, but you cant look to save water by pinching off the hose while your house is on fire. Its not prudent, its not reasonable, its not wise, and there is no argument to support it.

SR

 

[ib1yysguy]

I have to say, I'm impressed with SR. I didn't give him enough credit.

 

[TuTu Monroe]

Studies have indicated that Obama's massive budget plan would increase the national debt to 80% of GDP. Historically it has been around 40%. At this point, the national debt is about $11.2 trillion. Interest alone with his plan will be about $800 billion per fiscal year, unless you have a different figure.

Can anyone say Banana Republic?

I respectfully have to disagree with you on this. Our national debt has indeed been around a long time, since the days of Andrew Jackson, if I'm not mistaken. So, it is true, we can function as a nation, with a concurrent national debt, and we've been doing so for years. The problem is this, our annual deficits have been increasing each year, this compounds into the national debt. We have now reached a point to where our interest on the debt alone, is our single biggest expenditure. The amount of the national debt, while it hasn't been the end of the world in the past, is quickly becoming a crisis, because we can't afford the maintenance on the debt. We can pay it because we don't have another choice, but our economy suffers as a result.

Dixie,

I agree with everything youre saying. What you arent addressing and what my specific point was in reference too is the current situation of the economy and our current political reality as the minority party. This is where theory and principle MUST coincide with reality. Youre right, the national debt is too large... we are in a recession, the quicker we get out, the more productive the nation is, the larger our revenues will be and work on the national debt and the deficit can begin.

It is true that Reagan did increase deficit spending, but Reagan was also burdened with a Democrat majority in both houses, and was never given the Line Item Veto he requested. This would have given President Reagan the ability to zero out lines of the budget without rejecting it in its entirety. Had he been able to do that, it is likely he could have balanced the budget, and would have done so. Yes, we still enjoyed massive economic growth under Reagan, but it was NOT because we were burdened with a bloated national debt! Had we not been tied to the interest payments on the debt, there is no telling how much that may have impacted economic growth.

This isnt entirely accurate. Reagan advocated for dramatic increases in spending, especially in defense spending which made up the majority of his budget requests. We enjoyed economic growth under Reagan because these government expenditures flowed into the economy, these defense programs spurred other innovations in the market. You see the money that the government or any entity spends into the flow does not dissappear, this was one reason for the inflation in the 80's. My point wasnt that deficits spur economic prosperity, the point demonstrated by Reagan is the deficits spur economic RECOVERY. Again we come back to the practical application to what our current situation is. The national debt as % of GDP is where the real concern lies, and as of right now... we're okay. We have experienced great times of economic growth and prosperity with a much higher % of GDP in the debt. What im trying to say, is that as a fiscal conservative you need to look at what is BEST for the fiscal health of the nation, it doesnt really mean you need to be against spending simply on principle.

First of all, WE aren't turning into anything, liberal democrats ARE Socialists. The reason that isn't "playing well" is because liberal democrats completely control the media, and do everything in their power to combat this perception, by portraying those who make the charge, as right-wing wacko extremists. The fact remains, the policies and initiatives supported and endorsed by liberal democrats, are SOCIALISM! There isn't a more 'diplomatic' way to say it, there is not a way to sugar-coat it... What they advocate, and what they are pushing for, is basic European Socialism, plain and simple.

Now, you can "believe" whatever you wish, it's America! But what is happening is, many young mush-brains, who haven't a clue what Socialism is, are being manipulated and lied to, and fed constant propaganda from the Socialist left. Socialism can be a very alluring ideology, because it is full of Utopian wishful thinking, which every idiot moron out there, is inclined to glom onto, because they are mostly emotionally-driven pinheads. When you break down Nationalized Health Care, it is Socialism. When you nationalize the banks and financial institutions, that IS Socialist! Every initiative and measure sought by this Democrat congress and administration, is pure unadulterated, Karl Marx Socialism 101.

Nationalizing health care is not tantamount to the United States changing its economic system and the country becoming socialistic. We arent nationalizing banks as a matter of policy. Actions are being taken in direct response to the current situation. Its hard for me to believe that a fiscal conservative would support the idea that we need to allow 5 of our top financial institutions to just fail, to even further the decline of our economic prosperity. And what im saying is this specific argument against pragmatic realistic action without any input is BAD for the republican party AND for fiscal conservatives. Its good talking points, but any realistic person, certainly every true fiscal conservative cant just be against something because the opposition is FOR IT. We currently spend TRILLIONS of dollars on healthcare, mostly waste. We cant continue to support a system that wastes money when savings could exist. We cant continue to support a system that ever increasingly is not affordable for most Americans. IT COSTS MORE to pay to take care of them then it would be to invest in solutions. And what im saying is these are things that conservatives especially fiscal conservatives should be pushing FOR so that they can have input in the discussion. Just simply saying, "nope, im against it, its socialist.." ensures that our input will not be included, it ensures that our values are not represented. How is this in anyway a useful strategy IF YOURE A FISCAL CONSERVATIVE?

What is quite disturbing to me is, I know you have conservative views, and I know you aren't a left-wing loon, but here you are, cow-twoing to liberals, trying to put a nice "spin" on deficit spending and the behemoth national debt! You are essentially saying the same thing Democrats have been saying since Reagan (when they are in power). That the deficits don't matter, the national debt is meaningless... of course, when the president's name is Bush, that's a different story altogether. But I have to ask myself, why would you attempt to make such a stupid and lame conservative argument as this?


Im not cowtowing to anything. I dont believe deficit spending is a GOOD THING, or that they dont matter. Im saying that as a conservative I want the economy to recover and do well. Theres no reason for deficits during good times.. and yet, even with republican control we ran deficits. As you might have noticed we are NOT IN GOOD times. And the only prudent fiscal thing to do is to run a deficit with the intention of investing in the future in order to spur economic recovery. As a fiscal conservative i support this action.

Yes, the national debt does matter, and no, it's not the end of the world if we don't pay it off. No, the stimulation of the economy has nothing to do with the national debt, in fact, the interest on the national debt is responsible for slow or stagnated economic recovery. Simple basic third-grader math will tell you, if we annually increase the debt (deficit spending) then we will never decrease the debt. Simple economic logic will tell you, if we never decrease the debt, we will eventually reach a point where the interest on the debt can't be maintained. We're getting close to that now. The Obama administration budget will likely not be balanced. Some estimates have it at nearly a trillion dollars in the red annually. That's TRILLION with a "T" man! We simply can't afford to continue piling on the debt with deficit spending by out of control political parties and politicians. At some point, we are going to have to regain our sanity and start operating ON BUDGET, and kill things we can't afford to pay for. No one wants to do that now, because the left in this country, is not interested in making that sacrifice, and some on the right (like yourself) are willing to overlook the problem completely.

Everything youre saying is correct in principle. But youre talking like we need to balance the budget before we right the economy. This is fiscally retarded, not fiscally conservative.

Im not suggesting abandoning principle, but you cant look to save water by pinching off the hose while your house is on fire. Its not prudent, its not reasonable, its not wise, and there is no argument to support it.

SR

 

[ib1yysguy]

Tutu, you willing to bet any sum of money that the national debt wont come anywhere near your outrageously high figure during Obama's term?

 

[Damocles]

Tutu, you willing to bet any sum of money that the national debt wont come anywhere near your outrageously high figure during Obama's term?

What? She said it is currently at about 11.2 Trillion. She's right. Oh, I see. The 80% figure. Yeah, I don't think it will get there. But it will be above the historic figure, and we know from the past that it will stay there....

 

[evince]

There is a certain base of the repubpican party that have no brains and will just reflexsively tout whatever they are told to tout by people like Newt and Rush.

It doesnt have to make sense or have any basis in reality.

That base is very close to the 21% that now self identify as Republicans.


I liked your post SR and it was thoughful and intelligent, that being said it will never reach that base until you can get Rush and Newt to say it.

 

[Bonestorm]

What? She said it is currently at about 11.2 Trillion. She's right. Oh, I see. The 80% figure. Yeah, I don't think it will get there. But it will be above the historic figure, and we know from the past that it will stay there....

What historic figure? And where will it stay? I'm guessing that by 2011 it will be right around 21-22% as with every other president since Nixon.

SR is pretty much spot on. I suppose I think he is an ass largely based on his foreign policy (or maybe just War on Terra) views. Color me surprised.

 

[Damocles]

What historic figure? And where will it stay? I'm guessing that by 2011 it will be right around 21-22% as with every other president since Nixon.

SR is pretty much spot on. I suppose I think he is an ass largely based on his foreign policy (or maybe just War on Terra) views. Color me surprised.

What did they post? It really doesn't matter... It's above that already. And, learning from history isn't the strong point of Americans. It will stay there until it becomes problematic. We'll ignore it right up until those who hold our debts call them...

I would prefer that we actually did what Keynes said to do. Pay down that crap when things are good rather than grow it more and pretend that projected surplus is the same thing as real surplus. I'm sick of being fed a line of crap and told it is good for me.

Right now we have to deficit spend, this is true. But we are Americans, when good times come we'll just do more deficit spending...

 

[ib1yysguy]

Bumping the epic Dixie pwnage.

 

[meme-me]

Studies have indicated that Obama's massive budget plan would increase the national debt to 80% of GDP. Historically it has been around 40%. At this point, the national debt is about $11.2 trillion. Interest alone with his plan will be about $800 billion per fiscal year, unless you have a different figure.

Can anyone say Banana Republic?

wow, you are amazing, such an intelligent mind. they will never be able to refute this, good post.

i shop at banana republic!