problems with social security and medicare have not gone away

Rune said:
Democrats are not the ones who overspend moron.
Click to expand...

Actually both parties have consistently over spent revenue since Ike left office. It has progressively gotten worse with the exception of a few years in the late 90's when the Rep Congress and Clinton actually attempted to eliminate deficit spending.
 
Superfreak said:
Actually both parties have consistently over spent revenue since Ike left office. It has progressively gotten worse with the exception of a few years in the late 90's when the Rep Congress and Clinton actually attempted to eliminate deficit spending.
Click to expand...

Credit for not totaly denying reality.
 
Superfreak said:
Post 12 & Post 18

12 you pretend the Dems are not over spenders

18 you parrot the bullshit from Obama on his spending.
Click to expand...

This is why you only get partial credit. Raygun and Bush blew out the budget. Clinton reigned it in. Baby Bush Blew it all to hell. Obama is trying to pick up the pieces.

The chart is backed up by government statistics and to the best of my knowledge has not been refuted.
 
Rune said:
This is why you only get partial credit. Raygun and Bush blew out the budget. Clinton reigned it in. Baby Bush Blew it all to hell. Obama is trying to pick up the pieces.

The chart is backed up by government statistics and to the best of my knowledge has not been refuted.
Click to expand...

And the above is why you get no credit. You pretend the only person that matters is the President. The President does not control the purse strings. Congress does.

Reagan had Tip O'Neals House to deal with... together they raised the nations debt by $1.6 Trillion in 8 years

Bush also had a Dem Congress.... he raised the nations debt by $1.4 Trillion in 4 years

Clinton began with a Dem Congress... but in the years that the deficit was reigned in, it was with a Rep Congress.... together they raised the nations debt by $1.6 Trillion (Note that amount is very similar to Reagan's tenure... though it needs to be adjusted for inflation)

Bush Jr. had a Rep Congress for the first six years and a Dem Congress in 2007/2008... those ass clowns raised the debt by about $5 Trillion in 8 years.

Obama had a Dem Congress with Supermajorities in the first two years, A Rep House since 2011. He has raised the debt by almost $4 Trillion in less than four years.

Your chart assumes that the spending for year 2009 is all on Bush. It is not. The approx $800B that the Dem Congress passed in early 2009 and signed by Obama is on him. Not Bush.

If you want to see why the chart you posted is silly... take a look at Clinton. The spending picked up at a faster pace in his second term... yet those were the years that the deficit spending was the least. It is not spending on its own that matters... it is spending relative to revenue that matters.
 
Dixie said:
LMAO... YOUR elected representatives, the people YOU voted for, spent the money on what YOU told them you wanted, and now you claim that isn't YOUR problem? Is THAT how this works? So all of this enormous mountain of debt we're leaving to our children and grandchildren... that's just their problem, right? Fuck it, you got yours! Let someone else worry about it when the time comes, as long as you can bleed another dollar out of the system, you don't really give two fucks. Glad you could be honest enough to admit that, now we know what the Democrat plan is... ride this bitch til she drops!
Click to expand...

That's exactly what the Repubs did. Remember Ronald Dumsfeld, "The Iraq war was a option we could afford." Remember the Bush tax cuts?

No country has ever lowered taxes in a time of war and the only time a war is profitable is when a country is plundered for it's treasures. Now, blowing up a country and then paying to rebuild it's infrastructure is......well, perhaps you should watch this movie. Here's a trailer.

The Repubs did everything possible to ensure there would be no social programs. How the hell could there have been money for war when SS was going bankrupt and 45,000 people were dying due to a lack of health coverage? Then cut taxes on top of it all. The burden left to the grandchildren is a direct result of the Bush/Repub policies.
 
Rune said:
No Dix, when someone breaks even for six years they lose. That is the magic of inflation.
Click to expand...

Hmm.. well let's see... would I rather have had my own personal retirement fund which broke even in 6 years, and is now starting to grow again... or would I rather hope and pray the government has enough money the politicians haven't stolen, to send me my check each month? Hmmmmm...such a hard fucking choice there!

Idiot!
 
How the hell could there have been money for war when SS was going bankrupt and 45,000 people were dying due to a lack of health coverage?
Click to expand...

We could have fought 3 Iraqs and 2 Afghanistans with the money Obama has spent in four years.
 
Dixie said:
What the fuck are you talking about? Our economic problems are being caused by Marxist Socialists who took over the Democrat party. I blame THEM!!
Click to expand...

Democrats are known for being fiscally irresponsible, but it's worth noting that the last admin that even attempted fiscal responsibility was Clinton's.

The Bush admin, as well as the GOP Congress during his tenure, were terrible spenders. Pork-laden transportation & energy bills, a philosophy that "deficit spending doesn't matter," expensive/unnecessary wars. To say it's simply "Democrats" who created the current problems is somewhat partisan.
 
Onceler said:
Democrats are known for being fiscally irresponsible, but it's worth noting that the last admin that even attempted fiscal responsibility was Clinton's.

The Bush admin, as well as the GOP Congress during his tenure, were terrible spenders. Pork-laden transportation & energy bills, a philosophy that "deficit spending doesn't matter," expensive/unnecessary wars. To say it's simply "Democrats" who created the current problems is somewhat partisan.
Click to expand...

Clinton used the Social Security trust fund, which Dems are ironically now blaming on the Republicans blowing, to make it appear he balanced the budget. There was never a "surplus" because the forecast it was based on, never materialized, the dotcoms went tits up, instead of generating billions in projected revenues, which was the whole basis of a "surplus."

Deficit spending DOESN'T matter if your GDP rate is growing consistently, because you will eventually outgrow it. Here's an example... If you pay your house payment each month, that is a deficit expense you pay out, but it is going to pay for your house, so eventually, you will realize a benefit from the deficit spending. However, if your monthly payment is 100% interest, and the principle is not being reduced, it's still deficit spending, but the difference is, you aren't going to ever realize any benefit, you will never pay for your home at a 100% interest rate. The same general principle applies to government and deficit spending, as long as the GDP continues to grow, and the economy continues to flourish, and people continue to have jobs and work, we can have a deficit and there is no problem, because our economic prosperity and productivity will eventually pay off and we can reduce our deficit and debt. When you start spending way more than the GDP is growing, or the GDP stops growing and you keep piling up more and more debt, THAT's when you have a problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top