PDA

View Full Version : The Bill Is Coming Due


gblowfish
12-26-2007, 07:17 AM
My good pal Mr. Doggity sent me this. Not only are more Americans defaulting on their credit cards, the Federal Government is running up debt like a speeding bullet. Check this out:

Figures come from the US Treasury:
http://tinyurl.com/2werbr

End of Federal FY 2000: 09/30/2000 US National Debt: $5,674,178,209,886.86

End of Federal FY 2007: 09/30/2007 US National Debt: $9,136,418,062,457.29

The AP wrote: "Like a ticking time bomb, the national debt is an explosion waiting to happen. It's expanding by about $1.4 billion a day -- or nearly $1 million a minute."

There has been an increase of $500 BILLION PER YEAR, EVERY YEAR under Bush. After four consecutive DECREASES, under Clinton.

The most widely used calculation of national debt is the debt/GDP ratio. Using the debt figures above and the GDP figures from the Bureau of Economic Analysis we get the following debt/GDP ratios:

2001: 57.29%
2002: 58.80%
2003: 61.18%
2004: 62.64%
2005: 63.16%
2006: 64.11%
2007: about 65%

So let the voices in your head keep telling you that "revenues are at an all-time high!" -- so what? Expenses, thanks to Bush's bungled fiascoes around the globe, are HIGHER. And Neocons now owe every kid in America $30,000 to offset four years of tax cuts.

The bill is coming due, soon.

patteeu
12-26-2007, 08:02 AM
I've heard this all before. The debt problem was insurmountable during the 80's when it grew under the Reagan administration by an even larger percentage than under the GWBush administration. 12 short years later, we had a nominal surplus again largely because of the growth of our economy.

The fiscal problem we face is based on entitlement obligations, not anything the neocons did. GWBush exacerbated it, with the help of democrats in Congress by pushing the prescription drug entitlement through during his first term, but he also tried to address it by using the bully pulpit to bring SS reform to the forefront. To his discredit and to that of the democrats in Congress who worked to oppose him, that effort was unsuccessful. The rest of the entitlement problem has been long standing and both parties have contributed to it, but lets not lose sight of the fact that it was the democrats who created and, later, dramatically expanded the welfare entitlement state. Don't try to pass this hot potato off on Bush just because he's the guy in office when you arbitrarily decide that the music has stopped.

BigRedChief
12-26-2007, 08:16 AM
The fiscal problem we face is based on entitlement obligations, not anything the neocons did.
Although I disagree with the the neocons being blameless in this mess the entitlments in the 3rd rail that no one will touch. Hence, nothing will ever really be done about it.

Cochise
12-26-2007, 08:20 AM
In what way is it coming due?

banyon
12-26-2007, 08:29 AM
This changes things a bit from the 80's debt rush.

http://www.intelligentguess.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/usa-external-debt-as-a-of-total-debt-data-since-1995-w2.jpg

stevieray
12-26-2007, 09:26 AM
...the bill for a lot of things is coming due.

chiefforlife
12-26-2007, 10:02 AM
Its nice to read something like this right after reading that we have sent BILLIONS in aid to Pakistan!

gblowfish
12-26-2007, 02:34 PM
Damn welfare mothers. Take away all that free baby formula. Can't possibly be tax breaks for the rich that's made this problem worse...

chiefforlife
12-26-2007, 02:39 PM
Damn welfare mothers. Take away all that free baby formula. Can't possibly be tax breaks for the rich that's made this problem worse...


Many things have made the problem worse, I wouldnt single out tax breaks for the rich as if it were the main reason. I dont think anyone is advocating taking away baby formula either...

gblowfish
12-26-2007, 02:56 PM
Maybe if we can sell W on EBay, that'll cut into the deficit!

http://tinyurl.com/2qczu5

a1na2
12-26-2007, 03:16 PM
My good pal Mr. Doggity sent me this. Not only are more Americans defaulting on their credit cards, the Federal Government is running up debt like a speeding bullet. Check this out:

Figures come from the US Treasury:
http://tinyurl.com/2werbr

End of Federal FY 2000: 09/30/2000 US National Debt: $5,674,178,209,886.86

End of Federal FY 2007: 09/30/2007 US National Debt: $9,136,418,062,457.29

The AP wrote: "Like a ticking time bomb, the national debt is an explosion waiting to happen. It's expanding by about $1.4 billion a day -- or nearly $1 million a minute."

There has been an increase of $500 BILLION PER YEAR, EVERY YEAR under Bush. After four consecutive DECREASES, under Clinton.

The most widely used calculation of national debt is the debt/GDP ratio. Using the debt figures above and the GDP figures from the Bureau of Economic Analysis we get the following debt/GDP ratios:

2001: 57.29%
2002: 58.80%
2003: 61.18%
2004: 62.64%
2005: 63.16%
2006: 64.11%
2007: about 65%

So let the voices in your head keep telling you that "revenues are at an all-time high!" -- so what? Expenses, thanks to Bush's bungled fiascoes around the globe, are HIGHER. And Neocons now owe every kid in America $30,000 to offset four years of tax cuts.

The bill is coming due, soon.

Why is the debt going up?

The war.

Is that the only reason?

I doubt it.

There are by far too many issues that are causing the debt to get larger, most of which are not controllable by the President, liberal or conservative.

If you want to blame it all on Bush it's your right to speculate, but the facts are that we are all responsible.

If you think the next president is going to make it any better you are sadly mistaken.

We will do just as our parents did and our kids will do just as we are doing, they will live with it.

alanm
12-26-2007, 08:36 PM
You know what's going to happen next don't you? We're going to have a full out honest to goodness depression in the next few years. And guess who their going to blame it on?
The Democrats in power in the Presidency, Senate and House.


jk :)

ChiefaRoo
12-26-2007, 08:51 PM
I've heard this all before. The debt problem was insurmountable during the 80's when it grew under the Reagan administration by an even larger percentage than under the GWBush administration. 12 short years later, we had a nominal surplus again largely because of the growth of our economy.

The fiscal problem we face is based on entitlement obligations, not anything the neocons did. GWBush exacerbated it, with the help of democrats in Congress by pushing the prescription drug entitlement through during his first term, but he also tried to address it by using the bully pulpit to bring SS reform to the forefront. To his discredit and to that of the democrats in Congress who worked to oppose him, that effort was unsuccessful. The rest of the entitlement problem has been long standing and both parties have contributed to it, but lets not lose sight of the fact that it was the democrats who created and, later, dramatically expanded the welfare entitlement state. Don't try to pass this hot potato off on Bush just because he's the guy in office when you arbitrarily decide that the music has stopped.

You sir, are correct.

Amnorix
12-26-2007, 09:09 PM
The fiscal problem we face is based on entitlement obligations, not anything the neocons did. GWBush exacerbated it, with the help of democrats in Congress by pushing the prescription drug entitlement through during his first term, but he also tried to address it by using the bully pulpit to bring SS reform to the forefront. To his discredit and to that of the democrats in Congress who worked to oppose him, that effort was unsuccessful. The rest of the entitlement problem has been long standing and both parties have contributed to it, but lets not lose sight of the fact that it was the democrats who created and, later, dramatically expanded the welfare entitlement state. Don't try to pass this hot potato off on Bush just because he's the guy in office when you arbitrarily decide that the music has stopped.
Regardless of what FDR and LBJ did, there's no doubt that the only fiscally responsible Presidents since 1980 were BushDaddy and, even more so, Clinton. I sometimes wonder if Republicans wouldn't surrender their first born for the holy tax cut, regardless of what spending obligations or desires were.

Republicans have simply decided that tax cuts are ALWAYS imperative, and that spending need not be limited in any significant way. Its absurd.

Finally, to the extent you want to blame Democrats for this -- you can only blame two Democratic Presidents -- FDR and LBJ, the last of whom went out of office over 35 years ago now... Since 1980, when Republicans had the White House, the defiict/debt has only gotten worse, and when Democrats had it it's gotten better. The Democrats were KILLED for their tax increases and other adjustments in 1993-94, when Clinton just came into office, which helped paved the way for fiscal responsibility and the budgetary surpluses of the late 90s (along iwth other factors, to be sure).

Then GWB sacrificed them all on the alter of stupid campaign promises that we could not longer afford soon after he took office due to obvious economic changes.

Amnorix
12-26-2007, 09:15 PM
One final thought for now -- while we may be able to afford the high debt we currently carry, and an even higher one -- there's no doubt that this high debt has systemic costs to our economy.

It increases the costs of borrowing for our businesses, which reduces economic growth, and it also reduces our flexibility to deal with problems as they arise, as well as foreseen problems such as when the entitlement chickens come home to roost in a few years when the baby boomers start retiring.

ChiefaRoo
12-27-2007, 12:37 AM
It's not a R or D problem. Much like illegal immigration this is a broken government issue. No politician has really attacked these issues head on. In a way Clinton did but if you recall he lied his way into office regarding taxes and the national debt as he promised he wouldn't raise taxes. Once he got into office he announced a tax increase during his State of the Union Speech.

This country has some real issues it's going to have to face. The good news is we have the worlds largest economy, the best technology and the strongest military. It's going to take some real maturity on both sides of the isle to solve some of these issues.

Amnorix
12-27-2007, 12:50 AM
It's not a R or D problem. Much like illegal immigration this is a broken government issue. No politician has really attacked these issues head on. In a way Clinton did but if you recall he lied his way into office regarding taxes and the national debt as he promised he wouldn't raise taxes. Once he got into office he announced a tax increase during his State of the Union Speech.

This country has some real issues it's going to have to face. The good news is we have the worlds largest economy, the best technology and the strongest military. It's going to take some real maturity on both sides of the isle to solve some of these issues.

I've no idea or memory what Clinton promised in 1992. What I do know is that it's the job of a good LEADER to lead in an effective way that is the best for the nation, and that campaign promises are nice, but not the holy grail. They shouldn't be worthless, but they must BEND to reality.

Taco John
12-27-2007, 12:52 AM
We have two isles of the same ideology: the spend and spenders. The war and warrers (The humanitarian war side vs. the economic war side). Put any Democrat in office, and not only will we have a war in Afghanistan and Iraq, but they'll open up a front in the Sudan. That's the choice that the Leftist Republican vs. Liberal Democrat offers the American people: Do you want to open a new war in Iran or do you want to open it in Sudan?

Thankfully, real American conservativism - the old right is making a return.

ChiefaRoo
12-27-2007, 01:03 AM
I've no idea or memory what Clinton promised in 1992. What I do know is that it's the job of a good LEADER to lead in an effective way that is the best for the nation, and that campaign promises are nice, but not the holy grail. They shouldn't be worthless, but they must BEND to reality.

I agree, pols must BEND but not break their word. Especially when they make a specific pledge. Take McCain for example, he's principled but some of his honesty has lost him votes. Especially on immigration and on the Waterboarding of the AQ types at Gitmo. I respect him but he won't get my vote because of these two issues.

It's tough for pols but in the end the President will not be able to fix these systemic problems. It will require all of the leadership from both parties to come together to make the proper decisions on many of these issues. These decisions will also have to take into account the will of the people or there will be a revolt like there was with the Immigration bill. The deficit and the debt are manageable as long as the economy keeps growing and the US keeps it's technology edge. In the end though we are going to have to reduce it.

SoCalBronco
12-27-2007, 02:02 AM
Another large problem due to the rising debt is the increasing percentage of the federal budget that becomes mandatory spending in terms of paying interest on the debt. It's a whole section of the budget that you can't otherwise use for economically productive activity, to make a football analogy, it acts like dead space caused by accelerated cap hits for players no longer on the roster in a salary cap. This is a huge problem that is not easily solveable and will require alot of willpower to even make a dent in it, there is an ever decreasing percentage of discretionary spending, now that other areas of mandatory spending, such as for SS (baby boomer retirement), medicare etc. are only increasing. What spending cuts we can make on the discretionary side have to be done, even if they are painful in some situations, and likewise taxes should be increased as well. We're going to have to get this money from somewhere to help stem the tide. Both sides of the aisle need to sacrifice things they otherwise would have wanted (for the left, expansion of social programs etc.) and for the right (tax cuts). The problem here is that there are no incentive mechanisms in politics to do this, it runs contrary to the interest of elected officials as there is no voting constituency out there for deficit reduction, by definition, people get out and vote because they affirmatively want something for themselves, or their group, you don't get any voting bloc by saying this money here isn't going to go to you, in fact its not going to go anywhere, we simply won't spend it. It will require a great deal of courage and willpower to do somethng about this.

Saggysack
12-27-2007, 03:42 AM
We have two isles of the same ideology: the spend and spenders. The war and warrers (The humanitarian war side vs. the economic war side). Put any Democrat in office, and not only will we have a war in Afghanistan and Iraq, but they'll open up a front in the Sudan. That's the choice that the Leftist Republican vs. Liberal Democrat offers the American people: Do you want to open a new war in Iran or do you want to open it in Sudan?

Thankfully, real American conservativism - the old right is making a return.

O noes! Politics of fear. Thanks for the info King George.

What's the old saying? Something about becoming what you despise.

Hog Farmer
12-27-2007, 07:11 AM
Our national debt problem could be solved if everyone would just eat more pork!

banyon
12-27-2007, 08:12 AM
It's not a R or D problem. Much like illegal immigration this is a broken government issue. No politician has really attacked these issues head on. In a way Clinton did but if you recall he lied his way into office regarding taxes and the national debt as he promised he wouldn't raise taxes. Once he got into office he announced a tax increase during his State of the Union Speech.

This is a distortion, but a commonly echoed one on the right.

Clinton promised not to raise taxes on the middle class. He didn't. He cut their taxes. He raised taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of Americans (making >200$k).

50. "I will not raise taxes on the middle class to pay for these programs."
- East Lansing, MI, October 19, 1992

44. "Middle-class taxpayers will have a choice between a children's tax credit or a significant reduction in their income tax rate."
- "Putting People First"

The entire bill was very controversial. Many Republicans warned that many of the bills provisions would result in economic catastrophe and that deficit would actually increase. The recently elected President Bill Clinton was criticized by many for what was perceived as a reversal of his campaign pledge to cut middle class taxes although in actuality taxes increased on only the top 2% of taxpayers. Many Americans initially were supportive of changes in the tax code to help the economy and lower the deficit (according to public opinion polls taken at the time). Nonetheless, by the mid-term elections of 1994, many American voters were galvanized by the Republican charge that the Democratic Party had raised their taxes, though Republican warnings of a recession never materialized.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Budget_Reconciliation_Act_of_1993

banyon
12-27-2007, 08:13 AM
Another large problem due to the rising debt is the increasing percentage of the federal budget that becomes mandatory spending in terms of paying interest on the debt. It's a whole section of the budget that you can't otherwise use for economically productive activity, to make a football analogy, it acts like dead space caused by accelerated cap hits for players no longer on the roster in a salary cap. This is a huge problem that is not easily solveable and will require alot of willpower to even make a dent in it, there is an ever decreasing percentage of discretionary spending, now that other areas of mandatory spending, such as for SS (baby boomer retirement), medicare etc. are only increasing. What spending cuts we can make on the discretionary side have to be done, even if they are painful in some situations, and likewise taxes should be increased as well. We're going to have to get this money from somewhere to help stem the tide. Both sides of the aisle need to sacrifice things they otherwise would have wanted (for the left, expansion of social programs etc.) and for the right (tax cuts). The problem here is that there are no incentive mechanisms in politics to do this, it runs contrary to the interest of elected officials as there is no voting constituency out there for deficit reduction, by definition, people get out and vote because they affirmatively want something for themselves, or their group, you don't get any voting bloc by saying this money here isn't going to go to you, in fact its not going to go anywhere, we simply won't spend it. It will require a great deal of courage and willpower to do somethng about this.

Good take.

patteeu
12-27-2007, 12:32 PM
You sir, are correct.

Sometimes a simple statement is all that is necessary. This is one of those statements. :thumb: ;)

patteeu
12-27-2007, 12:48 PM
Regardless of what FDR and LBJ did, there's no doubt that the only fiscally responsible Presidents since 1980 were BushDaddy and, even more so, Clinton. I sometimes wonder if Republicans wouldn't surrender their first born for the holy tax cut, regardless of what spending obligations or desires were.

Republicans have simply decided that tax cuts are ALWAYS imperative, and that spending need not be limited in any significant way. Its absurd.

Finally, to the extent you want to blame Democrats for this -- you can only blame two Democratic Presidents -- FDR and LBJ, the last of whom went out of office over 35 years ago now... Since 1980, when Republicans had the White House, the defiict/debt has only gotten worse, and when Democrats had it it's gotten better. The Democrats were KILLED for their tax increases and other adjustments in 1993-94, when Clinton just came into office, which helped paved the way for fiscal responsibility and the budgetary surpluses of the late 90s (along iwth other factors, to be sure).

Then GWB sacrificed them all on the alter of stupid campaign promises that we could not longer afford soon after he took office due to obvious economic changes.

Nonsense. In addition to FDR and LBJ (who I agree deserve special notice), democrats consistently propose more costly versions of almost every non-defense spending program. The fact that Republicans have blocked many such efforts by passing trimmed down versions should not be a mark against Republicans without consideration of the democrat preference for even more bloat.

Should we conclude that Bill Clinton was fiscally responsible without recognizing that his wife's failed healthcare proposals would have represented monumental levels of new government spending? Not IMO. That program was stopped by Republicans, not Bill Clinton. In the recent SCHIP situation, George Bush was willing to fund an expansion of the program (which is probably a bad idea to begin with), but he ended up vetoing it because democrats, in typical fashion, wanted to spend even more. I'm no fan of President Bush's No Child Left Behind program, but Ted Kennedy, who helped get the program created, complains that it's underfunded. As you know, Ted's a democrat. And I can't speak to any specifics at the moment because I haven't studied it, but I'm extremely confident that if we went back and investigated the legislative history of GWBush's prescription drug entitlement, we'd find that democrats initially wanted a more expansive, higher cost program than what was eventually signed by the President.

Your inclination to focus only on Presidents without regard to who controlled Congress during any particular administration and without regard to the dominant role Congress plays in spending in the first place is nothing more than sleight of hand. Democrats have consistently favored bigger, more costly government programs from the days of FDR to present (outside of national security, of course).

patteeu
12-27-2007, 12:53 PM
I've no idea or memory what Clinton promised in 1992. What I do know is that it's the job of a good LEADER to lead in an effective way that is the best for the nation, and that campaign promises are nice, but not the holy grail. They shouldn't be worthless, but they must BEND to reality.

He promised a "middle class tax cut" and immediately reneged upon taking office. No one should have been surprised that the "pander bear" (a nickname given to Clinton by his primary opponent, Paul Tsongas) committed the common political crime of pandering during an election, but his reversal upon taking office shouldn't be confused with good leadership either, IMO.

patteeu
12-27-2007, 01:13 PM
This is a distortion, but a commonly echoed one on the right.

Clinton promised not to raise taxes on the middle class. He didn't. He cut their taxes. He raised taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of Americans (making >200$k).

50. "I will not raise taxes on the middle class to pay for these programs."
- East Lansing, MI, October 19, 1992

44. "Middle-class taxpayers will have a choice between a children's tax credit or a significant reduction in their income tax rate."
- "Putting People First"

The entire bill was very controversial. Many Republicans warned that many of the bills provisions would result in economic catastrophe and that deficit would actually increase. The recently elected President Bill Clinton was criticized by many for what was perceived as a reversal of his campaign pledge to cut middle class taxes although in actuality taxes increased on only the top 2% of taxpayers. Many Americans initially were supportive of changes in the tax code to help the economy and lower the deficit (according to public opinion polls taken at the time). Nonetheless, by the mid-term elections of 1994, many American voters were galvanized by the Republican charge that the Democratic Party had raised their taxes, though Republican warnings of a recession never materialized.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Budget_Reconciliation_Act_of_1993

I disagree with that. Clinton made clear campaign promises (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE4D9103CF93BA25751C0A965958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all) to reduce taxes on the middle class.

Mr. Clinton introduced the promise of a tax cut for the middle class in a speech in November 1991 at Georgetown University. "I will offer middle-income tax cuts," he said. "The average working family's tax bill will go down about 10 percent, a savings of about $300 a year, and I won't finance it with increasing the deficit."

banyon
12-27-2007, 02:22 PM
I disagree with that. Clinton made clear campaign promises (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE4D9103CF93BA25751C0A965958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all) to reduce taxes on the middle class.

You've moved the goalposts. ChiefaRoo's claim was that he raised taxes, not that he promised to lower them.

patteeu
12-27-2007, 02:36 PM
You've moved the goalposts. ChiefaRoo's claim was that he raised taxes, not that he promised to lower them.

Ooops. You're right. I didn't notice that. :redface:

Cochise
12-27-2007, 02:44 PM
Don't you guys remember, he went on TV blubbering about (clinton voice)I fought and fought as hard as I could but those mean ol' Republicans wouldn't let me do anything I wanted, now we've got to raise taxes(/clinton voice), as if raising taxes was somehow an odious proposition to liberals... But anyway, if I remember right (I wasn't very old then) he blamed it on the Republican Congress blockading his agenda or somesuch?