Bruce: While the public debt figure is close, 12 of the 12.8 trillion was racked up by Reagan/Bush 41 and Bush 43 administrations. Private debt is more. The language, as in “buzz words” used in your reference site indicates the “doublespeak” element.
With 30+ years of working on components of the federal budget, I’ve got as much experiences as any “radiohead” being interviewed. The real fact is that the public has no clue how the process REALLY works, and in fact I’ve heard few “media” folks who do, and darned few elected officials have a clue. The real trick is how the ones who DO know the system, are the ones who manipulate it to their gain.
Bruce stated “…you constantly fall back pointing the finger at reagan/bush… It’s a democratic group now that continues to pass legislation that spends money that we don’t have. Just as the republicans did the last eight years. ”
That is correct. Both the Bush and Obama administrations have massively spent more than the government received in revenue. The reason “the libs” keep pointing out the massive overspending of the Bush Administration is because “the right-wingers” act like said overspending was invented by Obama. During the Clinton presidency, Republican Congress raised such a fuss about deficit spending and eventually enacted a law limiting how much debt the government could have. When Bush took office, all that fuss ended. Bush spent so much money during his time in office, the Republican Congress had to change the law they enacted to raise very debt ceiling they put in place. Now that a Democrat is back in the White House, those same Republicans are once again all up in arms over deficit spending. Only this time their cohorts in the private sector has manufactured this whole “tea party” movement. If a Republican were to win the next election, s/he’ll be able to spend 2 to 3 times as much as Obama has/will and all the Republicans and tea party pretenders will happily keep their big traps shut.
The Tea Party: It’s not a tax movement, a freedom movement, or even political movement. It’s a BOWEL movement, ‘cause it’s completely full of….
@ Bruce: you are mostly correct; defense spending is not the biggest part of the Budget. It is, however, by far the biggest part of the discretionary spending (what the budget committee can decide how much to spend on).
Personally, I am not as surprised by the budget’s state. Running deficits in an economic downturn is nothing new - of course if people aren’t doing very well, they will pay less in taxes, especially under a progressive taxation scheme. Recessions and wars are, historically, the main reason ANY country runs deficits. Ideally, the country would have saved something for a rainy day when its economy was doing well…
Bruce, I think the problem is that there is a fundamental difference between what the people want and what they want to pay for it. Many of the biggest programs - Medicare, Social Security, Defense - are actually quite popular. The high taxes that would pay for them without deficits aren’t. Politically, deficits may simply be the easier solution.
Some realistic evaluations in the foregoing posts. However, Conservative talk-radio still takes the head-in–the-sand approach and pretends the debt problem started with Obama January 2009 - completely counter productive.
Some tough decisions required. How about starting with balanced budget legislation, stop the foreign wars, and bring home the military. Higher taxes, although unpopular, seem inevitable.
Bruce, a Fox radio station I occasionally listen to has Hennen, Limbaugh, Hannity, and Levin each 3 hours per day, 5 days per week almost non-stop bashing Obama and the current adminstration. Occasionally they take on other topics and occasionally they will criticize the former Republican administration for deficit spending. Reagan is always highly praised despite considerable deficit spending. But the average listener could easily draw the inaccurate conclusion from what they say that the debt and deficit problem is of Obama’s making.
Bruce, on spending, we’re more in agreement than you seem to think. I tried repeatedly to SAVE money when I contributed to those federal budgets. When Reagan came in, cost savings was deliberately thrown into the toilet, and “tax breaks” grew. Bush 43 failed where even his daddy had a brain, YOU CANNOT CUT TAXES AND INCREASE REVENUE, AND declare “undeclared” wars, with any hope of remotely balancing a budget.
I do not blame “Reaganomics” because of politics, but because it is STUPID! Look at your own checking and saving and see how much sense it makes to cut your income, increase the interest you pay on borrowed money, and spend MORE on “junk” you don’t need- with that borrowed money.
Health care, and the “stimulus” spending has been grossly misrepresented by the current “right”, even right-wing economists recognize the political distortion. The plans DO call for increased tax rates- DUH! You have to have some income to buy a store-front, or a lawn mower to go from being a market analyst to a “landscape analyst”.
BOTH parties DO send to much on junk, but health care, real defense(not toys for generals), road systems, rail systems, and basic infrastructure, are NOT “junk”.
Bruce stated “WE elected (yeah I’m included) Mr. Obama. He is not doing what I thought he promised (though he has kept a BUNCH of them) on ending the partizian politics, rooting out corruption etc.”
Can you really look at dynamics between Obama and the Republicans and say Obama isn’t trying to end partisan politics? How many proverbial olive branches can one man have thrown back in his face? I want to see the end of this nasty partisanship as much as anyone, but not everyone sees it that way. What I see nationally and locally is Republicans are “in it to win it” no matter what the cost.
donbeco about 14 years ago
Thousands dead, thousands injured, billions wasted.
NoFearPup about 14 years ago
O’Don prefers Chaos orchestrated by the most irrational among the Family of Man.
ronebofh about 14 years ago
ANandy: yeah, believe the radio. Or look at the budget numbers over the last year. Defense has dwarfed anything else since at least the Reagan years.
zekedog55 about 14 years ago
^ Oh Dear God! Not the FINAL nail! We’re finished!!
And to think it is Osama and his crooks driving that final nail!
Oh, wait a second, changehas—you must mean that Osama fellow your big-shot “W’ promised to get “dead or alive”.
And the crooks must be HW’s Bin Laden business partners in Saudi Arabia.
Maybe you are beginning to see the light!
Dtroutma about 14 years ago
Bruce: While the public debt figure is close, 12 of the 12.8 trillion was racked up by Reagan/Bush 41 and Bush 43 administrations. Private debt is more. The language, as in “buzz words” used in your reference site indicates the “doublespeak” element.
With 30+ years of working on components of the federal budget, I’ve got as much experiences as any “radiohead” being interviewed. The real fact is that the public has no clue how the process REALLY works, and in fact I’ve heard few “media” folks who do, and darned few elected officials have a clue. The real trick is how the ones who DO know the system, are the ones who manipulate it to their gain.
Jason Allen about 14 years ago
Bruce stated “…you constantly fall back pointing the finger at reagan/bush… It’s a democratic group now that continues to pass legislation that spends money that we don’t have. Just as the republicans did the last eight years. ”
That is correct. Both the Bush and Obama administrations have massively spent more than the government received in revenue. The reason “the libs” keep pointing out the massive overspending of the Bush Administration is because “the right-wingers” act like said overspending was invented by Obama. During the Clinton presidency, Republican Congress raised such a fuss about deficit spending and eventually enacted a law limiting how much debt the government could have. When Bush took office, all that fuss ended. Bush spent so much money during his time in office, the Republican Congress had to change the law they enacted to raise very debt ceiling they put in place. Now that a Democrat is back in the White House, those same Republicans are once again all up in arms over deficit spending. Only this time their cohorts in the private sector has manufactured this whole “tea party” movement. If a Republican were to win the next election, s/he’ll be able to spend 2 to 3 times as much as Obama has/will and all the Republicans and tea party pretenders will happily keep their big traps shut.
The Tea Party: It’s not a tax movement, a freedom movement, or even political movement. It’s a BOWEL movement, ‘cause it’s completely full of….
4uk4ata about 14 years ago
@ Bruce: you are mostly correct; defense spending is not the biggest part of the Budget. It is, however, by far the biggest part of the discretionary spending (what the budget committee can decide how much to spend on).
Personally, I am not as surprised by the budget’s state. Running deficits in an economic downturn is nothing new - of course if people aren’t doing very well, they will pay less in taxes, especially under a progressive taxation scheme. Recessions and wars are, historically, the main reason ANY country runs deficits. Ideally, the country would have saved something for a rainy day when its economy was doing well…
Bruce, I think the problem is that there is a fundamental difference between what the people want and what they want to pay for it. Many of the biggest programs - Medicare, Social Security, Defense - are actually quite popular. The high taxes that would pay for them without deficits aren’t. Politically, deficits may simply be the easier solution.
Gypsy8 about 14 years ago
Some realistic evaluations in the foregoing posts. However, Conservative talk-radio still takes the head-in–the-sand approach and pretends the debt problem started with Obama January 2009 - completely counter productive.
Some tough decisions required. How about starting with balanced budget legislation, stop the foreign wars, and bring home the military. Higher taxes, although unpopular, seem inevitable.
Gypsy8 about 14 years ago
Bruce, a Fox radio station I occasionally listen to has Hennen, Limbaugh, Hannity, and Levin each 3 hours per day, 5 days per week almost non-stop bashing Obama and the current adminstration. Occasionally they take on other topics and occasionally they will criticize the former Republican administration for deficit spending. Reagan is always highly praised despite considerable deficit spending. But the average listener could easily draw the inaccurate conclusion from what they say that the debt and deficit problem is of Obama’s making.
Dtroutma about 14 years ago
Bruce, on spending, we’re more in agreement than you seem to think. I tried repeatedly to SAVE money when I contributed to those federal budgets. When Reagan came in, cost savings was deliberately thrown into the toilet, and “tax breaks” grew. Bush 43 failed where even his daddy had a brain, YOU CANNOT CUT TAXES AND INCREASE REVENUE, AND declare “undeclared” wars, with any hope of remotely balancing a budget.
I do not blame “Reaganomics” because of politics, but because it is STUPID! Look at your own checking and saving and see how much sense it makes to cut your income, increase the interest you pay on borrowed money, and spend MORE on “junk” you don’t need- with that borrowed money.
Health care, and the “stimulus” spending has been grossly misrepresented by the current “right”, even right-wing economists recognize the political distortion. The plans DO call for increased tax rates- DUH! You have to have some income to buy a store-front, or a lawn mower to go from being a market analyst to a “landscape analyst”.
BOTH parties DO send to much on junk, but health care, real defense(not toys for generals), road systems, rail systems, and basic infrastructure, are NOT “junk”.
Jason Allen about 14 years ago
Bruce stated “WE elected (yeah I’m included) Mr. Obama. He is not doing what I thought he promised (though he has kept a BUNCH of them) on ending the partizian politics, rooting out corruption etc.”
Can you really look at dynamics between Obama and the Republicans and say Obama isn’t trying to end partisan politics? How many proverbial olive branches can one man have thrown back in his face? I want to see the end of this nasty partisanship as much as anyone, but not everyone sees it that way. What I see nationally and locally is Republicans are “in it to win it” no matter what the cost.
fallacyside about 14 years ago
Boo!!! Go back to the Bench, Dr.Cukey!
CorosiveFrog Premium Member about 14 years ago
Sooky Rottweiler says; Be nice, puppy! Or no desert after your puppyberries!
CorosiveFrog Premium Member about 14 years ago
penalty, my fellow canuck?
WarBush about 14 years ago
Happy Anny Dr.Canuck!
Jason Allen about 14 years ago
Pup’s avatar looks like Palin’s wearing pasties.