Page 7 of 15 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 149
Thanks Tree90Thanks

Thread: U.S. Borrowing Needs Are EXPLODING

  1. #61
    Southern Strategy Liberal OldGaffer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    40,259
    Thanks
    42200

    From
    Nashville, TN
    Quote Originally Posted by Libertine View Post
    Will they cut spending and start working on this debt problem when they do? What do you predict on spending?
    The last time Democrats held congress they passed "pay-go". the Republicans threw the entire concept of pay-go in the shitter....

    Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010

    Colloquial name(s)
    PAYGO
    Legislative history
    Signed into law by President Barack Obama on
    The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, Title I of Pub.L. 111–139, H.J.Res. 45, enacted on February 12, 2010, is a public law passed during the 111th United States Congress and signed by President Barack Obama. The act reinstated pay-as-you-go budgeting rules used in Congress from 1990 until 2002, ensuring that most new spending is offset by spending cuts or added revenue elsewhere (with several major policy exemptions).
    A majority of 241 Democrats supported the bill while a majority of 153 Republicans opposed it.
    In the Senate, the amendment attaching pay-as-you-go language to the debt limit increase passed on a party-line vote of 60-40, and the debt limit bill subsequently passed 60-39.
    Are you still going to make the ridiculous claim that the GOP is the party of "fiscal conservatism"?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statut...Go_Act_of_2010

  2. #62
    Member Claudius the God's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    2,356
    Thanks
    1708

    From
    California
    Quote Originally Posted by BigLeRoy View Post
    I am not a 'Gold Bug'. Hardly. I laugh and scoff at those people. But the FACT is that America has a SERIOUS debt problem. Our TOTAL debt, both private and public, is now at about 360% of GDP.

    Stein's Law: If something cannot continue forever, it will stop.
    I agree with you on personal debt but that is not what people think of when one says "fiscal conservative". In regards to the federal government, it is meaningless. A better title for what ends up being fiscally conservative is "give the money to me not him".

  3. #63
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    9,396
    Thanks
    1569

    From
    Banned
    Quote Originally Posted by OldGaffer View Post
    The last time Democrats held congress they passed "pay-go". the Republicans threw the entire concept of pay-go in the shitter....







    Are you still going to make the ridiculous claim that the GOP is the party of "fiscal conservatism"?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statut...Go_Act_of_2010
    Really? The Dems were fiscally conservative? That Dem controlled congress went on to add $1.2 trillion to the national debt later that year in FY 2011 which started October 1, 2010. You hold Dem actions in 2010 as responsible and are screaming that Trump will add $1 trillion to the debt this year? In Obama's last year $1.4 trillion was added to the debt. In Trump's first year that dropped to $0.666 Trillion, more than a 50% reduction.

    I never claimed the the GOP was fiscally conservative.

    https://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/de...0&endYear=2011

  4. #64
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    28,786
    Thanks
    23931

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by Libertine View Post
    The top 1% weren't affected that much by this tax reform package.
    WHAT?!??

    I am giggling. At the moment, I don't know when I will be able to stop.

  5. #65
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    28,786
    Thanks
    23931

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by Claudius the God View Post
    I agree with you on personal debt but that is not what people think of when one says "fiscal conservative". In regards to the federal government, it is meaningless. A better title for what ends up being fiscally conservative is "give the money to me not him".
    In my experience, people who are fiscally conservative ALSO tend to practice frugality as a personal virtue.

    Indeed, that's the problem: Overwhelmingly, since the passing of the Greatest Generation, Americans have forgotten that frugality IS a 'virtue'.

  6. #66
    Veteran Member bonehead's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    14,901
    Thanks
    5480

    From
    south
    Quote Originally Posted by BigLeRoy View Post
    Bill Clinton, moral reprobate that he was, was a genuine fiscal conservative. When he left office at the beginning of 2001, America was in RUDE fiscal health, to an extent that shocked the world.

    And then this fellow named George came along.......

    He kind of 'screwed the pooch'. That he did.
    I presume you are not talking George Washington. yes, that's kinda sarcastic. not being an economist, I must resort to the practical position. the major source of revenue for the feds is income taxes - followed closely by dedicated social taxes. business/corporate taxes are a minor concern, as they contribute a far smaller portion. revenues are used to fund programs for the citizens and pay the interest on the national debt. if you cut income taxes, the citizens are happy. but, when it's time to "pay the piper" for the programs you must fund, the citizens will be less happy, as the funding you are used to will not be there. now, the government must make a choice - borrow the money to fund the dedicated programs or cut the programs. this is where we are now - we just haven't noticed it yet. but, we will.
    Thanks from BigLeRoy

  7. #67
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    28,786
    Thanks
    23931

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by bonehead View Post
    I presume you are not talking George Washington. yes, that's kinda sarcastic. not being an economist, I must resort to the practical position. the major source of revenue for the feds is income taxes - followed closely by dedicated social taxes. business/corporate taxes are a minor concern, as they contribute a far smaller portion. revenues are used to fund programs for the citizens and pay the interest on the national debt. if you cut income taxes, the citizens are happy. but, when it's time to "pay the piper" for the programs you must fund, the citizens will be less happy, as the funding you are used to will not be there. now, the government must make a choice - borrow the money to fund the dedicated programs or cut the programs. this is where we are now - we just haven't noticed it yet. but, we will.
    Here's what's 'funny': We're borrowing large amounts of money from China, so that we can build missiles with nukes on them, that we plan on pointing at China......

    At least, I find that kind of 'funny'.
    Thanks from bonehead

  8. #68
    Veteran Member bonehead's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    14,901
    Thanks
    5480

    From
    south
    Quote Originally Posted by BigLeRoy View Post
    Here's what's 'funny': We're borrowing large amounts of money from China, so that we can build missiles with nukes on them, that we plan on pointing at China......

    At least, I find that kind of 'funny'.
    yes, that actually is funny. we need to cut unnecessary spending - starting with defense. last time we suffered an invasion from outside the country was, as I recall, 1814 - if you exclude the invasion of the Aleutian Islands during WWII (Alaska was not a state). I'd say, 300 billion should cover it at the current state of affairs. an increase in income tax may also be needed - especially and increase in corporate taxes. the citizens need benefits and they cost money.
    Thanks from BigLeRoy and OldGaffer

  9. #69
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    28,786
    Thanks
    23931

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by bonehead View Post
    yes, that actually is funny. we need to cut unnecessary spending - starting with defense. last time we suffered an invasion from outside the country was, as I recall, 1814 - if you exclude the invasion of the Aleutian Islands during WWII (Alaska was not a state). I'd say, 300 billion should cover it at the current state of affairs. an increase in income tax may also be needed - especially and increase in corporate taxes. the citizens need benefits and they cost money.
    A refreshingly sensible post. I salute you!
    Thanks from bonehead

  10. #70
    Veteran Member bonehead's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    14,901
    Thanks
    5480

    From
    south
    Quote Originally Posted by BigLeRoy View Post
    A refreshingly sensible post. I salute you!
    thanks. like I said, I'm no economist. just a retired engineer. I live on a fixed income and need to be thrifty (or frugal, as the case may be). even I understand what it takes to operate a government and what the function of such should be. "provide for the public defense" does not mean starting wars all over the in the name of defense. but, as a political radical, I will not be taken very seriously.
    Thanks from BigLeRoy

Page 7 of 15 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Return of the exploding oil trains
    By Miller47 in forum Current Events
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 8th March 2015, 03:01 PM
  2. US borrowing tops 100% of GDP: Treasury
    By michaelr in forum Economics
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 7th August 2011, 07:58 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed