Post by: Paddy on September 27, 2007, 05:58:58 PM
http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type=bondsNews&storyID=2007-09-28T003622Z_01_N27415556_RTRIDST_0_USA-CONGRESS-DEBT-UPDATE-1.XML
Post by: Fly320s on September 27, 2007, 07:57:14 PM
Post by: wooderson on September 27, 2007, 08:09:20 PM
Quote
U.S. debt stood at about $5.6 trillion at the start of Bush's presidency.
DAMN TAX-N-SPEND LIBERALS.
Post by: Paddy on September 27, 2007, 08:12:21 PM
Quote
U.S. debt stood at about $5.6 trillion at the start of Bush's presidency.
DAMN TAX-N-SPEND LIBERALS.
A Democrat majority Congress passed this. You Democrat eunuchs are in charge. Act like it or shut up.
Post by: wooderson on September 27, 2007, 08:24:00 PM
ps who was 'in charge' for the other four ceiling hikes?
Post by: Paddy on September 27, 2007, 08:26:09 PM
I don't vote for or support any Democrats.
ps who was 'in charge' for the other four ceiling hikes?
ps who was 'in charge' for the other four ceiling hikes?
Phony RINOs. A pox on both their houses.
Post by: wooderson on September 27, 2007, 08:41:47 PM
Post by: Phyphor on September 27, 2007, 08:48:15 PM
Because they don't actually follow along strictly with the republican ideals?
In any case, it ain't just the liberals spending gobs of money like it was worthless... I seem to remember a certain war in Iraq.....
Anyhoo, we're screwed either way. Either raise taxes and pay out the ass to get the debt paid, or just do like we've been doing: run up the bill some more and let future generations cope.
Post by: wooderson on September 27, 2007, 08:53:44 PM
Post by: Paddy on September 27, 2007, 09:09:55 PM
Post by: HankB on September 28, 2007, 06:14:48 AM
When OPEC's oil runs out, nationalize or repudiate the bonds. Seize all properties owned by foreign nationals from OPEC countries.
Post by: wooderson on September 28, 2007, 07:23:05 AM
It would seem to me that people out of step with the party would be the RINOs.
Post by: Phyphor on September 28, 2007, 08:00:58 AM
So the Republican ideals aren't those held by a (super-)majority of the party leadership and Congressional delegation
Isn't that obvious? We've had over 10 years of a republican run congress. Where's the smaller government? Spending cuts?
Instead, we get a feel-good tax cut and spending hikes out the ass.
Quote
- and by proxy, those who've chosen to elect them?
No. Those who chose to elect them did so only because they were 'the lesser of two evils.'
Post by: Phyphor on September 28, 2007, 08:10:45 AM
My point is that I'm amused by the notion that (in essence), the entirety of the meaningful Republican Party
Therein lies the problem. Once the votes are cast the people aren't meaningful to the politicians until next election year.
Quote
- the people who (attempt) to make the laws, the people who hold power - are 'RINOs' because you don't happen to like their stance.
They're RINOs because they preach one thing and do another, usually something that is in contravention of normal republican party line.
Say, spending like crazy while at the same time condemning democrats for doing the same.
Quote
It would seem to me that people out of step with the party would be the RINOs.
So basically, we should all vote republican and shut up whenever they do things that we don't like? After all, can't go against the party line, tovarisch?
Post by: wooderson on September 28, 2007, 08:26:54 AM
Quote
Isn't that obvious? We've had over 10 years of a republican run congress. Where's the smaller government? Spending cuts?
But see, that doesn't tell me they're RINOs - that tells me that the actual Republican position has nothing to do with 'smaller government' and 'spending cuts.'
Post by: Phyphor on September 28, 2007, 10:44:11 AM
Post by: Werewolf on September 28, 2007, 12:35:24 PM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on September 28, 2007, 02:19:45 PM
Because republicans elected them?
Because they don't actually follow along strictly with the republican ideals?
In any case, it ain't just the liberals spending gobs of money like it was worthless... I seem to remember a certain war in Iraq.....
Anyhoo, we're screwed either way. Either raise taxes and pay out the ass to get the debt paid, or just do like we've been doing: run up the bill some more and let future generations cope.
Couple of things need to be pointed out here. Because they don't actually follow along strictly with the republican ideals?
In any case, it ain't just the liberals spending gobs of money like it was worthless... I seem to remember a certain war in Iraq.....
Anyhoo, we're screwed either way. Either raise taxes and pay out the ass to get the debt paid, or just do like we've been doing: run up the bill some more and let future generations cope.
First, the cost of the war in Iraq is peanuts compared to the expense of the various welfare programs. The war in Iraq is running about $100 billion a year, whereas welfare is running about $1.5 trillion a year. Defense spending (relative to GDP) is actually below average these days, despite the WOT.
Second, the best way to increase revenues to the FedGov is to decrease tax rates, not raise them. The reduction in tax rates provides incentives to the variuous participants in the economy to invest more, produce more, earn more, and spend more. Given that investment, production, earnings, and purchases are all taxed, the reduction of tax rates causes a very significant increase in revenues.
Post by: wooderson on September 28, 2007, 04:24:31 PM
Quote
So, in other words, you're asserting that "Real republicans are whatever the politicians say they are. "
If they didn't speak for "Republicans" and "Republican ideals" - then they wouldn't run the party and be elected by Republican voters.
Post by: wooderson on September 28, 2007, 04:37:44 PM
Quote
whereas welfare is running about $1.5 trillion a year.
Um... no. The entirety of the federal budget is under $3 trillion - there's simply no way you can argue reasonably that better than 50% of the entire budget is spent on 'welfare.'FY2007, you have about $650bn (high-balling slightly) dedicated to unemployment, 'welfare' and Medicaid. Another $25bn or so in local economic development aid that you can maybe, kinda sorta, call 'welfare.'
The defense budget is a tick under $700bn - which doesn't include supplemental appropriations, which are over $100bn at this point I believe. Your '$100bn'/year leaves out numerous costs incurred in the defense budget that aren't written up directly to Iraq - the final defense budget of Clinton's term was $300bn. The vast majority of the debt incurred under Dubya can be traced directly to out of control defense spending.
Post by: Werewolf on September 28, 2007, 05:09:28 PM
Quote
there's simply no way you can argue reasonably that better than 50% of the entire budget is spent on 'welfare.'
If one considers entitlements welfare - and that's not much of a stretch - then - yes - better than 50% of the budget is welfare.
Post by: Phyphor on September 28, 2007, 05:23:39 PM
Quote
So, in other words, you're asserting that "Real republicans are whatever the politicians say they are. "
If they didn't speak for "Republicans" and "Republican ideals" - then they wouldn't run the party and be elected by Republican voters.Sure they would. All they have to do is do the typical politician thing of "Gee, things are bad now. I'm gonna change them by sticking to conservative values. Elect me and you'll see!" bit.
Once they get elected, to hell with the voters. Politicians (of any stripe) tend to do whatever the hell they please.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 28, 2007, 06:13:58 PM
Quote
The vast majority of the debt incurred under Dubya can be traced directly to out of control defense spending.
Out of control? 
Quote
So, in other words, you're asserting that "Real republicans are whatever the politicians say they are. "
If they didn't speak for "Republicans" and "Republican ideals" - then they wouldn't run the party and be elected by Republican voters.Sure they would. All they have to do is do the typical politician thing of "Gee, things are bad now. I'm gonna change them by sticking to conservative values. Elect me and you'll see!" bit. Once they get elected, to hell with the voters.
Exactly. Like all politicians, they make promises they don't intend to keep. That, and we elect lukewarm Republicans to shut out the other party, which is worse. Aren't these things obvious?
Post by: wooderson on September 28, 2007, 06:28:01 PM
Look, I understand the RINO argument for the oddball here and there who's pro-gay rights or anti-guns or something. But in this case, it's not an oddball, it's the entire party apparatus - in no way can the entire party be "in name only."
Quote
Out of control?
Yes.Quote
If one considers entitlements welfare
Medicare and Social Security are not 'welfare' - they are, theoretically, forms of insurance/pension that we all pay into and withdraw from at some point. They are not sourced from the same revenue sources as traditional welfare or defense or other budget items.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on September 28, 2007, 06:36:30 PM
Quote
whereas welfare is running about $1.5 trillion a year.
Um... no. The entirety of the federal budget is under $3 trillion - there's simply no way you can argue reasonably that better than 50% of the entire budget is spent on 'welfare.'FY2007, you have about $650bn (high-balling slightly) dedicated to unemployment, 'welfare' and Medicaid. Another $25bn or so in local economic development aid that you can maybe, kinda sorta, call 'welfare.'
The defense budget is a tick under $700bn - which doesn't include supplemental appropriations, which are over $100bn at this point I believe. Your '$100bn'/year leaves out numerous costs incurred in the defense budget that aren't written up directly to Iraq - the final defense budget of Clinton's term was $300bn. The vast majority of the debt incurred under Dubya can be traced directly to out of control defense spending.
"Welfare" consumes the following:
Social Security - $620B
The bulk of the Health and Human Services Department budget (Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, and administration thereof) - $700B.
All of the Housing and Urban Development Department's budget (housing aid) - $50B.
The bulk of the Agriculture Department budget (foodstamps, school lunch programs, etc) - $80B
Total it up. It comes to about $1.5 trillion.
The Defense Department eats up about $700B. However, we'd be spending that same $700B regardless of whether we were fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. So if we're being honest, the only costs we can chalk up to the WoT are the occasional "Supplemental Appropriations Bills", which are averaging out to $75B or $100B a year. Also bear in mind that national defense is a legitimate use of the Fedgov, whereas wealth redistribution programs are a blatant unconstitutional abuse of power.
Next time you hear some ninny Liberal blathering on about how George W Bush is wasting the nations treasure on the War in Iraq, quietly remind him that Liberals waste fifteen or twenty times more more on the War on Poverty. And unlike GWB, the Libs have been at it for 40 (and in some cases 80) years.
When are the Libs going to demand we accept defeat and withdraw from that hopelessly lost quagmire?
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on September 28, 2007, 06:40:27 PM
And that ignores what the Fed spends on S/S, include it and the non-defense spending would be nearly doubled...
$9.8 Trillion in national debt? "Thank a Liberal"
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 28, 2007, 07:06:26 PM
Quote
Out of control?
Yes. Laughable.
Post by: wooderson on September 28, 2007, 07:40:05 PM
Quote
Social Security - $620B
The bulk of the Health and Human Services Department budget (Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, and administration thereof) - $700B.
Well there's your problem - you're including Medicare and Social Security, which are no more "welfare" spending than sending ammunition to bases in Germany is "Iraq spending." You might have noticed where I referred to and dealt with them earlier.The bulk of the Health and Human Services Department budget (Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, and administration thereof) - $700B.
Post by: brimic on September 29, 2007, 04:19:47 AM
Quote
Well there's your problem - you're including Medicare and Social Security
Entitlement programs are welfare regardless of their name. Anytime .gov picks a persons pocket and gives it to another person, its welfare.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on September 29, 2007, 05:30:52 AM
Quote
Social Security - $620B
The bulk of the Health and Human Services Department budget (Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, and administration thereof) - $700B.
Well there's your problem - you're including Medicare and Social Security, which are no more "welfare" spending than sending ammunition to bases in Germany is "Iraq spending." You might have noticed where I referred to and dealt with them earlier.The bulk of the Health and Human Services Department budget (Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, and administration thereof) - $700B.
Post by: griz on September 29, 2007, 05:42:30 AM
but you are missing his point. Note on the chart that even non defence spending has risen at an above average rate since the Republicans controled both houses and the Preidency. In that time the majority of those Republicans have been re-elected. Now unless there is a vast left wing conspiricy to increase speding by getting Republicans elected, it isn't the fault of the liberals.
Post by: brimic on September 29, 2007, 05:52:47 AM
Quote
Now unless there is a vast left wing conspiricy to increase speding by getting Republicans elected, it isn't the fault of the liberals.
Liberal 'Republicans.' The spending on welfare remained flat while Gingrich was in charge of spending. Out with Gingrich, out with balanced spending.
Post by: wooderson on September 29, 2007, 06:44:09 AM
Liberals like George Bush!
And Dennis Hastert!
And Tom Delay!
And Dick Armey!
And Roy Blunt!
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on September 29, 2007, 07:32:36 AM
First thing:
Growth (any kind of growth, be it government spending or anything else) is an exponential function. Any chart showing growth over time should be an upward curve and not a straight line. The reason is that as the measured quantity gets bigger, so do it's marginal increases every period.
Take a look at this particular chart, note the growth periods in the late 1970's and the the early 2000's. Both periods increased by about $150B*. That does not mean the growth was the same during each period. In the 1970's, the initial size was about $200B, so the increase to $350B represents an actual growth of 75% (1-350B/200B). But during the 2000's, the initial size was about $400B, and an increase to of $150B represents only 37% of real growth.
The same thing happens in all sorts of places. The stock market is a prime example. 20 years ago, back when the Dow was at 1, a shift of 100 was a really big deal. Today, with the Dow at 14,, a change of 100 points is nothing, just random noise in the system.
The point is that as time increases, the slope of the line should increase even if growth remains even. So don't be alarmed that the line climbs faster and faster as time passes.
Second thing:
"Liberalism" has little to do with party lines these days. Many Republicans are too liberal. Blaming liberals and liberal-type policies for the increase in spending, even though congress was Republican, is no contradiction. It is the truth. The reason the Republicans lost in '06 is because they were too liberal, and the people were fed up with them.
* Actually, according to this chart non-defense spending only grew about $100B during Bush's tenure, not the $150B I said. I used the $150B value to help illustrate my point. Actual growth during Bush's period is only about 25%. 25% is still too much growth, but really isn't all that much, relatively speaking. Also note that a lot of the increase is one-time spending in response to the Sept 11 attacks and the Katrina disaster. Note that by '04 or '05 the increase tapers off significantly.
Post by: griz on September 29, 2007, 05:07:23 PM
Post by: tyme on September 29, 2007, 05:47:28 PM
Quote from: Headless Gunner Thompson
$9.8 Trillion in national debt? "Thank a Liberal"
The debt depends on the annual budget deficits. It's that simple.A Democrat president and a somewhat Republican-dominated congress managed to cut the deficits to below 0 for a few years in the 90's.
Since Bush has gotten into office, both parties have been too worried about getting their pound of fat from the annual budgets to bother to cooperate enough to achieve near-zero or negative deficits. Including when Republicans controlled both houses.
It's not a party thing. It's a politics thing. BOTH parties are responsible.
Post by: HankB on October 01, 2007, 03:57:15 AM
Quote
Social Security - $620B
The bulk of the Health and Human Services Department budget (Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, and administration thereof) - $700B.
Well there's your problem - you're including Medicare and Social Security, which are no more "welfare" spending than sending ammunition to bases in Germany is "Iraq spending." You might have noticed where I referred to and dealt with them earlier. The bulk of the Health and Human Services Department budget (Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, and administration thereof) - $700B.
As just one example, which may get some interest from people in this forum . . . Patrick Purdy, the lunatic who shot a bunch of kids at a Stockton, CA schoolyard, touching off a firestorm of gun control laws, was receiving around $700 a month in mental disability payments from Social Security. IMHO, being an unearned benefit, this most certainly DOES qualify as "welfare."
Post by: MechAg94 on October 01, 2007, 08:52:09 AM
Post by: MechAg94 on October 01, 2007, 08:59:04 AM
God forgive me for agreeing with Woodperson but you are missing his point. Note on the chart that even non defence spending has risen at an above average rate since the Republicans controled both houses and the Preidency. In that time the majority of those Republicans have been re-elected. Now unless there is a vast left wing conspiricy to increase speding by getting Republicans elected, it isn't the fault of the liberals.
That is exactly why a lot of the people who normally vote Republican are upset and why Republicans lost in the last election cycle. It wasn't the War in Iraq as a lot of media will say. It is the fact that the Republicans have pretty much wasted a majority in Congress. Out of control domestic spending has been getting under the skin of a lot of people. The numerous scandals don't help either. I think the only reason they didn't lose sooner was Bush's tax cut. but you are missing his point. Note on the chart that even non defence spending has risen at an above average rate since the Republicans controled both houses and the Preidency. In that time the majority of those Republicans have been re-elected. Now unless there is a vast left wing conspiricy to increase speding by getting Republicans elected, it isn't the fault of the liberals.I don't like calling them RINO's much either. It is a silly label. Republicans were voted in during the 90's with the expectation that they would be the type to lower taxes and control spending and not over-regulate the country. They started out with a few positives, but they have gone downhill since. They started looking just like the Democrats did before they were kicked out before. Unfortunately, the Democrats up there are pretty much the same guys as before.
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on October 01, 2007, 10:03:58 AM
Post by: Phyphor on October 01, 2007, 03:53:06 PM
Republicans, listen up. I used to be one of you. It's time Republicans realized that you aren't Republicans anymore. The party is, rightly or wrongly, defined by what the Republicans who are elected do and say. It's time to start voting for people who really believe what you believe, not "Real Republicans." The Republican party is no longer the party of small government and low taxes. It needs to be scrapped, melted down, and rebuilt, and with a new name.
While we're at it, can we please do the same with the democrats? Maybe put in some folks who are dems, but aren't so obsessed with getting elected that they'll do or say anything to keep the power?
(Yes, I *AM* a dreamer, how could you guess? ;-P )
Post by: Paddy on October 02, 2007, 05:07:31 AM
http://www.lafn.org/politics/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html
The growth in national debt stopped under Clinton.
http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm
And, as a percentage of GDP, the debt under George II and a Republican congress is exceeded only by that under Truman (who happened to be fighting a World War on two fronts at the time):
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
Post by: HankB on October 02, 2007, 08:16:27 AM
The growth in national debt stopped under Clinton.
That's because with people like Gingrich and Kasich in the Congress, we had a Republican party that actually tried to act according to Republican principles. (Though they BUNGLED the budget standoff and let Clinton get away with blaming THEM for "shutting down" government, when it was Clinton himself who actually did so . . . he wasn't called "Slick Willie" for nothing!)As for your next point - debt under the GOP congress and Bush 43 growing rapidly - there's no excuse for that, and, IMHO, excessive non-military spending growth was as much a factor as the Iraq war in the GOP's loss of both houses of Congress. As Greenspan even said, they deserved to lose.
Post by: Matt King on October 02, 2007, 01:17:10 PM
But... but... he's a Republican!~
Post by: thebaldguy on October 02, 2007, 05:35:59 PM
Post by: Balog on October 02, 2007, 09:56:19 PM
Pubbies are all "Lower taxes, smaller .gov!" and we all nod and smile. Then they *expletive deleted*ck us, either deliberately or through sheer stupidity. I'm so tired of the whole thing. Obviously evil 'crats, trying to hide their evil pubbies, and nowhere else to go. [/sigh]
Where's a viable third party not largely stocked with weirdo's?
Post by: HankB on October 03, 2007, 04:05:15 AM
Where's a viable third party . . . ?
I understand Larry Craig and Barney Frank are thinking of organizing something . . . with Mark Foley as chairman, and William Jefferson as treasurer . . . . . . not largely stocked with weirdo's?
Oops, missed that condition. Never mind - we're stuck with The Stupid Party and The Evil Party . . . but they're looking more and more alike every day . . . BOHICA . . .
