United States Debt: Now with 50% More Debt

Avatar image for batwatch
BatWatch

5487

Forum Posts

274

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 238

User Lists: 1

#1  Edited By BatWatch

I am typing from an IPad, so I will be brief. The U.S. is 16 trillion dollars in debt, and that debt will soon grow by leaps and bounds with the Baby Boomer generation retiring and collecting Social Security. With that in mind, can we vote out the guy who just spent the nation six trillion dollars into debt?

Note: Below are my responses to people's comments on this thread thus far done in a question and response style.

1. How fast has the debt grown?

The national debt was ten trillion when President Obama took office. It is over sixteen trillion now.

2. Didn't President Obama have to spend six trillion dollars to save the economy?

The Obama administration predicted that if his stimulus package was not passed, the unemployment rate would max out at the ridiculously high percentage of 8.5%. With the stimulus package, the unemployment rate was supposed to stay underneath 7%.

Despite trillions being spent to fix the economy, unemployment exceeded 10%. If anything, the President's spending programs hurt the economy.

3. Wasn't President Bush the one who racked up debt?

Partially. President Bush added five trillion dollars of debt in eight years, and Democrats screamed that his spending was out of control. They were right.

President Obama created six trillion dollars of debt in three and a half years, yet Democrats say nothing. Let's be consistent. It is bad to bankrupt the country regardless of which side of the aisle you prefer.

4. Don't we actually owe more than sixteen trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities?

Yes, in a manner of speaking. If you add unfunded liabilities (the money the U.S. must soon pay for social security beneifts, military pensions, and medicare costs) to the equation, then we actually owe sixty-nine trillion dollars. Theoretically, those programs could be changed to pay less out in benefits which would decrease our debt, but President Obama has made no efforts to decrease benefits.

5. Since President Bush did not include the cost of the wars in his budget, isn't the increase in President Obama's spending just due to the true cost of Bush's War on Terror?

No. The funding for the War on Terror went through congress and was on the books. You have been misinformed.

Also, the total cost of the war throughout President Bush's term was 850 billion, less than one trillion dollars. Even if the books were cooked and President Obama's numbers only reflect the true cost of the war, that still does not justify one-sixth of his addition to the debt.

Finally, President Obama would still be and is responsible for continuing to wage a war we cannot afford.

6. Shouldn't President Obama be excused for his debt spending because he wants to increase taxes to cover the cost?

No. President might have a plan in mind for raising money in the future, but that does not excuse him overspending in the present.

Let's say a couple wanted a lot of nice things, and over the process of eight years, they ended up collecting fifty thousand dollars worth of debt. They realize they need to fix things, but they are having a really hard time. In order to overcome their financial difficulties, they spend even more money. Within the next four years, they spend themselves sixty thousand more dollars into the hole. It appears that their financial program is not working, but they insist that they will be applying for better jobs which will pay more money, so for this reason, they have not been irresponsible for the past four years.

This is exactly what President Obama has done. His possible increase in future income does not make up for the unnecessary debt he has created today. If you do not already have a plan in place to pay for something, then do not buy it.

Furthermore, the Democrats had control over the U.S. Congress for the first two years of President Obama's term. President Obama could have raised taxes, but he continued to spend money the nation did not have to fund a failed program.

7. Doesn't a study by Brown University prove that President Bush kept two sets of books on the war and that the debt incurred by the war greatly exceeds the 850 billion mentioned earlier?

No. The Brown study does show that the long term cost of the war will be more like four trillion dollars by the time all the lifetime benefits are paid out to soldiers who fought in the war, but no federal debt, neither Bush nor Obama's, reflects the money that will be spent in future years. It only accounts for the money that has been spent thus far.

This study also assumes that the United States will indefinitely prop up Iraq's infrastructure.

8. Part of that debt was due to Bush's War on Terror. Isn't continuing the war the only moral thing to do?

I suppose that is up for debate. Personally, I think if the war was intrusive, immoral, and stupid in the first place, it is intrusive, immoral, and stupid to continue it, but there is a case to be made using the, "You break it. You bought it," line of reasoning. In response to that, I would say that nation building has rarely worked and assumes that other nations cannot succeed without the United States oversight which flirts with imperialism as far as I am concerned.

9. Isn't the overspending just due to the economy being worse than anybody imagined?

If we are going to be completely honest, there is no way of knowing how much better or worse things would be if President Obama's policies had not been enacted. What we do know that the same financial team that said the stimulus package would work said that the economy would naturally only have a peak unemployment of 8.5 percent. Either the President's stimulus hurt the job market, or the President's financial staff has no idea what they are doing. Neither of those options justify spending six trillion dollars in debt. In fact, that whole question is based on the idea that President Obama has no real understanding of the nation's financial realities.

10. Wasn't much of the debt that President Obama collected in his first year due to President Bush's bailout?

Yes, and if responsibility for the bailout lay only on the shoulders of Bush, then that would excuse about one-seventh of President Obama's debt spending. However, President Obama voted for that legislation, so he bears just as much responsibility as everyone else who helped to enact it.

11. Didn't Bush's tax cuts add to the deficit?

No, actually. In the years since the tax cuts, revenue has actually increased. The problem is that government expenditures increased much more.

Avatar image for zdaybreak
Zdaybreak

1004

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#2  Edited By Zdaybreak

We can always move to Canada.

Avatar image for supreme_marvel
Supreme Marvel

12555

Forum Posts

5170

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

#3  Edited By Supreme Marvel

I believe it was 14 Trillion just a few years ago.

Avatar image for thebatman586
TheBatman586

6466

Forum Posts

309

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4  Edited By TheBatman586

http://www.usdebtclock.org/
If you count unfunded liabilities, it's 120 trillion.

Avatar image for razzatazz
RazzaTazz

11948

Forum Posts

234582

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1887

User Lists: 79

#5  Edited By RazzaTazz

Somewhat of a fallacy to put it that way.  If Obama hadn't bailed out the economy then the entire world economy might very well be wiped out, and Comic Vine would be written by typewriter.  Also Obama gets credit for finally putting things like wars on the budget, which Bush never did.  

Avatar image for night_thrasher
Night Thrasher

3820

Forum Posts

428

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 2

#6  Edited By Night Thrasher

@PsychoKnights: We can't vote for Bush again!

Avatar image for protectyournose
protectyournose

912

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7  Edited By protectyournose

WOW! I was hoping this would be better.

Avatar image for batwatch
BatWatch

5487

Forum Posts

274

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 238

User Lists: 1

#8  Edited By BatWatch

@Shotgun: @Supreme Marvel: @TheBatman586: @RazzaTazz: @Night Thrasher: @protectyournose:

Responses have been edited into OP.

Avatar image for razzatazz
RazzaTazz

11948

Forum Posts

234582

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1887

User Lists: 79

#9  Edited By RazzaTazz

The fact of the matter is that the arithmetic just doesnt add up, people complain about taxes taking away their hard earned money?  Fair enough, but would all of those businesses be prosperous if there were no taxes?  Probably not.  Taxes support things like the infrastructure to create the roads to move goods, education to train workers to a minimum level, paying police officers to make sure that business are not robbed and even things like environmental regulations which will invariably mitigate against lawsuits and the like in the future.  Except that taxes are seen by many as the bogeyman.  Every society since the earliest ones in Mesopotamia have used taxes as an essential part of their society, but for some reason in modern society we think we can get more with less, that taxes are useless but that we still want all the benefits from society.  It doesn't really work any other way.  So I understand complaining about the debt, but Americans right now already have the lowest level of taxes in the modern era.   
 
By the way, there is this kind of ridiculous idea in the USA that it is a Christian nation founded in the principles of the Bible.  One of these so-called principles is that "God helps those that help themselves."  While there is an aspect of responsibility and hard work required for everything, this idea is explicitly not Christian at all, unless the God in question is money.  According to the Bible who is supposed to help themselves?  Every other person (golden rule and whatnot) which is actually a lot like socialism.  So any time that a rich businessman says that taxes are not American because it violate this principle he is effectively saying that he is not a Christian.  

Avatar image for vance_astro
vance_astro

90107

Forum Posts

51511

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 27

User Lists: 2

#10  Edited By vance_astro  Moderator

Don't see this getting any better. I'm going back to Canada.

Avatar image for mercy_
Mercy_

94955

Forum Posts

83653

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 15

#11  Edited By Mercy_

@Vance Astro said:

Don't see this getting any better. I'm going back to Canada.

Take me with you, plz.

Avatar image for xanni15
Xanni15

6791

Forum Posts

36572

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 25

User Lists: 2

#12  Edited By Xanni15

@Vance Astro said:

Don't see this getting any better. I'm going back to Canada.

Don't you see, it's their fault. Blame Canada for everything.

Avatar image for vance_astro
vance_astro

90107

Forum Posts

51511

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 27

User Lists: 2

#13  Edited By vance_astro  Moderator
@Mercy_ said:

Take me with you, plz.

Sure thing. 
 
@Xanni15 said:

Don't you see, it's their fault. Blame Canada for everything.

Nothing has ever been their fault. They are just an easy scapegoat..shame on you!
Avatar image for night_thrasher
Night Thrasher

3820

Forum Posts

428

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 2

#14  Edited By Night Thrasher

@PsychoKnights said:

Wasn't President Bush the one who racked up debt?

Yes. President Bush added five trillion dollars of debt in eight years, and Democrats screamed that his spending was out of control. They were right.

President Obama created six trillion dollars of debt in three and a half years, yet Democrats say nothing. Let's be consistent. It is bad to bankrupt the country regardless of which side of the aisle you prefer.

Except the majority of that debt was for TWO wars. Bush funded the wars using "emergency funds". Therefore he didn't have to count them in the official budget. Obama added them to his budget, so therefore it looks as if he racked up a huge debt when he actually just started counting the things we were already spending money on. :-)

Avatar image for _black
_Black

2301

Forum Posts

1134

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#15  Edited By _Black

@RazzaTazz said:

The fact of the matter is that the arithmetic just doesnt add up, people complain about taxes taking away their hard earned money? Fair enough, but would all of those businesses be prosperous if there were no taxes? Probably not. Taxes support things like the infrastructure to create the roads to move goods, education to train workers to a minimum level, paying police officers to make sure that business are not robbed and even things like environmental regulations which will invariably mitigate against lawsuits and the like in the future. Except that taxes are seen by many as the bogeyman. Every society since the earliest ones in Mesopotamia have used taxes as an essential part of their society, but for some reason in modern society we think we can get more with less, that taxes are useless but that we still want all the benefits from society. It doesn't really work any other way. So I understand complaining about the debt, but Americans right now already have the lowest level of taxes in the modern era.

By the way, there is this kind of ridiculous idea in the USA that it is a Christian nation founded in the principles of the Bible. One of these so-called principles is that "God helps those that help themselves." While there is an aspect of responsibility and hard work required for everything, this idea is explicitly not Christian at all, unless the God in question is money. According to the Bible who is supposed to help themselves? Every other person (golden rule and whatnot) which is actually a lot like socialism. So any time that a rich businessman says that taxes are not American because it violate this principle he is effectively saying that he is not a Christian.

I'm not so sure the OP and other people are against taxes so much as Obama just spending ridiculous amounts of money, like his stimulus plan. Your first paragraph is true though and I agree.

I don't believe many of the Founding Fathers were Christian, I've heard several times that many were deists. Christianity has been used more by the government as a device to control the population than as guidance for life. But your last few sentences are a stretch in my opinion. Equating the golden rule and socialism is absurd. I also don't think a thinking businessman or any rational citizen for that matter would condemn taxes altogether. They have many important uses like you noted previously. Your last sentence is just crazy. Lol

Avatar image for masterjohn
MasterJohn

2663

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#16  Edited By MasterJohn

We must replace those in Washington with caring Politicians. Romney nor Obama can safe you. As for you, mr Christianity is not a tool for population control. Sooner or later Christians will be discriminated against, Marital Law is a tool for population control. Mass brainwashing propaganda from CNN and MSNBC is a tool, anti-religious propaganda is a tool. There's many tools, Christianity is not one.

Some of the Fonders were Christians, many were deists, NONE were Atheists.

Avatar image for razzatazz
RazzaTazz

11948

Forum Posts

234582

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1887

User Lists: 79

#17  Edited By RazzaTazz
@_Black: The principles of Christianity are inherently about taking care of the poor and the downtrodden, not making the rich richer.  
Avatar image for masterjohn
MasterJohn

2663

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#18  Edited By MasterJohn

@RazzaTazz said:

@_Black: The principles of Christianity are inherently about taking care of the poor and the downtrodden, not making the rich richer.

Finally, a mod that makes sense.

Avatar image for _black
_Black

2301

Forum Posts

1134

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#19  Edited By _Black

@MasterJohn said:

We must replace those in Washington with caring Politicians. Romney nor Obama can safe you. As for you, mr Christianity is not a tool for population control. Sooner or later Christians will be discriminated against, Marital Law is a tool for population control. Mass brainwashing propaganda from CNN and MSNBC is a tool, anti-religious propaganda is a tool. There's many tools, Christianity is not one.

Some of the Fonders were Christians, many were deists, NONE were Atheists.

Like yourself, I'm not a fan of Romney nor Obama. I don't think you can deny that Christianity has been used like that. One quick example is the Puritans. I would say not as much in this day and age though. Christians are already being discriminated against. I see it quite frequently. I don't see how you can say anti-religious propaganda is a tool but religious propaganda is not?

@RazzaTazz said:

@_Black: The principles of Christianity are inherently about taking care of the poor and the downtrodden, not making the rich richer.

Yes, but I never took that as meaning socialism. More like help your fellow man when you can, spare some change for the homeless on the street.

Avatar image for razzatazz
RazzaTazz

11948

Forum Posts

234582

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1887

User Lists: 79

#20  Edited By RazzaTazz
@_Black: Call it like you want, and I will do the same, doesn't mean that the core principles of the two are not nearly identical
Avatar image for _black
_Black

2301

Forum Posts

1134

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#21  Edited By _Black

@RazzaTazz: Their principles are similar. Their execution is not.

But fair enough =)

Avatar image for razzatazz
RazzaTazz

11948

Forum Posts

234582

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1887

User Lists: 79

#22  Edited By RazzaTazz
@_Black: One's execution is forced, the other is highly suggested, however greed interferes for some when it is not enforced.  
Avatar image for night_thrasher
Night Thrasher

3820

Forum Posts

428

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 2

#23  Edited By Night Thrasher

Obama Stimulus = $787 B ($288 B in tax cuts $53 B in education $144 B straight to states)

Bush TARP = $388 B in bailouts

@_Black said:

I'm not so sure the OP and other people are against taxes so much as Obama just spending ridiculous amounts of money, like his stimulus plan.

Avatar image for batwatch
BatWatch

5487

Forum Posts

274

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 238

User Lists: 1

#24  Edited By BatWatch

@Night Thrasher:

Response is in OP.

@RazzaTazz said:

The fact of the matter is that the arithmetic just doesnt add up, people complain about taxes taking away their hard earned money? Fair enough, but would all of those businesses be prosperous if there were no taxes? Probably not. Taxes support things like the infrastructure to create the roads to move goods, education to train workers to a minimum level, paying police officers to make sure that business are not robbed and even things like environmental regulations which will invariably mitigate against lawsuits and the like in the future. Except that taxes are seen by many as the bogeyman. Every society since the earliest ones in Mesopotamia have used taxes as an essential part of their society, but for some reason in modern society we think we can get more with less, that taxes are useless but that we still want all the benefits from society. It doesn't really work any other way. So I understand complaining about the debt, but Americans right now already have the lowest level of taxes in the modern era. By the way, there is this kind of ridiculous idea in the USA that it is a Christian nation founded in the principles of the Bible. One of these so-called principles is that "God helps those that help themselves." While there is an aspect of responsibility and hard work required for everything, this idea is explicitly not Christian at all, unless the God in question is money. According to the Bible who is supposed to help themselves? Every other person (golden rule and whatnot) which is actually a lot like socialism. So any time that a rich businessman says that taxes are not American because it violate this principle he is effectively saying that he is not a Christian.

None of that has anything to do with spending the country into debt. I know you are capable of good conversation, and I am disappointed that you resorted to harping on talking points rather than address the central concern.

I could disprove several of your points, but I want to keep this focused on the debt and overspending. Perhaps I will created different threads to address those things later.

Avatar image for razzatazz
RazzaTazz

11948

Forum Posts

234582

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1887

User Lists: 79

#25  Edited By RazzaTazz
@PsychoKnights: I don't agree, the problem with overspending is inherently linked to taxes, if there was not so much opposition to raising taxes even a little then the debt problems would go away.  Instead the government is supposed to add revenue how?  By cutting services I guess?  That is a losing formula end.  I wasn't skipping the discussion, I was moving it to the next logical position, so what is the solution?  Kill all government programs and destroy the next generation, so that this generation can upgrade their SUVs and their swimming pools? 
 
Obama is campaigning of a "responsible raising of taxes" platform, whereas Romeny wants to cut taxes and increase revenue and decrease the debt?  How does he think that is possible?  Is he going to donate all of his own money to do so?
Avatar image for night_thrasher
Night Thrasher

3820

Forum Posts

428

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 2

#26  Edited By Night Thrasher

@PsychoKnights:

Since President Bush did not include the cost of the wars in his budget, isn't the increase in President Obama's spending just due to the true cost of Bush's War on Terror?
No. The funding for the War on Terror went through congress and was on the books. You have been misinformed.
Also, the total cost of the war throughout President Bush's term was 850 billion, less than one trillion dollars. Even if the books were cooked and President Obama's numbers only reflect the true cost of the war, that still does not justify one-sixth of his addition to the debt.
Finally, President Obama would still be and is responsible for continuing to wage a war we cannot afford.

Trust me, I am far from misinformed. The total costs of the Iraq War were not reflected in the Bush budget. It's true that "some" costs are reflected in the budget (apprx $757.7 B). But, the majority of the costs are either funneled through the emergency fund or subsidized through contractors. It is FACT. Absolute FACT. Read the Brown University study on it. Also Obama continued a war that we were already in because it's the responsible thing to do. You don't start a war, blow up an entire government and leave. Wars aren't fought like that. You have to at least put forth some effort to rebuild. If not, you open the door for even more extremists with more deep seeded hatred in future generations. And nations, like Iran or N. Korea, would be more than happy to feed that hatred with AK-47s and all types of WMDs to wreck havoc on us in the name of "relief spending". They would spread propaganda and the hatred would grow in the fertile soil of destruction that we laid.

Avatar image for night_thrasher
Night Thrasher

3820

Forum Posts

428

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 2

#27  Edited By Night Thrasher

@RazzaTazz said:

@PsychoKnights: I don't agree, the problem with overspending is inherently linked to taxes, if there was not so much opposition to raising taxes even a little then the debt problems would go away. Instead the government is supposed to add revenue how? By cutting services I guess? That is a losing formula end. I wasn't skipping the discussion, I was moving it to the next logical position, so what is the solution? Kill all government programs and destroy the next generation, so that this generation can upgrade their SUVs and their swimming pools? Obama is campaigning of a "responsible raising of taxes" platform, whereas Romeny wants to cut taxes and increase revenue and decrease the debt? How does he think that is possible? Is he going to donate all of his own money to do so?
No Caption Provided
Avatar image for willpayton
willpayton

22502

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28  Edited By willpayton

@PsychoKnights said:

I am typing from an IPad, so I will be brief. The U.S. is 16 trillion dollars in debt, and that debt will soon grow by leaps and bounds with the Baby Boomer generation retiring and collecting Social Security. With that in mind, can we vote out the guy who just spent the nation six trillion dollars into debt?

Note: Below are my responses to people's comments on this thread thus far done in a question and response style.

How fast has the debt grown?

The national debt was ten trillion when President Obama took office. It is over sixteen trillion now.

Didn't President Obama have to spend six trillion dollars to save the economy?

The Obama administration predicted that if his stimulus package was not passed, the unemployment rate would max out at the ridiculously high percentage of 8.5%. With the stimulus package, the unemployment rate was supposed to stay underneath 7%.

Despite trillions being spent to fix the economy, unemployment exceeded 10%. If anything, the President's spending programs hurt the economy.

Wasn't President Bush the one who racked up debt?

Yes. President Bush added five trillion dollars of debt in eight years, and Democrats screamed that his spending was out of control. They were right.

President Obama created six trillion dollars of debt in three and a half years, yet Democrats say nothing. Let's be consistent. It is bad to bankrupt the country regardless of which side of the aisle you prefer.

Don't we actually owe more than sixteen trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities?

Yes, in a manner of speaking. If you add unfunded liabilities (the money the U.S. must soon pay for social security beneifts, military pensions, and medicare costs) to the equation, then we actually owe sixty-nine trillion dollars. Theoretically, those programs could be changed to pay less out in benefits which would decrease our debt, but President Obama has made no efforts to decrease benefits.

Since President Bush did not include the cost of the wars in his budget, isn't the increase in President Obama's spending just due to the true cost of Bush's War on Terror?

No. The funding for the War on Terror went through congress and was on the books. You have been misinformed.

Also, the total cost of the war throughout President Bush's term was 850 billion, less than one trillion dollars. Even if the books were cooked and President Obama's numbers only reflect the true cost of the war, that still does not justify one-sixth of his addition to the debt.

Finally, President Obama would still be and is responsible for continuing to wage a war we cannot afford.

Yes the debt has grown by some $6 Trillion, but why was that? What major spending increases did Obama pass and why did he pass them? The facts are that:

1. Obama inherited a much worse economy than what he even expected. That accounts for why they projected that the unemployment would max out at 8.5 instead of 10%. Basically, they calculated based on numbers that were bad, but actually not nearly as bad as what Bush actually left behind.

2. Much of the spending in the first year was already in the budget that Obama inherited from Bush, that's just how it works for the first year. Yes, Obama approved more spending that first year, but it was for stimulus... so in other words, to deal with the mess he inherited.

3. A lot of spending went on for the 2 wars... so again not Obama's fault.

4. Aside from the wars, and the first year stimulus, there needed to be even more spending to stimulate the economy.

So while you're making it seem like Obama came into office and just racked up $6 Trillion in debt for no reason, the real reasons are clear to anyone with more than a 4 year memory. What happened before Obama took office is that Bush inherited a great economy with a budget surplus and by the end he left a cratering economy and 2 unfunded wars, plus tax cuts mainly for the rich that added to the debt.

You can try to spin it and ignore reality all you like, but the facts are out there for anyone to see.

Avatar image for batwatch
BatWatch

5487

Forum Posts

274

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 238

User Lists: 1

#29  Edited By BatWatch

@RazzaTazz: @Night Thrasher: @WillPayton:

Responses are in OP. Thank you for giving interesting thoughts.

Avatar image for razzatazz
RazzaTazz

11948

Forum Posts

234582

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1887

User Lists: 79

#30  Edited By RazzaTazz
@PsychoKnights
The format you are using here is kind of bizarre, plus the "questions" you are posing yourself are somewhat leading.  
Avatar image for batwatch
BatWatch

5487

Forum Posts

274

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 238

User Lists: 1

#31  Edited By BatWatch

@RazzaTazz said:

@PsychoKnights: The format you are using here is kind of bizarre, plus the "questions" you are posing yourself are somewhat leading.

It's an experiment. I thought maybe this way, newcomers could see the flow of the conversation at a glance rather than coming in and saying the same thing others have already said many times over. I kind of like it.

Regarding the questions being leading, that was kind of the point. I was trying to distill the conversation down to a point counterpoint format without getting drawn into anything which does not directly address my original premise. Perhaps it would be better if I did statement counter-statement, but that seems as if it would be less easy to follow. I will adjust any of the questions and my answers if necessary if you feel I misrepresented you or someone else's main point.

Avatar image for razzatazz
RazzaTazz

11948

Forum Posts

234582

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1887

User Lists: 79

#32  Edited By RazzaTazz
@PsychoKnights: I get it, it jut kind of look like you are taking counter arguments and then phrasing questions to what your answers are going to be to them, and thus kind of putting words in other people's mouths.  
Avatar image for night_thrasher
Night Thrasher

3820

Forum Posts

428

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 2

#33  Edited By Night Thrasher

7. Doesn't a study by Brown University prove that President Bush kept two sets of books on the war and that the true cost of the war greatly exceeds the 850 billion mentioned earlier?
No. The Brown study does show that in the long term cost of the war will be more like four trillion dollars by the time all the lifetime benefits are paid out to soldiers who fought in the war. This also assumes that the United States indefinitely continues to prop up Iraq's infrastructure. Regardless, no federal debt, neither Bush nor Obama's, reflects the money that will be spent in future years. It only accounts for the money that has been spent thus far.

Where are you pulling this from? This is completely inaccurate and a total misrepresentation of what is actually stated. Bush allocated less than $1 Tr for the Wars. He also counted oil subsidies from Iraq as offsetting costs. Which of course we didn't get any Iraqi Oil at all. Also sub-contractors like Haliburton and Black Water weren't paid through DoD and weren't officially counted towards the budget. Bush's numbers were cooked. It's really not a partisan opinion. It's something anyone with Google can figure out.

11. Didn't Bush's tax cuts add to the deficit?
No, actually. In the years since the tax cuts, revenue has actually increased. The problem is that government expenditures increased much more.

Don't know how true this is. Really didn't do the math on this one. But, even if revenue increased...so did spending. Bush 1) cut taxes 2) started two wars 3) created Medicare Part D 4) bailed out the banks 5) issued a round of stimulus 6) created a totally new department of government during his terms in office. I'm pretty sure (about 99.9%) that Bush outspent his so called growth in revenue.

I guess what I'm really asking is where is this magic math that you think Bush has? How is it that he did all of this and did not increase the debt? How is it that Obama ended one of TWO wars that Bush started but somehow he created the deficit from those wars? How is it that Obama's wars are more expensive than Bush's? Your math doesn't add up at all!

Avatar image for willpayton
willpayton

22502

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#34  Edited By willpayton

@PsychoKnights said:

@RazzaTazz: @Night Thrasher: @WillPayton:

Responses are in OP. Thank you for giving interesting thoughts.

Your responses in the OP are not correct in regards to the debt/deficits and who actually caused them. This article does a good job of explaining a lot:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3490

No Caption Provided

"The events and policies that pushed deficits to these high levels in the near term were, for the most part, not of President Obama’s making. If not for the Bush tax cuts, the deficit-financed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the effects of the worst recession since the Great Depression (including the cost of policymakers’ actions to combat it), we would not be facing these huge deficits in the near term. By themselves, in fact, the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will account for almost half of the $20 trillion in debt that, under current policies, the nation will owe by 2019. The stimulus law and financial rescues will account for less than 10 percent of the debt at that time."

These are not my opinions, it's the analysis of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Avatar image for willpayton
willpayton

22502

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#35  Edited By willpayton

BTW I just saw that they posted up updated article. Read the whole thing, it's worth it.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3849

No Caption Provided

"Without the economic downturn and the fiscal policies of the previous Administration, the budget would be roughly in balance over the next decade. That would have put the nation on a much sounder footing to address the demographic challenges and the cost pressures in health care that darken the long-run fiscal outlook."

Avatar image for magethor
Magethor

1128

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#36  Edited By Magethor

Posting this to push the "football spam" threads to the second forum page since they don't need to be on the 1st page.

Avatar image for shadow_thief
Shadow_Thief

2511

Forum Posts

3

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 1

#37  Edited By Shadow_Thief

The funny thing about debt: our currency used to be back up by the gold standard. With that long gone, it is now backed up by "the full faith and credit of the government;" in other words, the currency only has value because Uncle Sam says it does. So, going into debt meant that you purchased something with nothing that you don't even have. Getting depressing existential about it, the government going into debt means that its spending has officially exceeded its own capacity for faith in itself.

This is the point where my brain does something like this:

Avatar image for darthshap
DarthShap

880

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#38  Edited By DarthShap

Americans are funny. They have the biggest debt in the world despite the fact that they provide very limited healthcare and pensions, poor primary and secondary education, poor labour law, et caetera...

So where is the tax money spent? You really cannot blame the government for trying to save the economy and jobs during an enormous financial crisis. You can blame Washington for its ridiculously big military though.

Avatar image for 7am_waking_up_in_the_morning
7am_Waking_Up_In_The_Morning

3947

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@DarthShap said:

Americans are funny. They have the biggest debt in the world despite the fact that they provide very limited healthcare and pensions, poor primary and secondary education, poor labour law, et caetera...

So where is the tax money spent? You really cannot blame the government for trying to save the economy and jobs during an enormous financial crisis. You can blame Washington for its ridiculously big military though.

The taxes are used to build the infrastructures, but it's not enough. This is where the government makes up for the loss and ask the Federal Reserve (a non-united states central printing company) to cut down more trees and print more physical money. So the physical money being printed doesn't go directly to the infrastructures (otherwise all cities would have been rebuild and the Freedom Tower would have already been finished 7 years ago), but instead to oversea spending and military.

Avatar image for nick_hero22
nick_hero22

8769

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#40  Edited By nick_hero22

@RazzaTazz said:

@PsychoKnights: I don't agree, the problem with overspending is inherently linked to taxes, if there was not so much opposition to raising taxes even a little then the debt problems would go away. Instead the government is supposed to add revenue how? By cutting services I guess? That is a losing formula end. I wasn't skipping the discussion, I was moving it to the next logical position, so what is the solution? Kill all government programs and destroy the next generation, so that this generation can upgrade their SUVs and their swimming pools? Obama is campaigning of a "responsible raising of taxes" platform, whereas Romeny wants to cut taxes and increase revenue and decrease the debt? How does he think that is possible? Is he going to donate all of his own money to do so?

You're beast :)

Avatar image for atphantom
AtPhantom

14434

Forum Posts

25163

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#41  Edited By AtPhantom

Oh hey, who cares?

Seriously? The US debt isn't really anything extraordinary or threatening to the economy or general well being of the United States. There are plenty of examples of countries with far worse debts than the US which nevertheless managed to support an even healthier economy over it. It isn't even a US record. It was bigger at the end of WWII and yet it was brought down without any fuss.

Debt isn't good, but it isn't catastrophic either. It's a natural part of managing an economy and a perfectly acceptable way of dealing with a recession. Once you fix the economy and start making money again, then you can think about paying down the debt.

Avatar image for GunGunW
GunGunW

1027

Forum Posts

5

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#42  Edited By GunGunW

Let's make Superman our secretary of defense... seriously, who would want to mess with us with him on our side?