Congress Approved $2.4 Trillion In Additional Debt During Fiscal Year 2018: Watchdog

[Harpy Eagle]

Borrowing money to defeat the Soviet Union, good debt. This was followed by a booming economy which was able to reduce our debt.
.

This is where you lose me. From the end of WWII till 1980 the Debt/GDP ratio was dropping from a wartime high of 120% to about 35%.

Reagan reversed this trend, Reagan alone more than doubled this ratio, during a booming economy. Since then it has been up and up and up.




Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[bendog]

Borrowing money to defeat the Soviet Union, good debt. This was followed by a booming economy which was able to reduce our debt.
.

This is where you lose me. From the end of WWII till 1980 the Debt/GDP ratio was dropping from a wartime high of 120% to about 35%.

Reagan reversed this trend, Reagan alone more than doubled this ratio, during a booming economy. Since then it has been up and up and up.




Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Well yes the gop has used Reagan as a rally cry to never raise taxes or cut spending. But the fact is Reagan repeatedly raised taxes, and he did support putting soc sec on a better fiscal ground. I don't think Reagan would be at home with the gop today.

defense spending as a % of gnp has decreased.
The History of Defense Spending in One Chart

The gop continues to cut taxes and increase overall spending though. Whether its seeking power to have power to enrich the 1% or to make soc sec unsustainable, or whether there's any long term policy at all, I don't know.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Not that much difference between republicans and democrats when it comes to spending our hard earned money
and money we don't even have. It really is a shame

There's a huge difference.

Dems tax and spend. Low or no deficits.

Repubs cut taxes and spend. High deficits.

Uhhhh....Obama has some crazy deficits...they were not low nor “no”.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Obama cut the deficit by 75%.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Not that much difference between republicans and democrats when it comes to spending our hard earned money
and money we don't even have. It really is a shame

There's a huge difference.

Dems tax and spend. Low or no deficits.

Repubs cut taxes and spend. High deficits.

Uhhhh....Obama has some crazy deficits...they were not low nor “no”.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Obama cut the deficit by 75%.

Yes, he cut his own deficit by 75%, and even the 75% cut was not “low” nor “no”.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[danielpalos]

all you seem to know is right wing propaganda. your reasoning is fallacious. it is not a broken window fallacy and you failed to recognize it; it is a Solution to an existing social dilemma.

the Proof is, you cannot take any "high ground with your opposing view". You need a better argument.

capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment. the power to provide for the general welfare is general enough, to solve for that inefficiency under pure capitalism.

The broken window fallacy applies here you're just too dense to see it

What sense does it make to take money from people who are working to pay people like you who refuse to work?

Doing so reduces the money available for people who work thus reducing their spending power and their ability to save and does nothing to grow the economy

Under capitalism, capital needs to circulate to ensure liquidity in our markets regardless of employment Status.

Automatic stabilization of our First World economy is the goal.

And, higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.

And by you getting money from other people for not working they have less money to circulate so the net sum of money in circulation does not change it is just moved to other sectors.

and getting paid for not working has nothing to do with labor because you are NOT in the labor pool if you are getting pain not to work so if you want to contribute get a fucking job

You don't have an economic argument; you have an emotional argument.

I have one too. Only lousy Christians have a problem bailing out the Poor.

There was no emotion in that argument at all except for your whining that you want to get paid for not working

and FYI I am not a Christian

and if you refuse to work and are poor it's your fault and no on else.

capitalism has a Natural rate of unemployment; You have no solutions.

 

[Skull Pilot]

And G5000 said he didn't have a problem with Reagan running up the debt

As I explained to you just a few days ago, goldfish, there is good debt, and there is bad debt.

If you borrow money to buy a tractor, debt is good. You are able to produce goods, pay off the debt with the sale of those goods, and walk away with a profit. And people are able to eat.

If you borrow money for hookers and blow, that is bad debt. You have nothing to show for it but an STD and an ever increasing addiction.

Borrowing money to defeat the Soviet Union, good debt. This was followed by a booming economy which was able to reduce our debt.

Borrowing money to interfere in the free market and increase the cost of housing, bad debt. That's what the mortgage interest deduction does.

We have an ever increasing addiction to bad debt. Bigly.

Uh huh

You are either a so called debt hawk or you are not

You are not.

False dichotomy, retard.

Nice try.

FYI the debt was not reduced by 1 cent since Reagan left office

The debt has not been subtracted from since the Coolidge administration

The fact that you said the debt was paid down after the fall of the Soviet Union is telling

The debt was well on its way to being paid off...until Dubya came along.

Yet another example of a Democratic President lowering the deficit and then a Republican Congress and Republican President accelerating the debt.

As Dubya himself said, "Fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again."

How can the debt be paid off when every single administration since Coolidge ADDED TO IT

If there is not a reduction of the debt principal the debt is not reduced it is not "on it's way to being paid off" It is GROWING.

And for a self named debt hawk you don't seem to understand the difference between debt and deficit since you use the words interchangeably.

So for your information the debt principle has not been paid down one single cent since Coolidge left office

Every single president since Coolidge has increased the debt principle over the course of his administration even Clinton who managed to run a surplus at the end of his term had more debt when he left office than when he took it.

So when you say the debt has been paid down or was on its way to being paid off you sound like a blithering idiot

 

[Skull Pilot]

The broken window fallacy applies here you're just too dense to see it

What sense does it make to take money from people who are working to pay people like you who refuse to work?

Doing so reduces the money available for people who work thus reducing their spending power and their ability to save and does nothing to grow the economy

Under capitalism, capital needs to circulate to ensure liquidity in our markets regardless of employment Status.

Automatic stabilization of our First World economy is the goal.

And, higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.

And by you getting money from other people for not working they have less money to circulate so the net sum of money in circulation does not change it is just moved to other sectors.

and getting paid for not working has nothing to do with labor because you are NOT in the labor pool if you are getting pain not to work so if you want to contribute get a fucking job

You don't have an economic argument; you have an emotional argument.

I have one too. Only lousy Christians have a problem bailing out the Poor.

There was no emotion in that argument at all except for your whining that you want to get paid for not working

and FYI I am not a Christian

and if you refuse to work and are poor it's your fault and no on else.

capitalism has a Natural rate of unemployment; You have no solutions.

The solution sure as shit isn't paying people to not to work

 

[Doc1]

As I explained to you just a few days ago, goldfish, there is good debt, and there is bad debt.

If you borrow money to buy a tractor, debt is good. You are able to produce goods, pay off the debt with the sale of those goods, and walk away with a profit. And people are able to eat.

If you borrow money for hookers and blow, that is bad debt. You have nothing to show for it but an STD and an ever increasing addiction.

Borrowing money to defeat the Soviet Union, good debt. This was followed by a booming economy which was able to reduce our debt.

Borrowing money to interfere in the free market and increase the cost of housing, bad debt. That's what the mortgage interest deduction does.

We have an ever increasing addiction to bad debt. Bigly.

Uh huh

You are either a so called debt hawk or you are not

You are not.

False dichotomy, retard.

Nice try.

FYI the debt was not reduced by 1 cent since Reagan left office

The debt has not been subtracted from since the Coolidge administration

The fact that you said the debt was paid down after the fall of the Soviet Union is telling

The debt was well on its way to being paid off...until Dubya came along.

Yet another example of a Democratic President lowering the deficit and then a Republican Congress and Republican President accelerating the debt.

As Dubya himself said, "Fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again."

How can the debt be paid off when every single administration since Coolidge ADDED TO IT

If there is not a reduction of the debt principal the debt is not reduced it is not "on it's way to being paid off" It is GROWING.

And for a self named debt hawk you don't seem to understand the difference between debt and deficit since you use the words interchangeably.

So for your information the debt principle has not been paid down one single cent since Coolidge left office

Every single president since Coolidge has increased the debt principle over the course of his administration even Clinton who managed to run a surplus at the end of his term had more debt when he left office than when he took it.

So when you say the debt has been paid down or was on its way to being paid off you sound like a blithering idiot

The Left likes to brag about Clinton's "projected" surplus.

 

[Papageorgio]

No such thing as a fiscal conservative in Congress. We are heading down the wrong path and each side defends their spending. We need a mass turnover in Congress and I’m afraid that won’t help.

 

[g5000]

No such thing as a fiscal conservative in Congress. We are heading down the wrong path and each side defends their spending. We need a mass turnover in Congress and I’m afraid that won’t help.

The problem is not Congress. The problem is not Trump. This topic has emphatically shown us exactly what the problem is:

The person in the mirror.

We get exactly the politicians we deserve.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The stench of the steadfast refusal to criticize Trump's spending will never wash off.

I am reminded of the same stench brought on by Reagan's spending.

And G5000 said he didn't have a problem with Reagan running up the debt

As I explained to you just a few days ago, goldfish, there is good debt, and there is bad debt.

If you borrow money to buy a tractor, debt is good. You are able to produce goods, pay off the debt with the sale of those goods, and walk away with a profit. And people are able to eat.

If you borrow money for hookers and blow, that is bad debt. You have nothing to show for it but an STD and an ever increasing addiction.

Borrowing money to defeat the Soviet Union, good debt. This was followed by a booming economy which was able to reduce our debt.

Borrowing money to interfere in the free market and increase the cost of housing, bad debt. That's what the mortgage interest deduction does. That's what the $1.4 trillion in tax expenditures each year do.

We have an ever increasing addiction to bad debt. Bigly.

I must be consistent and criticize where criticism is warranted.

Reagan spent like a Hamptons Trust-Fund Kid. We was not that great.

That level of spending was an excuse to give military/industrial complex cronies a reach-around. We spent way more than was necessary, and spent on shit that had nothing to do with tanking the commies.

People could make the same excuse for W. He spent trillions to defeat terrorism...by going into Iraq on a personal vendetta (Sadam tried to assassinate GHW Bush).

The reality is that no president since Calvin Coolidge has had spending under control.

 

[danielpalos]

Under capitalism, capital needs to circulate to ensure liquidity in our markets regardless of employment Status.

Automatic stabilization of our First World economy is the goal.

And, higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.

And by you getting money from other people for not working they have less money to circulate so the net sum of money in circulation does not change it is just moved to other sectors.

and getting paid for not working has nothing to do with labor because you are NOT in the labor pool if you are getting pain not to work so if you want to contribute get a fucking job

You don't have an economic argument; you have an emotional argument.

I have one too. Only lousy Christians have a problem bailing out the Poor.

There was no emotion in that argument at all except for your whining that you want to get paid for not working

and FYI I am not a Christian

and if you refuse to work and are poor it's your fault and no on else.

capitalism has a Natural rate of unemployment; You have no solutions.

The solution sure as shit isn't paying people to not to work

Capitalism has a Natural rate of unemployment; the right wing enjoys whining about the cost of social services.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The problem is not Congress. The problem is not Trump. This topic has emphatically shown us exactly what the problem is:

The person in the mirror.

We get exactly the politicians we deserve.

Vote Libertarian, and let the chips fall. I have vowed to do so.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Capitalism has a Natural rate of unemployment;

Dependent people have a natural state of unemployment.

Employment under your goose-stepping communist society will simply breed inefficiencies and make some people do more work than others.

 

[danielpalos]

Capitalism has a Natural rate of unemployment;

Dependent people have a natural state of unemployment.

Employment under your goose-stepping communist society will simply breed inefficiencies and make some people do more work than others.

having no solutions and resorting to nothing but rejection of the concept; does nothing to inspire confidence in your right wing sincerity.

solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner is the social thing to do.

 

[g5000]

The problem is not Congress. The problem is not Trump. This topic has emphatically shown us exactly what the problem is:

The person in the mirror.

We get exactly the politicians we deserve.

Vote Libertarian, and let the chips fall. I have vowed to do so.

I've mixed with Libertarians ever since my first Young Americans for Freedom convention in 1977. I have found them to be completely lacking in even the most basic understanding of human nature.

Bill Buckley being the exception which proves the rule.

That has not stopped me from adopting large parts of the libertarian philosophy. I very much admired Chairman Bill.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Not that much difference between republicans and democrats when it comes to spending our hard earned money
and money we don't even have. It really is a shame

There's a huge difference.

Dems tax and spend. Low or no deficits.

Repubs cut taxes and spend. High deficits.

Uhhhh....Obama has some crazy deficits...they were not low nor “no”.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Obama cut the deficit by 75%.

Yes, he cut his own deficit by 75%, and even the 75% cut was not “low” nor “no”.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Low relative to Republican presidents.
Can you point to one Republican in the last 50 years to have done so?

 

[Papageorgio]

And by you getting money from other people for not working they have less money to circulate so the net sum of money in circulation does not change it is just moved to other sectors.

and getting paid for not working has nothing to do with labor because you are NOT in the labor pool if you are getting pain not to work so if you want to contribute get a fucking job

You don't have an economic argument; you have an emotional argument.

I have one too. Only lousy Christians have a problem bailing out the Poor.

There was no emotion in that argument at all except for your whining that you want to get paid for not working

and FYI I am not a Christian

and if you refuse to work and are poor it's your fault and no on else.

capitalism has a Natural rate of unemployment; You have no solutions.

The solution sure as shit isn't paying people to not to work

Capitalism has a Natural rate of unemployment; the right wing enjoys whining about the cost of social services.

I thought you had some Congressmen you were working with to get it passed, how is that going?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I've mixed with Libertarians ever since my first Young Americans for Freedom convention in 1977. I have found them to be completely lacking in even the most basic understanding of human nature.

Bill Buckley being the exception which proves the rule.

That has not stopped me from adopting large parts of the libertarian philosophy. I very much admired Chairman Bill.

Most people don't understand human nature. Especially the motherfucking commies.

I was simply offering an alternative to the UniParty/Duopoly.

Either way, the underlying philosophy of freedom first adopted by the Libertarian party makes them much better than the Republi-crats.

I can heatedly disagree with other libertarians on many topics, but always respect them for maintaining their underlying goal of maximized liberty.

Example, I am pro-choice because I don't believe one person should be obligated to bare another, regardless of the circumstances, but I completely understand the good-faith arguments on behalf of the unborn.

I can respect differing opinions if they are based on reason and held with the goal of maximizing individual liberty. But I digress....


Vote Libertarian to force the Duopoly to behave. That's my point.

 

[danielpalos]

You don't have an economic argument; you have an emotional argument.

I have one too. Only lousy Christians have a problem bailing out the Poor.

There was no emotion in that argument at all except for your whining that you want to get paid for not working

and FYI I am not a Christian

and if you refuse to work and are poor it's your fault and no on else.

capitalism has a Natural rate of unemployment; You have no solutions.

The solution sure as shit isn't paying people to not to work

Capitalism has a Natural rate of unemployment; the right wing enjoys whining about the cost of social services.

I thought you had some Congressmen you were working with to get it passed, how is that going?

i guess i should write my State representative.