Posted on 10/05/2004 2:36:26 PM PDT by Ed Current
The government is poised to hit the national debt's $7.4 trillion ceiling this month, and yesterday the Bush administration told Congress again that it should raise the limit.
That would be a politically sticky move just weeks from the Nov. 2 elections.
Rob Nichols, Treasury Department spokesman, said the government is on track to reach the limit early this month. He said that the forecast is made "on a day-to-day basis" and that Congress would be notified.
The government can juggle accounts to stay under the limit through mid-November to avoid default, as it has in the past.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
BLAH BLAH BLAH... raising taxes and slowing the rate of growth IS NOT THE WAY TO FIX OUR PROBLEMS, John F Kennedy knew this, Ronald Reagan knew this and George W Bush knows this....
You may be a troll, I dunno. If Kerry is elected, we won't have to worry about the national debt. You know why? c'mon ask me.
I am concerned about the national debt and am not afraid to say it.
But you didn't ask me the question.
If Kerry is elected, we won't have to worry about the national debt. You know why?
BBT (Waving hand in air wildly...): I KNOW, I KNOW, ask ME, Teacher!!!!!
Since no one under the age of 50 believes they are going to see a dime of the money they're paying into Social Security and Medicare, everyone under the age of 50 should write-off whatever they pay into S.S. and Medicare as a charitable deduction - since that's what it really is!
Second, If we subject our defense to the UN and terrorists take out a several major cities like New York, LA, Chicago our economy will very unlikely survive.
Your turn BBT
Look closer, the debt INCREASED every year during Clinton's presidency.
That is why SOME of young people's money should go into a private account that can not be touched be the government, then they will have something when they retire to count on.
"Even Bill Clinton and a Democratic Congress didn't spend like this. Amazing as it may sound, the ostensibly small-government GOP seems totally oblivious to the fact that all this spending puts its future economic agenda in jeopardy."
That's probably because Bill Clinton ignored us being attacked for eight years and instead of doing something about it, taxed us into a recession.
But hey, vote for Kerry. Let's see if we can double it.
May I be excused now?
As long as you promise to make two liberals cry in frustration at their inability to refute your well reasoned logic.
Well, actually Ronald Reagan signed Tax increases in 1982 and 1983.
Bowden, in an effort to make the case against tax cuts and for more government spending from the perspective of the "average American," reveals a stunning ignorance not only of the tenets of basic economics but of history as well. He asserts that President Reagan's across-the-board tax reductions -- which he disparages with the tired slanders "voodoo economics" and "snake-oil pitch" -- caused the deficits of the 1980s and failed to stimulate the economy. These claims are false and easily refuted.
According to the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, federal tax revenues more than doubled between 1980 and 1990 (the Reagan tax cuts were implemented between 1981 and 1983), from $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990. At the same time, federal spending rose even faster -- from $591 billion in 1980 to more than $1.25 trillion in 1990. Of course, Reagan acquiesced to the spendthrift Congress, but the fact remains that tax cuts stimulated the economy, and the data makes it clear that the deficits of the 1980s were caused by overspending, not a paucity of tax revenues.
I do not doubt that tax cuts help the economy but Ronald Reagan DID sign legislation to Increase Taxes in 1982 and 1983.
According to the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, federal tax revenues more than doubled between 1980 and 1990 (the Reagan tax cuts were implemented between 1981 and 1983), from $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990. At the same time, federal spending rose even faster -- from $591 billion in 1980 to more than $1.25 trillion in 1990. Of course, Reagan acquiesced to the spendthrift Congress, but the fact remains that tax cuts stimulated the economy, and the data makes it clear that the deficits of the 1980s were caused by overspending, not a paucity of tax revenues.
Newt Gingrich said on Fox the other night that Bush believed in smaller government. I had to E-mail Fox and ask them "What planet is Newt living on?" cause it sure ain't this one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.