Posted on 11/20/2004 1:56:32 PM PST by nanak
IT is a time of war. Debt is always higher during a time of war, from the RW on. The important thing is to find an acceptable end, so we can start paying it back. That "acceptable end" part is the problem.
Note to MORON Congressclown.
It is a time of war. When we were trying to pass the the Balance Budget amendment, you are your ilk ran around screaming "oh what if we have to fight a war". Now that the OTHER side controlls the reigns, in a time of war, you and your ilk posture as "Fiscal Conservatives"
Well guess what A@@ Clown time to put up or shut up. I suggest you introduce a bill to reimpose the 1995 Pay as YOU go Budget rules. So rather then posture as a phoney "Fiscal Conservative" actually walk the walk instead of just talking the talk.
The tax cuts are working. We need tax reform and that ought to bring the debt down rapidly.
It's going to be 9 trillion very very soon. Then the government will ask for a higher yet debt ceiling --- and on and on and on --- until something doesn't work out from it.
But then why does the debt have to be higher than it was during the Vietnam War or WWII? It wasn't over 8 trillion then. How much government spending is on social spending --- money wasted on education and welfare programs? Grant money going to bail out hospitals which can't keep afloat? How much is being spent on Medicaid and Medicare --- compared with what Iraq costs us?
Interesting, we didn't have to raise taxes to go out of the red in the early 90's. Reagan had to do a lot of deficit spending to defeat the Soviets, and Bush is doing the same with the terrorists. We can pay off this debt without a tax increase.
Back in the 60's, my Dad was worried about $2,000 credit card debt. It was over 15% of his annual income. Today, I write a $2,000 check each month because we use our credit card as a convenience. $2,000 today is nothing compared to what it was 40 years ago. The national debt is similar in concept as it really counts as a percentage of GDP. While the numbers are higher than ever before, they are not the highest they've ever been as a percentage of GDP. Not to say they shouldn't be a bit lower and on the wane, but when you look at what Bush inherited, and the events that added to it, he had a choice of doing right by the taxpayer and letting the debt rise, or letting us continue to be screwed and still not do anything to lower the debt. There is no doubt in my mind that if there was more money going in, the politicians would find a way to spend it. If Bush is successful in making progress on changing the tax codes and modernizing social security, along with cooperation of the Congress in fiscal responsibility (we all need to keep pressure on here, but too many prefer the hand-outs, so I'm not real optimistic) the debt will take care of itself.
How did last years 550 billion dollar medicare giveaway help the war effort?
If you make $4000 a month then it's okay to have that kind of credit card purchases --- and like you said you're just using credit for the convenience but you are not in debt if you pay off your card each and every month. If you make $2000 a month, then you shouldn't purchase $2000 worth of junk items. If you make $1000 a month then you have to be even more careful. The government is not living within it's means ---- it's income is higher than ever but it's not close to managing without extremely high debt.
One word: inflation!
When you adjust the dollars for inflation, the discrepancy might not be as large. That sort of math is beyond me, but I am certain that inflation plays a role in the figures that are being used.
The war is only a SMALL part of the budget...The fact is, Bush and the GOP have been spending like liberals...buying votes left and right with our tax money...expanding welfare programs, arts programs subsidies across the board...it's ridiculous.
The Pentagon is a sterling example. It is a monument to waste and is, indeed, a disgrace.
There shouldn't be a job in the military that can't be performed by uniformed military personnel. Why even Lewinsky was working there after working on the wanker.
Reagan also cut spending. We need some dramatic cuts in government social spending --- it takes half the budget now.
Compare the rates of federal government spending on programs like Medicaid, WIC, food stamps, housing subsidies, college grant money, CHIP, NAFTA-TAA, SSDI and so on with the rate of spending on these programs in the 50's or 60's.
In this area the average federal government housing subsidy is $400 a month and housing is relative cheap in this area. In some areas the housing subsidies average $700 a month and more.
Then look at government spending on Medicaid. And the wasteful NAFTA-TAA programs which accomplish almost nothing.
< So rather then posture as a phoney "Fiscal Conservative" actually walk the walk instead of just talking the talk. -MNJohnnie>
Are you referring to Ron Paul as a "phoney Fiscal Conservative"? If so, then maybe there is no hope for the Republican Party.
http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm
Ron Paul is the only fiscal conservative with guts.
When I read the headline, I knew it could only be Ron Paul.
Like Nat Hentoff on the Left, he says those things that need saying, yet which no politician will utter.
He's a great gadfly!
and if FReeper Jimmy Cricket or whatever his name is wants to pitch in on this I'd like to hear it.
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.