NationStates Jolt Archive

Currently the US National Debt is $7,131,067,950,647.00.

I have been hearing a lot about how Republicans are more fiscally responsible than Democrats. Is it true or is it a myth?

US Debt 1980 to 2004

Reagan 1988 $2,602,337,712,041.00
Reagan 1980 $930,210,000,000.00
Total Debt Increase $1,672,127,712,041.00

Avg. Debt Increase per year $209,015,964,005.13 (8 years Reagan)

George H. W. Bush 1992 $4,064,620,655,521.00
George H. W. Bush 1988 $2,602,337,712,041.00
Total Debt Increase $1,462,282,943,480.00

Avg. Debt Increase per year $365,570,735,870.00 (4 years George H. W. Bush)

Bill Clinton 2000 $5,674,178,209,886.00
Bill Clinton 1992 $4,064,620,655,521.00
Total Debt Increase $1,609,557,554,365.00

Avg. Debt Increase per year $201,194,694,295.63 (8 years Bill Clinton)

George W. Bush 2004 $7,131,067,950,647.00 (03/31/2004)
George W. Bush 2000 $5,674,178,209,886.00
Total Debt Increase $1,456,889,740,761.00

Avg. Debt Increase per year $416,254,211,646.00 (3.5 years George W. Bush)

In the past 6 months the US Debt has increased $347,836,887,903.70

Does the old adage "life father, like son" hold true?

Should Americans be concerned?

Source:

Debt to the penny: http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm

Republicans

Not even fiscal conservatives in the GOP support Bush's financial policies. They're a disaster. Ask Alan Greenspan!

Republicans

wrong. fiscal conservatives are more responsible, but today's Republican party doesn't fit that bill much of the time.

Yes yes we all know. In perspective The Dems Catch phrase is still very much applicable. but in case they dont call bush on his Job creation Manipulation perhaps they'll hassle Bush about This.

Like Newt Gingrich?

In the past it was the Republicans.. in the last two decades, easily the Democrats. This one administration currently in power has spent like there is no tomorrow.. this administration has probably been the most fiscally irresponsible administration that I can ever recall in my life since I started following politics. Which has been over 20 years.

Republicans
How so? It appears that the biggest increase in US spending occurs when Republicans are in office. I understand that the Republicans have had the majority in the Congress for the past 10 years.

To balance the budget, Dems raise taxes, while republicans cut excess spending.

The only problem with your figures is that there were no major expensive wars faught during the clinton years. Bush and Bush both unfortunately had to spend gobs of money on that.

There are many reasons why the debt would be bigger with republicans, but the main ideal is this: A democrat will lower the debt by raising your taxes. A Republican will lower the debt by cutting excess spending.

In theory, they both work, but the republican adminstrations just happen to always land in wars :P

Personally, I like the lower-taxes plan :)

To balance the budget, Dems raise taxes, while republicans cut excess spending.
If you cut taxes, that decreases revenue and the debt rises?

The only problem with your figures is that there were no major expensive wars faught during the clinton years. Bush and Bush both unfortunately had to spend gobs of money on that.
Bush Jr. spent $90 Billion attacking Iraq. Was this necessary?

There are many reasons why the debt would be bigger with republicans, but the main ideal is this: A democrat will lower the debt by raising your taxes. A Republican will lower the debt by cutting excess spending.
So with lower tax revenues with a tax cut, and increased operating costs due to war, the debt is soaring. What services do the Republicans propose to cut to keep the debt from spiralling out of control?

In theory, they both work, but the republican adminstrations just happen to always land in wars :P
Why is that?

Personally, I like the lower-taxes plan :)
Even if it means that you country could go bankrupt, and poverty increases?

To balance the budget, Dems raise taxes, while republicans cut excess spending.

The only problem with your figures is that there were no major expensive wars faught during the clinton years. Bush and Bush both unfortunately had to spend gobs of money on that.

There are many reasons why the debt would be bigger with republicans, but the main ideal is this: A democrat will lower the debt by raising your taxes. A Republican will lower the debt by cutting excess spending.

In theory, they both work, but the republican adminstrations just happen to always land in wars :P

Personally, I like the lower-taxes plan :)

Well, I don't know Raysia, are you old enough to remember when Reagan almost bankrupted the United States? I haven't seen a Democrat do that. You know every one bitches about taxes.. yet they want this and that.. you can't have services and not pay taxes. It's a simple as that. You want a strong military.. you want police, you want, you want , you want. Well some one has to pay for it.

Think about it like this.. the Democrats take the approach of pay as you go.. therefore they hike taxes to pay for what they do. Where as Republicans put it on your national Visa card so to speak. Cut your taxes and your national debt goes through the roof. When you are an adult and living out on your own.. are you going to max out your credit card and go wildly into debt? Or are you going to try and pay as you go? I'll tell you this much.. if you pick the first option... may I advise you read up on Chapter 11. !

Republicans
How so? It appears that the biggest increase in US spending occurs when Republicans are in office. I understand that the Republicans have had the majority in the Congress for the past 10 years.

Indeed they have. During Bush I and Reagan, as well as the first two years of Clinton (where the most spending occured) it was Democrats.

Clinton implemented welfare reform: "Workfare". He and Gore streamlined government, reducing redundancy and waste.
Liberals hated them for this but it worked.

Republicans
How so? It appears that the biggest increase in US spending occurs when Republicans are in office. I understand that the Republicans have had the majority in the Congress for the past 10 years.

Indeed they have. During Bush I and Reagan, as well as the first two years of Clinton (where the most spending occured) it was Democrats.
Actually the most spending is occurring right now.

George W. has spent more money in 3 1/2 years than Clinton spent in 8 years? There will also be a budgetary deficit of over $500 this current year.

Your math does not add up?

Republicans
How so? It appears that the biggest increase in US spending occurs when Republicans are in office. I understand that the Republicans have had the majority in the Congress for the past 10 years.

Indeed they have. During Bush I and Reagan, as well as the first two years of Clinton (where the most spending occured) it was Democrats.
Actually the most spending is occurring right now.

George W. has spent more money in 3 1/2 years than Clinton spent in 8 years? There will also be a budgetary deficit of over $500 Billion this current year.

Your math does not add up?

Republicans
How so? It appears that the biggest increase in US spending occurs when Republicans are in office. I understand that the Republicans have had the majority in the Congress for the past 10 years.

Indeed they have. During Bush I and Reagan, as well as the first two years of Clinton (where the most spending occured) it was Democrats.
Actually the most spending is occurring right now.

George W. has spent more money in 3 1/2 years than Clinton spent in 8 years? There will also be a budgetary deficit of over $500 this current year.

Your math does not add up?

If you look at a graph of Clinton's spending, the first two years of it were right on par with Bush I, if I recall correctly. When Newt Gingrich led the Republican Revolution of '94 and the Republicans dominated the House and senate, they started to sharply cut the budget until the point of surplus. Of course there's a different set of faces in congress and the White House now. Likewise in the Eighties, Tip O'Neill in the House led the Democratic charge to deny Reagan's bigger budget cuts on social services etc, so the compromise was reached where the House would pass the budget that had increased military spending and cut taxes as well as maintained "acceptable" levels of social spending. This is because in the 80's the Democrats were still in the 60's liberal mindset rather than Clinton's, so they supported huge programs still, and to cut them while they had the power not to would seem like betraying their values.

-tp

-tp

Clinton implemented welfare reform: "Workfare". He and Gore streamlined government, reducing redundancy and waste.
Liberals hated them for this but it worked.

No, the Republican congress passed it twice and Clinton vetoed it, then the 3rd time it was coming near election season so he allowed it to pass and took credit as usual.

Republicans
How so? It appears that the biggest increase in US spending occurs when Republicans are in office. I understand that the Republicans have had the majority in the Congress for the past 10 years.

Indeed they have. During Bush I and Reagan, as well as the first two years of Clinton (where the most spending occured) it was Democrats.
Actually the most spending is occurring right now.

George W. has spent more money in 3 1/2 years than Clinton spent in 8 years? There will also be a budgetary deficit of over $500 this current year.

Your math does not add up?

If you look at a graph of Clinton's spending, the first two years of it were right on par with Bush I, if I recall correctly.
The budgetary deficit year over year for the last 2 years of the George H. W. Bush administration totalled: $746 Billion

The budgetary deficit year over year for the first 2 years of the Clinton administration totalled: $628 Billion, which is $118 Billion less

When Newt Gingrich led the Republican Revolution of '94 and the Republicans dominated the House and senate, they started to sharply cut the budget until the point of surplus.
This is where it gets interesting. When looking at Clinton’s last 4 years in office, with a Republican majority in the Congress, the national debt increased a total of: $449 Billion

In the first 3.5 years of the George W. Bush administration, with a Republican majority in the Congress, the national debt increased a total of: $1.456 Trillion

That is more than a 3 to 1 ratio!!

You certainly can’t blame that on the Democrats.

The budgetary deficit year over year for the last 2 years of the George H. W. Bush administration totalled: $746 Billion

The budgetary deficit year over year for the first 2 years of the Clinton administration totalled: $628 Billion, which is $118 Billion less
But thats still 314 billion a year over for clinton compared to 373 for Bush I. 60 billion is not a huge number in terms of US Budgets.

This is where it gets interesting. When looking at Clinton’s last 4 years in office, with a Republican majority in the Congress, the national debt increased a total of: $449 Billion

In the first 3.5 years of the George W. Bush administration, with a Republican majority in the Congress, the national debt increased a total of: $1.456 Trillion

That is more than a 3 to 1 ratio!!

You certainly can’t blame that on the Democrats.
I can't. The congress under George Bush has been spending like no other. It would be wrong, however, to give credit to Clinton for cutting spending. He did, after all, propose a bigger healthcare plan than George Bush Jr. did.

It's his republican majority congress, and most of the spending is his idea.

If his health (prescription) plan looks cheaper it's because it was dishonest about the costs. Later they said "Oops! We were off a little; like 50%"

The budgetary deficit year over year for the last 2 years of the George H. W. Bush administration totalled: $746 Billion

The budgetary deficit year over year for the first 2 years of the Clinton administration totalled: $628 Billion, which is $118 Billion less
But thats still 314 billion a year over for clinton compared to 373 for Bush I. 60 billion is not a huge number in terms of US Budgets.
The total is still $118 Billion more.

The fact still remains that George H. W. Bush presided over a Total National Debt Increase of $1,456 Trillion in only 4 years,compared to Clinton's $1,609 Trillion over 8 years.

That certainly isn't chump change.

Perhaps another way of looking at this, is that in 7.5 years in office, the 2 Bushes have presided over a total increase to the National Debt of $2.919 Trillion, while the total for Reagan and Clinton is $3.281 Trillion in 16 years.

That certainly is mind boggling.

This is where it gets interesting. When looking at Clinton’s last 4 years in office, with a Republican majority in the Congress, the national debt increased a total of: $449 Billion

In the first 3.5 years of the George W. Bush administration, with a Republican majority in the Congress, the national debt increased a total of: $1.456 Trillion

That is more than a 3 to 1 ratio!!

You certainly can’t blame that on the Democrats.

I can't. The congress under George Bush has been spending like no other. It would be wrong, however, to give credit to Clinton for cutting spending. He did, after all, propose a bigger healthcare plan than George Bush Jr. did.
What have they been spending the money on?

It would appear that the Republicans have not been fiscally responsible over the past 4 years?

* added lost quote tag

In the past it was the Republicans.. in the last two decades, easily the Democrats. This one administration currently in power has spent like there is no tomorrow.. this administration has probably been the most fiscally irresponsible administration that I can ever recall in my life since I started following politics. Which has been over 20 years.

What about FDR? He created Greenspan. The Supreme Court ruled against him, lucky for him Pearl Harbor. But he knew that didn't he.

I think that the current administration adheres to Hoover's thinking:

"Blessed are the young, for they shall inherit the national debt. "
—Herbert Hoover

The current budget already promises a record deficit, and it did not have any costs in it for ongoing military operations in the Middle East nor any provisions for increased expenses with respect to the Medicare changes.

Give him four more years, and I'll bet he can get that deficit up to a Trillion per year....

-Z-

One thing that seems to be missing from this discussion is correcting for total debt at the time of each President's inauguration and figuring percentage of increase. By those criteria, Reagan looks far worse, since I believe he nearly doubled the national debt while in office. that would be equivalent to Dubya adding $4 trillion while in office, instead of the nearly $2 trillion--but at least Reagan got inflation down, got interest rates down and increased employment. He may have done serious damage to the economy in some ways, but at least he got his money's worth. Dubya's dropped this extra load on us and we've got diddly to show for it.

Currently the US National Debt is $7,131,067,950,647.00.

I have been hearing a lot about how Republicans are more fiscally responsible than Democrats. Is it true or is it a myth?

US Debt 1980 to 2004

Reagan 1988 $2,602,337,712,041.00
Reagan 1980 $930,210,000,000.00
Total Debt Increase $1,672,127,712,041.00

Avg. Debt Increase per year $209,015,964,005.13 (8 years Reagan)

George H. W. Bush 1992 $4,064,620,655,521.00
George H. W. Bush 1988 $2,602,337,712,041.00
Total Debt Increase $1,462,282,943,480.00

Avg. Debt Increase per year $365,570,735,870.00 (4 years George H. W. Bush)

Bill Clinton 2000 $5,674,178,209,886.00
Bill Clinton 1992 $4,064,620,655,521.00
Total Debt Increase $1,609,557,554,365.00

Avg. Debt Increase per year $201,194,694,295.63 (8 years Bill Clinton)

George W. Bush 2004 $7,131,067,950,647.00 (03/31/2004)
George W. Bush 2000 $5,674,178,209,886.00
Total Debt Increase $1,456,889,740,761.00

Avg. Debt Increase per year $416,254,211,646.00 (3.5 years George W. Bush)

In the past 6 months the US Debt has increased $347,836,887,903.70

Does the old adage "life father, like son" hold true?

Should Americans be concerned?

Source:

Debt to the penny: http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm

Your numbers on Bush are way the hell off. I think you mean 4.1 trillion, not 413 trillion. 413 trillion would take about 200 years to pay off, even if 100% of our tax dollars went toward paying it off each year. :wink:

Either way, I think it's pretty clear that Bush's spending is in response to a shift in our Nation's priorities, just as the Cold War had a similar effect.

One thing that seems to be missing from this discussion is correcting for total debt at the time of each President's inauguration and figuring percentage of increase. By those criteria, Reagan looks far worse, since I believe he nearly doubled the national debt while in office. that would be equivalent to Dubya adding $4 trillion while in office, instead of the nearly $2 trillion--but at least Reagan got inflation down, got interest rates down and increased employment. He may have done serious damage to the economy in some ways, but at least he got his money's worth. Dubya's dropped this extra load on us and we've got diddly to show for it.

Reagan got interest rates down? Have you looked at interest rates lately? :wink: Not that interest rates have anything to do with the strength of the economy, but they couldn't reasonably get much lower.

Either way, I think it's pretty clear that Bush's spending is in response to a shift in our Nation's priorities, just as the Cold War had a similar effect.Funny--I don't think it's clear at all. I mean, I understand why expenditures are up--I just don't understand why taxes were slashed when we knew expenditures were going to be higher, and why this President and the majority in Congress refuse to adopt a pay as you go policy for any future tax cuts or expenditure increases.

One thing that seems to be missing from this discussion is correcting for total debt at the time of each President's inauguration and figuring percentage of increase. By those criteria, Reagan looks far worse, since I believe he nearly doubled the national debt while in office. that would be equivalent to Dubya adding $4 trillion while in office, instead of the nearly $2 trillion--but at least Reagan got inflation down, got interest rates down and increased employment. He may have done serious damage to the economy in some ways, but at least he got his money's worth. Dubya's dropped this extra load on us and we've got diddly to show for it.

Reagan got interest rates down? Have you looked at interest rates lately? :wink: Not that interest rates have anything to do with the strength of the economy, but they couldn't reasonably get much lower.Do you even know what interest rates were like at the end of the Carter administration? I didn't think so.

Either way, I think it's pretty clear that Bush's spending is in response to a shift in our Nation's priorities, just as the Cold War had a similar effect.Funny--I don't think it's clear at all. I mean, I understand why expenditures are up--I just don't understand why taxes were slashed when we knew expenditures were going to be higher, and why this President and the majority in Congress refuse to adopt a pay as you go policy for any future tax cuts or expenditure increases.

If you were running a small business after the WTC bombings, you'd know precisely why the tax refunds weren't shelved, notwithstanding the original intent of the cuts, which remains worthy either way.

Currently the US National Debt is $7,131,067,950,647.00.

I have been hearing a lot about how Republicans are more fiscally responsible than Democrats. Is it true or is it a myth?

US Debt 1980 to 2004

Reagan 1988 $2,602,337,712,041.00
Reagan 1980 $930,210,000,000.00
Total Debt Increase $1,672,127,712,041.00

Avg. Debt Increase per year $209,015,964,005.13 (8 years Reagan)

George H. W. Bush 1992 $4,064,620,655,521.00
George H. W. Bush 1988 $2,602,337,712,041.00
Total Debt Increase $1,462,282,943,480.00

Avg. Debt Increase per year $365,570,735,870.00 (4 years George H. W. Bush)

Bill Clinton 2000 $5,674,178,209,886.00
Bill Clinton 1992 $4,064,620,655,521.00
Total Debt Increase $1,609,557,554,365.00

Avg. Debt Increase per year $201,194,694,295.63 (8 years Bill Clinton)

George W. Bush 2004 $7,131,067,950,647.00 (03/31/2004)
George W. Bush 2000 $5,674,178,209,886.00
Total Debt Increase $1,456,889,740,761.00

Avg. Debt Increase per year $416,254,211,646.00 (3.5 years George W. Bush)

In the past 6 months the US Debt has increased $347,836,887,903.70

Does the old adage "life father, like son" hold true?

Should Americans be concerned?

Source:

Debt to the penny: http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm

Your numbers on Bush are way the hell off. I think you mean 4.1 trillion, not 413 trillion. 413 trillion would take about 200 years to pay off, even if 100% of our tax dollars went toward paying it off each year. :wink:

Either way, I think it's pretty clear that Bush's spending is in response to a shift in our Nation's priorities, just as the Cold War had a similar effect.
No those figures are quite accurate, they come from the US Treasury. Perhaps you misread the decimal point? In the last 6 months alone, the US Debt has increased by $347 Billion.

Bottom line, is that the Republicans have spent $1.456 Trillion in the past 3.5 years

Either way, I think it's pretty clear that Bush's spending is in response to a shift in our Nation's priorities, just as the Cold War had a similar effect.Funny--I don't think it's clear at all. I mean, I understand why expenditures are up--I just don't understand why taxes were slashed when we knew expenditures were going to be higher, and why this President and the majority in Congress refuse to adopt a pay as you go policy for any future tax cuts or expenditure increases.

If you were running a small business after the WTC bombings, you'd know precisely why the tax refunds weren't shelved, notwithstanding the original intent of the cuts, which remains worthy either way.Bullshit. Those tax cuts could have been easily reworked to give relief to small businesses--which they didn't do in the first place--instead of the huge corporations and super-wealthy who benefitted the most from them. You want to help small businesses post-9/11? Hell, you want to help small businesses today? Rework the payroll tax by lowering the rate and raising the ceiling, and make health care expenses deductible and every small business in this country would worship at your feet. That addresses two of a small business's largest expenses and doesn't harm the economy or stifle job growth.

If you hadn't got rid of the Gold Standard, you wouldn't have been in this mess.

Either way, I think it's pretty clear that Bush's spending is in response to a shift in our Nation's priorities, just as the Cold War had a similar effect.Funny--I don't think it's clear at all. I mean, I understand why expenditures are up--I just don't understand why taxes were slashed when we knew expenditures were going to be higher, and why this President and the majority in Congress refuse to adopt a pay as you go policy for any future tax cuts or expenditure increases.

If you were running a small business after the WTC bombings, you'd know precisely why the tax refunds weren't shelved, notwithstanding the original intent of the cuts, which remains worthy either way.Bullshit. Those tax cuts could have been easily reworked to give relief to small businesses--which they didn't do in the first place--instead of the huge corporations and super-wealthy who benefitted the most from them. You want to help small businesses post-9/11? Hell, you want to help small businesses today? Rework the payroll tax by lowering the rate and raising the ceiling, and make health care expenses deductible and every small business in this country would worship at your feet. That addresses two of a small business's largest expenses and doesn't harm the economy or stifle job growth.

Funny, for all the great things the government is supposed to do for us under leftist rule, it never happens. Bush's tax cut was the first and only relief I have ever seen, heard about, or recieved, despite 15 years of observing, and later operating, a small business. I couldn't get an SBA loan to save my life under Clinton, but I could under Bush, which, in addition to the tax cuts, were the only things keeping us afloat after 9-11. I'll close before I entrust half my income to the federal government, hoping they'll do the right thing and not squander it, thanks.

This sort of debate almost makes me want to switch to an economics degree.

The total is still $118 Billion more.

The fact still remains that George H. W. Bush presided over a Total National Debt Increase of $1,456 Trillion in only 4 years,compared to Clinton's $1,609 Trillion over 8 years.

That certainly isn't chump change.
Yep. But if you look the vast majority of Clinton's spending came in his first term. (For which the most part Dems controlled congress). He spent a little less than Bush I, but not much, especially in US Budgetary terms.

Perhaps this graph will help : http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/history.gif

So, as you can see, the National Debt sharply started to decrease the size of its increases after 1994 - until 2001.

Of course that graph is flawed. It shows it in terms of a dollars worth in those days - lets take a look at the inflation adjusted (1990) graph :

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/inflation.gif
- Admittedly out of date but it was the latest one I could find. Basically you can still reach the same conclusion with this, as the latter years would likely be extremely simliar (if even a small dip until 2002).

So besides inflation making absolute statistics hard to compare over the span of 20 years, growth makes it hard too. Spending over 500 billion in 1938 would have been unthinkable. But, because the GDP gets higher and higher, its not unthinkable. The best way to look at it is to see average defecit spending as a percentage of the GDP, not in absolute numbers.

What have they been spending the money on?

It would appear that the Republicans have not been fiscally responsible over the past 4 years?
Education, the Iraq/Military projects, in fact - anything that reaches the table of George W. Bush. Republicans haven't been fiscally responsible in the last 4 years, but since the original post had the timespan of some 24 years, the answer was not to me Democrats.

The total is still $118 Billion more.

The fact still remains that George H. W. Bush presided over a Total National Debt Increase of $1,456 Trillion in only 4 years,compared to Clinton's $1,609 Trillion over 8 years.

That certainly isn't chump change.
Yep. But if you look the vast majority of Clinton's spending came in his first term. (For which the most part Dems controlled congress). He spent a little less than Bush I, but not much, especially in US Budgetary terms.

Perhaps this graph will help : http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/history.gif

So, as you can see, the National Debt sharply started to decrease the size of its increases after 1994 - until 2001.

Of course that graph is flawed. It shows it in terms of a dollars worth in those days - lets take a look at the inflation adjusted (1990) graph :
Yes the graph is flawed, in that it doesn't show that the debt has soared above the $7 Trillion mark (during the past few years). If that spike was on there, it might be a better indication of how the Bush administration and the Republican Congress have gone on an unprecedented spending spree.

You seem very reluctant to give any credit to the Clinton adminstration, even though the National Debt increased on average only $201 Billion per year, for his 8 years in office.

This compares to:

Regean's average of $209 Billion per year, for his 8 years in office.

George H. W. Bush's average of $365 Billion per year, for his 4 years in office.

George W. Bush's average of $416 Billion per year, for his 3.5 years in office.

What have they been spending the money on?

It would appear that the Republicans have not been fiscally responsible over the past 4 years?

Education, the Iraq/Military projects, in fact - anything that reaches the table of George W. Bush. Republicans haven't been fiscally responsible in the last 4 years, but since the original post had the timespan of some 24 years, the answer was not to me Democrats.
Have you considered the possibility of the US going bankrupt if spending continues at this pace and/or if the US becomes involved in further armed conflicts?

I came across this interesting article that suggests such a possibility. If anything, it should at least make people more aware, and perhaps ask more questions.

http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-3-77-1463.jsp#

You seem very reluctant to give any credit to the Clinton adminstration, even though the National Debt increased on average only $201 Billion per year, for his 8 years in office.


Only $201 Billion? Gee, you make him sound so innocent. It's like saying Pol Pot wasn't as bad as Adolf Hilter because he only murdered 2 million people. Any government debt is unforgiveable. It's worse than taxation since it devalues everybody's purchasing power.

Like I've said before, America wouldn't be in this mess if it didn't allow the formation of the Federal Reserve and the abolition of the Gold Standard. Since it was abolished in the 1930's, inflation has increased at a rate unseen in recorded American economic history. Price levels have increased by over 900% since the end of World War 2. All nations which abolished the Gold Standard have seen similar increases. Hadn't the Bretton Woods system been introduced in the 1940's (which was abolished by Nixon in the 1970's) then inflation would have increased even more. Despite the Federal Reserve being headed by Alan Greenspan (who was once a strong supporter of the Gold Standard and outlined it's importance in an article called "Gold and Economic Freedom" for Ayn Rand's "Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal") inflation has continued to increase. In recent years, Greenspan has kept interest rates at dangerously low levels in response to the recession, which ironically was caused by Greenspans keeping interest rates low for a longer period than they should have been.

The only solution for America, or any nation for that matter, to curb inflation is to abolish the Federal Reserve, reinstate the Gold Standard and accept the fact that if you want the government to provide you with services then you're going to have to pay for them via taxation. I fear that if this is not done soon then I believe we will soon know what it is like to have stockmarkets crash by more than 50% in a single day, unemployment in excess of 30% and hauling near worthless notes in wheelbarrows to buy a loaf of bread.

You seem very reluctant to give any credit to the Clinton adminstration, even though the National Debt increased on average only $201 Billion per year, for his 8 years in office.
I'm not giving him credit because he was on track to spend much more until the Repubs came in essentially stopped deficit growth - look at the graph.

Have you considered the possibility of the US going bankrupt if spending continues at this pace and/or if the US becomes involved in further armed conflicts?
The chances are small, many Western countries have over 100% of their GDP in debt and aren't bankrupt. At worst, higher taxes would occur.

The last "Fiscally Responsible" administration was Gerald "I can't find my pen so I'll just Veto it" Ford. The backbiting between dems and gop is kind of ridiculous-neither party has any right to claim "Fiscal Responsibility" as their sole property.
Stephistan, I too remember the '80s-all too well. I also remember who controls the purse strings.

america is going to declar bancrupcy in a couple of years i think!
how will they ever get out of thet debt?

bush: i need several hundres billions for my war in iraq.
capitol hill: okay you can have it dear mr. president, but we don't have any tax income left to spent
bush: well i don't care as long as my shares are profiting from it so we'll let the gouvernment go in dept. when i'm retired i've got enough money to buy a nice home in zwitserland! so it's not a problem !


........bad idea isn't it??

87 Billion is not several hundres billions, my friend. http://www.languish.org/forums/html/emoticons/vertag.gif

87 Billion is not several hundres billions, my friend. http://www.languish.org/forums/html/emoticons/vertag.gif$87 Billion was only one installment on the bill. The current total is somewhere around $200 Billion and there is no current appropriation for this year--the money will run out sometime around September and Congress will have to pass another supplemental appropriation then, so we could very well find ourselves in the realm of several hundred billion before this is all over.

And with the way Iraq is descending into hell right now, I'd say that's more likely than not.

87 Billion is not several hundres billions, my friend. http://www.languish.org/forums/html/emoticons/vertag.gif$87 Billion was only one installment on the bill. The current total is somewhere around $200 Billion and there is no current appropriation for this year--the money will run out sometime around September and Congress will have to pass another supplemental appropriation then, so we could very well find ourselves in the realm of several hundred billion before this is all over.

And with the way Iraq is descending into hell right now, I'd say that's more likely than not.
Then of course when Bush gets re-elected, he pulls his list (terrorist nations) out of his back pocket and yells charge....umm sorry, I meant attack. I hope he keeps a couple of bucks back for Homeland Security.

Libertarians, naturally
the cheap bastards don't spend any of the money, which means they still have it at the end of the year.
Note: To Raysia saying that "Republicans cut spending"-BS...why do you think we become Libertarian- and that "the Republicans always happen to be in a war." (Oh right, that's why.) Convenient, isn't it?

Since the Bush Team is asking for more money and more troops for Iraq, I thought to update this thread.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-4006141,00.html

"Some lawmakers complained the Bush administration consistently has denied them information about Iraq over past 18 months.

Because of increased costs, Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said he plans to add $20 billion for the current budget year to the 2005 defense bill now being considered.

Several lawmakers complained anew that the administration's 2005 budget request for the Defense Department was sent to them with no money in it for Afghanistan or Iraq.

Administration officials have acknowledged they will need $50 billion for those wars. But the officials said they would not ask for it until after January - and after the presidential election in November.'

Bush playing hide and seek?

More interesting info:

http://www.rense.com/1.imagesF/2bss.gif

Keep in mind, that this chart was dated Dec. 31, 2002, so the picture is actually much worse today.

Can the US afford another 4 years of conservative financing by Republicans?

It seems many Republicans themselves, including Cheney, are getting upset at this fiscal madness. It goes against the traditions of the party.

Its basically no one's fault. Raising taxes, even by a few dollars is political suicide. No party would really support it unless it could somehow be disguised. Basically we are paying similar amounts of taxes, for the old programs and the new ones added. The only way to cut the deficit is for one of the parties to sacrifice its life and cut the valuable programs and increase taxes. The party will be gone, but then we would have a balanced budget.

It seems many Republicans themselves, including Cheney, are getting upset at this fiscal madness. It goes against the traditions of the party.
By the looks of the attached chart, it appears that the Republicans are always going against their "tradition"? It is unfortunate that it doesn't show the last 4 years of the Clinton administration (more decline), and the first 3.5 years of the George W. Bush administration, which is spending more than poppa Bush.

http://www.lafn.org/politics/gvdc/Natl_Debts_Chart.GIF

It appears that Republican and fiscal reponsibility do NOT go hand in hand.

I wonder why it goes

Republican President
+ Republican Majority in the US Senate
= Biggest debt increases in the History of our Planet

but it dosen't go,

Democratic President
+ Republican majority in Congress
= Curbing of Spending, while

Democratic President's Healthcare Proposal = Biggest in the history of the USA.

Also interesting to note that it says Republican majority in the Senate but not Democratic Majority in Congress. Fact of the matter is, Congress is what approves of it, not the Senate alone. A majority in the senate is usually too small to impact Congress itself, because the number of Representatives is much larger than the number of Senators, and the gap usually bigger.

I wonder why it goes

Republican President
+ Republican Majority in the US Senate
= Biggest debt increases in the History of our Planet

but it dosen't go,

Democratic President
+ Republican majority in Congress
= Curbing of Spending, while

Democratic President's Healthcare Proposal = Biggest in the history of the USA.

Also interesting to note that it says Republican majority in the Senate but not Democratic Majority in Congress. Fact of the matter is, Congress is what approves of it, not the Senate alone. A majority in the senate is usually too small to impact Congress itself, because the number of Representatives is much larger than the number of Senators, and the gap usually bigger.
Twist the logic whichever way you choose, the facts remain obvious.

Right now, and for the past 3.5 years with George W. Bush as President, and a Republican majority in both the Senate and Congress, the DEBT is skyrocketing:

Current US Debt: $7,141,673,039,292.53 (04/21/2004)
US Debt when Bush elected: $5,674,178,209,886.86 (09/29/2000)

Total Debt Increase (Bush): $1,467,494,829,405.67 in only 3.5 years!!

Factor in the juicy tax cuts for the richest Americans and new money for the War in Iraq and the Debt will soar much higher.

Yep, I think I even stated earlier in this thread that neither Democrat-Democrat nor Republican-Republican Presidential/Congress combos have good spending.

What is bad, though, is to pin Clinton's deficit cutting on Clinton himself or Reagan's big deficits on Reagan himself.

Yep, I think I even stated earlier in this thread that neither Democrat-Democrat nor Republican-Republican Presidential/Congress combos have good spending.

What is bad, though, is to pin Clinton's deficit cutting on Clinton himself or Reagan's big deficits on Reagan himself.
Reagan gave us "Reaganomics", the old trickle down theory that was a disaster. Interest rates in the early 80's were upwards of 20%. People were walking away from their houses because they couldn't afford the mortgages. To boot, the Stock Market crashed in 1987.

Bush is trying to do the same thing, except the US is in far worse shape financially then when Reagan tried it.

TAX Cut = less government revenues = more money borrowed to cover expenditures over income = higher debt + interest on higher debt

That is a recipe for disaster, especially if new monies are required for rebuilding Iraq, armed forces for Iraq, increased Homeland Security, and any NEW armed conflict that may arise.

I believe the more widely accepted equation goes somethings like this :

Tax cut = More efficient spending (private sector) = Economic Growth = More revenue in the end for the government.

Interest is also near an all-time low right now, IIRC.

The stock market "crash" is akin to the slowdown at the tail end of Clinton's and into Bush Jr's term, after a long period (5 years in the case of Reagan) of a bull-market, the stocks inevitably slowdown. Its simple macroeconomic cycle. Country's can't continue at large rates of growth forever.

I believe the more widely accepted equation goes somethings like this :

Tax cut = More efficient spending (private sector) = Economic Growth = More revenue in the end for the government.

Interest is also near an all-time low right now, IIRC.

The stock market "crash" is akin to the slowdown at the tail end of Clinton's and into Bush Jr's term, after a long period (5 years in the case of Reagan) of a bull-market, the stocks inevitably slowdown. Its simple macroeconomic cycle. Country's can't continue at large rates of growth forever.
Unfortunately, the Republican equation is not working out too well, as the Debt continues its' delirious assent to the stratosphere. Revenues are lagging income more and more. When interest rates start to rise and consumer confidence erodes, and only part time, low paying jobs are being created, you are in for a huge hangover.

The administrations that are most fiscally responsible are those with one party in the executive branch, and one in the legislative branch. That way, they keep spending down.

Are these the kind of "increased government revenues" that you alluded to?

http://www.globalpolicy.org/images/graphs/socecon/deficit.gif

Next years chart is going to be even worse.

The administrations that are most fiscally responsible are those with one party in the executive branch, and one in the legislative branch. That way, they keep spending down.
Oh you mean the old "checks and balances" scheme?

Right now it is the cheques and no balance scheme?

The administrations that are most fiscally responsible are those with one party in the executive branch, and one in the legislative branch. That way, they keep spending down.
Oh you mean the old "checks and balances" scheme?

Right now it is the cheques and no balance scheme?

Checks and balances is to ensure that no branch of government gets too powerful. I don't see what you mean.

The administrations that are most fiscally responsible are those with one party in the executive branch, and one in the legislative branch. That way, they keep spending down.
Oh you mean the old "checks and balances" scheme?

Right now it is the cheques and no balance scheme?

Checks and balances is to ensure that no branch of government gets too powerful. I don't see what you mean.
I was trying to be funny. I guess I failed. I alluded to the fact that the current administration is writing lots of cheques with no balance in the account to pay for them.

The administrations that are most fiscally responsible are those with one party in the executive branch, and one in the legislative branch. That way, they keep spending down.
Oh you mean the old "checks and balances" scheme?

Right now it is the cheques and no balance scheme?

Checks and balances is to ensure that no branch of government gets too powerful. I don't see what you mean.
I was trying to be funny. I guess I failed. I alluded to the fact that the current administration is writing lots of cheques with no balance in the account to pay for them.

I thought that, but I wasn't exactly sure. I thought maybe you just like to spell "checks" a different way.

Don't forget that all spending bills are proposed by Congress and passed on to the President at the final step. So the Republican Congress kept the defecit down in the 90s, but has now gone spend-crazy.

Capitalism is facing its most ominous crisis since the 1930’s. The tech-boom of the 1990s brought a sense of euphoria to the US propertied elites, who believed that the US had moved into a “new economy” immune from classic economic cycles. Companies embarked on wild investment programs, brazen insider trading schemes, and accounting cover-ups to portray unrealistically high profits. After Enron, WorldCom, and many other large corporations crashed in high-profile lawsuits and bankruptcies, the stock markets plunged and the triumphant US economy suddenly looked very shaky.

Some economic analysts, including the IMF, predict that the long-standing US trade deficit, worsened by the burst of the market bubble, may require a severe “adjustment” resulting in deflation and a weak dollar. After a decade of global currency crises, broad economic distress, and wrenching neoliberal reorganization, the US crisis as well as that of ailing Japan may spell deeper international instability in the period ahead.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/crisis/index.htm

One person on this forum, who started a thread, insisted that the number 1 reason that he/she was voting for Bush, was for the promised tax cuts. If or when the "bubble" bursts, the recipient of the tax cut is very unlikely to derive any significant benefit from that tax cut, unless of course that person is very wealthy.

Are these the kind of "increased government revenues" that you alluded to?

http://www.globalpolicy.org/images/graphs/socecon/deficit.gif

Next years chart is going to be even worse.
What is that graph exactly of?

Unfortunately, the Republican equation is not working out too well, as the Debt continues its' delirious assent to the stratosphere. Revenues are lagging income more and more. When interest rates start to rise and consumer confidence erodes, and only part time, low paying jobs are being created, you are in for a huge hangover.
In for a hangover? Plenty of countries have larger debts are a percentage of our GDP than we do. And, as the world's more powerful country, we are in the best position out of any to be a huge debtor.

One person on this forum, who started a thread, insisted that the number 1 reason that he/she was voting for Bush, was for the promised tax cuts. If or when the "bubble" bursts, the recipient of the tax cut is very unlikely to derive any significant benefit from that tax cut, unless of course that person is very wealthy.
The dollar has already become siginifcantly weaker than it was 4 years ago, no deflation has occured, either.

Are these the kind of "increased government revenues" that you alluded to?

http://www.globalpolicy.org/images/graphs/socecon/deficit.gif

Next years chart is going to be even worse.
What is that graph exactly of?
US Government Budget Surplus / Deficit 1972 - 2002

Over 99% of the 1999 surplus was off-budget, which means that it was tied up in Social Security and Medicare and untouchable anyway.

Over 99% of the 1999 surplus was off-budget, which means that it was tied up in Social Security and Medicare and untouchable anyway.
Better that it is tied up in Social Security and Medicare than in smart bombs. Investing in the people of ones country is the most important part of nation building.

Over 99% of the 1999 surplus was off-budget, which means that it was tied up in Social Security and Medicare and untouchable anyway.
Better that it is tied up in Social Security and Medicare than in smart bombs. Investing in the people of ones country is the most important part of nation building.

I'm just saying that everyone praises Clinton for a 125 billion dollar surplus, when 124 of those billion were locked away in a trust fund that is strictly an expenditure program.

There would probably still be a big SS surplus if the economy was still doing well, because SS revenues are about 6.2% of an employee's paycheck. The biggest problem is that we have a pay-as-you-go system, which means that the current generation is paying for the retired generation, and as more people retire with less people to fund the system (because the baby boomers didn't have enough kids), there will be a bigger off-budget defecit.

Over 99% of the 1999 surplus was off-budget, which means that it was tied up in Social Security and Medicare and untouchable anyway.
Better that it is tied up in Social Security and Medicare than in smart bombs. Investing in the people of ones country is the most important part of nation building.

I'm just saying that everyone praises Clinton for a 125 billion dollar surplus, when 124 of those billion were locked away in a trust fund that is strictly an expenditure program.

There would probably still be a big SS surplus if the economy was still doing well, because SS revenues are about 6.2% of an employee's paycheck. The biggest problem is that we have a pay-as-you-go system, which means that the current generation is paying for the retired generation, and as more people retire with less people to fund the system (because the baby boomers didn't have enough kids), there will be a bigger off-budget defecit.
Although I did not want this thread to get wrapped up particularly with what Clinton did in office, it is good to give him credit for working with the Republicans to keep a lid on spending.

What I wanted to focus on was the irresponsible actions of the present Republican regime (President, Congress and Senate).

An ill conceived "tax cut", combined with the unnecesary (illegal) War in Iraq is putting a huge strain on the national Debt. By spending recklessly, the Republicans will seriously hamper the ability of succeeding administrations from bringing forward other worthwhile objectives. If the current administration is re-elected, they may very well bust the bubble. Bush wants to pursue his war on terrorism and continue to cut taxes, and this costs big bucks that the US just doesn't have. The US credit card is getting maxed out and that spells trouble.

If the US bubble does indeed burst, who is going to be harmed the most? Middle income groups will be devastated. The few extra bucks that this group will get as the result of a "tax cut" will pale in comparison with any sizeable economic collapse.

Over 99% of the 1999 surplus was off-budget, which means that it was tied up in Social Security and Medicare and untouchable anyway.99% is a bit of an overstatement, and more importantly, considering that the Congress raids those Social Security funds every year and manages to run a deficit more often than not, a $125 billion surplus is nothing to sneeze at. The deficits we're running this year, I believe, are around 4 times that number and we've already raided the Social Security overage.

Over 99% of the 1999 surplus was off-budget, which means that it was tied up in Social Security and Medicare and untouchable anyway.99% is a bit of an overstatement, and more importantly, considering that the Congress raids those Social Security funds every year and manages to run a deficit more often than not, a $125 billion surplus is nothing to sneeze at. The deficits we're running this year, I believe, are around 4 times that number and we've already raided the Social Security overage.
What I can't figure out is why the average person can't see what is going on with the current administration's handling of the Debt.

Over the past 3.5 years, Bush and company have spent $1,467,494,829,405.67 or $1.467 Trillion. This works out to an increased Debt of $5060.32 for EVERY man, woman and child in the US, based on a population of 290,000,000. When you tack on the interest to serve that debt it is even higher.

Now while I don't know what the average person would have received as a "tax cut" over the past 3.5 years, it is unlikely to match the increased debt per capita.

When you tack on even more proposed "tax cuts" and increased spending for the War in Iraq, plus any new adventures the Republicans may want to get involved in, it would appear that the government debt will soar even higher. This will further negate any benefit of the "tax cuts", especially if the economy suffers any significant setbacks.

Why can't the people see this and say enough is enough?

Hell, Canuck, I got hammered simply because my local city had to decrease benefits and services and raise fares on the bus and train system to make up for the losses due to the Bush tax cuts. I didn't get a tax cut last year, or the year before that, because I live at or below the poverty line most of the time. I made $500 too much this year to qualify for the Earned Income Credit, and yet saw a 10% hike in bus and train fare. Bush calls his economics "trickle down"--to me, they're "tinkle on."

Hell, Canuck, I got hammered simply because my local city had to decrease benefits and services and raise fares on the bus and train system to make up for the losses due to the Bush tax cuts. I didn't get a tax cut last year, or the year before that, because I live at or below the poverty line most of the time. I made $500 too much this year to qualify for the Earned Income Credit, and yet saw a 10% hike in bus and train fare. Bush calls his economics "trickle down"--to me, they're "tinkle on."
Yeah and I am sure there are millions more who could say the same thing.

"Tax cuts" generally are most beneficial to the very high end wage earners, which will be like found money to them anyways.

I really don't believe that the average tax payer figures this stuff out, they just say gimme gimme?

US Government Budget Surplus / Deficit 1972 - 2002
Then that has nothing to due with increasing revenues, that has to do with increasing spending.

Over the past 3.5 years, Bush and company have spent $1,467,494,829,405.67 or $1.467 Trillion. This works out to an increased Debt of $5060.32 for EVERY man, woman and child in the US, based on a population of 290,000,000. When you tack on the interest to serve that debt it is even higher.
Of course, the people that get taxed the most (Rich) end up buying extremely large amounts of bonds (what finance the debt) so in the whole the loop largely ends up going Rich pay the most taxes (absolutely, not relatively), and they end up getting paid back with essentially their own money for the bonds.

I think it's painfully obvious that neither Democrats or Republicans are in any way fiscally responsible.

I think certain Dems are a little more responsible. Even tho I don't like raising taxes, when Clinton did, we ended up with a $6 Trillion surplus . . .

Over 99% of the 1999 surplus was off-budget, which means that it was tied up in Social Security and Medicare and untouchable anyway.99% is a bit of an overstatement, and more importantly, considering that the Congress raids those Social Security funds every year and manages to run a deficit more often than not, a $125 billion surplus is nothing to sneeze at. The deficits we're running this year, I believe, are around 4 times that number and we've already raided the Social Security overage.

1999
On-budget surplus= $1 billion
Off-budget surplus= $124 billion

124/125= 0.992

Congress cannot raid the SS trust. It is only revenues from payroll taxes and expenditures to retirees.

I think certain Dems are a little more responsible. Even tho I don't like raising taxes, when Clinton did, we ended up with a $6 Trillion surplus . . .
o.O

I think certain Dems are a little more responsible. Even tho I don't like raising taxes, when Clinton did, we ended up with a $6 Trillion surplus . . .

The entire national debt, made up of over 225 years' worth of deficits/surpluses is $7 trillion. We could pay that off with this magical surplus that you say happened in the 90s.

US Government Budget Surplus / Deficit 1972 - 2002
Then that has nothing to due with increasing revenues, that has to do with increasing spending.
It has everything to do with this thread. The sharp downward deficit is generated by the Republicans, which gets added on to the US Debt. Next years deficit is going to be worse.

Yeah but that graph is really just a carbon copy of ones we've seen tons of times before in this thread. If I'm not mistake it was in response to my comment that lower taxes would in the end lead to higher revenues, and of course posting a (yet another) national debt graph has nothing to do with increasing revenues.

Yeah but that graph is really just a carbon copy of ones we've seen tons of times before in this thread. If I'm not mistake it was in response to my comment that lower taxes would in the end lead to higher revenues, and of course posting a (yet another) national debt graph has nothing to do with increasing revenues.
You can make as many excuses as you wish for the Republicans, but the facts speak for themselves. Over the past 3.5 years, while the Republicans held TOTAL control over government spending, the US Debt has increased $1.463 Trillion.

"The US government budget deficit has grown rapidly, after swinging briefly into surplus in 2000 and 2001. The deficit reflects increased US military spending and reduced government revenue due to tax cuts. The red ink in Washington adds to the instability of the dollar, making foreign dollar-holders nervous about the future strength of the currency and the future value of dollar-denominated US assets. "

Should Kerry win the election in November, the sad part, is that his hands will be tied due to the irresponsible spending of the Republicans. Perhaps that is part of the game plan?

3.5 years is not an extremely long time. I stated both "in the long run" and "in the end" that these tax cuts would lead to higher taxes, I believe I even stated in my original post regarding supply-side economics that it would lead to temporarily lower tax revenue.

3.5 years is not an extremely long time. I stated both "in the long run" and "in the end" that these tax cuts would lead to higher taxes, I believe I even stated in my original post regarding supply-side economics that it would lead to temporarily lower tax revenue.
3.5 years is long enough to put the economy in the dumpster. Did you know that the Bush administration is the first in over 70 years with a decline in private sector jobs?

Who was the last President (also a Republican) that had that dubious honour? None other than Herbert Hoover and we know what happened while he was in office. The stock market crashed.

The 5 most successful Presidents to achieve private sector job increases in the past 70 years? Hmmm ALL Democrats.

F.D. Roosevelt (annual growth rate 4.8%)
Lyndon Johnson (annual growth rate 3.6%)
Jimmy Carter (annual growth rate 3.3%)
Harry Truman (annual growth rate 2.7%)
Bill Clinton (annual growth rate 2.6%)

The 4 least successful Presidents to achieve private sector job increases in the past 70 years? Hmmm ALL Republicans:

George W. Bush (annual growth rate -0.7%)
George H. W. Bush (annual growth rate 0.4%)

Hmmm 2 Bushes in a row.

Dwight Eisenhower (annual growth rate 0.5%)
Gerald Ford (annual growth rate 0.9%)

Why would Americans have continued confidence in George W. Bush, and/or the Republican party?

The only debt I worry about is MY OWN! :roll:

The only debt I worry about is MY OWN! :roll:
So you are unconcerned with the performance of the US economy as long as you are ok?

Link?

Link?
Actually there is all kinds of interesting data there. It truly is shocking how the current administration gets away with this stuff:

http://jec.senate.gov/democrats/charts/ber_allcharts.pdf

Check out what the average household will get as a tax cut compared to the wealthiest segment of US society. It is mind boggling.

The problem--and both Democrats and Republicans are equally guilty of this--is that we allow our politicians of all stripes to get away with using euphemisms instead of hard data. Here's some examples.

Whenever you hear the word "average" in economic terms, especially as regards taxes or income, call bullshit. Average is a horrible word to use in those instances because the average can so easily be skewed by an overly high or low inclusion into the set.

Whenever you hear someone talking about "working families" in terms of income or taxes, call bullshit. Demand income levels instead, because a working family can be anything from a single mother working a minimum wage job to two professionals making six-figure incomes each.

"Middle class" is another bullshit word. Depending on who's using it and for what purpose, the middle class can be people making anywhere from $30,000 to $200,000 a year or any subset in between.

And that's just three examples. Our politicians get away with this because we let them. If we were to demand a breakdown from the Bush White House by income division as to who was going to receive tax cuts and how much, they never would have passed in a thousand years. Instead, he said "average of a thousand dollars, middle class tax relief" and our media let him get away with it and most of us got screwed.

Demand more from your politicians.

Link?
Actually there is all kinds of interesting data there. It truly is shocking how the current administration gets away with this stuff:

http://jec.senate.gov/democrats/charts/ber_allcharts.pdf

Check out what the average household will get as a tax cut compared to the wealthiest segment of US society. It is mind boggling.

My adobe isn't working right now. I'll get back to you on this after I get it fixed, which should be rather quickly.

Formal Dances wanted to discuss the US Debt so I am bringing this topic forward. Your dime Formal Dances.