Reply With Quote
who was the last president to reduce the debt?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/26/cbos-2020-vision-debt-will-rise-to-90-of-gdp/
President Obama's fiscal 2011 budget will generate nearly $10 trillion in ulative budget deficits over the next 10 years, $1.2 trillion more than the administration projected, and raise the federal debt to 90 percent of the nation's economic output by 2020, the Congressional Budget Office reported Thursday.The federal public debt, which was $6.3 trillion ($56,000 per household) when Mr. Obama entered office amid an economic crisis, totals $8.2 trillion ($72,000 per household) today, and it's headed toward $20.3 trillion (more than $170,000 per household) in 2020, according to CBO's deficit estimates.
who was the last president to reduce the debt?
how many times did that president veto debt lowing bills?
Wasn't it Clinton?
How often did Reagan? or Bush?
Clinton didn't reduce the debt.
The op is just talking about public debt. Gross debt is already at 88% gdp.
I actually thought he did. I thought the national debt went down during Clinton's last two years.
What all is included in your definition of 'gross debt'? Is that what includes allhousehold debt, etc.?
No that's US Total debt which is like 5 times GDP (55-60 trillion). Gross debt is public debt plus intra governmental debt (money the gov owes itself). So Clinton raided the trust of social security and other agencies and spent that money instead of "borrowing" from the public by selling securities. That way the public debt went down while the gross debt continued to climb. Slick Willy put a greeat spin on it by claiming "surpluses".
Here's a good article on it...
http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16
It was an issue under Bush but now it doesn't matter right. My guess is when we get to 120-130% of GDP you will be saying "Oh Noes!" regardless of which party is in power.
I read that a long time ago( the subject, not the link). Isn't most of that considered never able to pay back so they just don't even include it?
Nixon.
No, that was a paperwork trick.
From the article...
Are intragovernmental holdings really debt?
Yes, intragovernmental debt is every bit as real as the public debt. It's not "a wash" simply because the government owes the money to "itself."
As I explained in a previous article, Social Security is legally required to use all its surpluses to buy U.S. Government securities. From Social Security's standpoint, it has a multi-trillion dollar reserve in the form of U.S. Government securities. When the Social Security system starts to falter due to insufficient contributions to pay for all the benefits of retiring baby-boomers, probably around 2017, it will start cashing those securities and will expect the U.S. Government to pay it back, with interest. The problem is, the government doesn't have the money. The money has already been spent--in part, effectively, to pay down the public debt under Clinton.
Update 3/31/2009: The Social Security "surplus"--which has been borrowed by the Federal Government every year, including under Clinton to generate the "surplus"--is now expected to evaporate within a year (2009 or 2010) rather than the 2017 mentioned above. The following quote also provides additional evidence that the "surplus" was indeed borrowed from Social Security "for decades."
With unemployment rising, the payroll tax revenue that finances Social Security benefits for nearly 51 million retirees and other recipients is falling, according to a report from the Congressional Budget Office. As a result, the trust fund's annual surplus is forecast to all but vanish next year -- nearly a decade ahead of schedule -- and deprive the government of billions of dollars it had been counting on to help balance the nation's books....
The Treasury Department has for decades borrowed money from the Social Security trust fund to finance government operations. If it is no longer able to do so, it could be forced to borrow an additional $700 billion over the next decade from China, Japan and other investors. And at some point, perhaps as early as 2017, according to the CBO, the Treasury would have to start repaying the billions it has borrowed from the trust fund over the past 25 years, driving the nation further into debt or forcing Congress to raise taxes.
The Federal Government cannot just wave a magic wand and somehow "write off" the intragovernmental debt. Essentially, citizens invested money in Social Security and Social Security invested that money in the Federal Government. Now Social Security effectively owes you money (in the form of future retirement benefits) and won't be able to pay you that money if the Federal Government just cancels the intragovernmental debt. The only way the Federal Government can "write off" intragovernmental debt is if it simultaneously eliminates the Social Security system. That might very well be a good idea, but it isn't likely. And Social Security will start running out of money in about 2017 if the Federal Government doesn't honor those intragovernmental holdings as real debt.
In short, if the government doesn't pay back intragovernmental holdings, other government agencies (like Social Security) will fail. Since allowing Social Security to fail is not a politically viable option, the debt represented by intragovernmental holdings is just as real as the public debt. It can't just be eliminated by some fancy accounting trick or political maneuvering. If it were possible, believe me, politicians would have done it already and taken credit for reducing the national debt by trillions of dollars.
More like he just kicked the can down the road a bit.
Besides a very small percentage of really dumb mother ers, everyone knows this is a ing joke. CBO was given what Obama needed to show whoever was dumb enough to believe that this would not add to the deficit. The dems who support this bill don't care what happens to america's finacial situation. Obama is banking on the welfare citizens to get off their lazy asses and vote for him and his dems the next few years. Won't happen. He is hoping the people who hate this bill will forget. Won't happen. Obama is the joke and he will go down in history as the worst president of all-time. Book it.
Last edited by jack sommerset; 03-26-2010 at 07:38 PM.
Well, when you make a budget that plans to spend less than the revenues received, it looks good. However, when interest and some borrowing is left out, then it's a lie. Then on top of that, as congress is in session, more money gets spent past what is in the budget.More like he just kicked the can down the road a bit.
...the sky is falling! the sky is falling!!
Where were these 'conservatives' when Dubya was running trillion dollar a year debt during an economic expansion and 'easy money' period....hypocrites...
When will you stop being an idiot?
War costs are authorized by cons ution. Being a Nanny State isn't. Just how was he suppose to reduce the welfare spending to keep from deficit spending?
"Pass this health care bill or we all we die"
And then there's people like you. So bothered by Bush's deficits, yet amazingly not worried about Obama running up deficits several times as big. Hypocrites.
Right. There's no need to worry. When was the last time too much debt got anyone in trouble?
Maybe it's not time to panic, but damn, we've got to at least acknowledge that sooner or later this is going to have to be dealt with. Something that the current administration shows no signs of taking seriously.
President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008.
President Obama would add another $1 trillion.
President Bush began a string of expensive finan cial bailouts.
President Obama is accelerating that course.
President Bush created a Medicare drug en le ment that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade.
President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new govern ment health care fund.
President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation.
President Obama would double it.
President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs.
President Obama has already in creased this spending by 20 percent.
President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers.
President Obama would continue that trend.
President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt),
President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.
UPDATE: Many Obama defenders in the comments are claiming that the numbers above do not include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. They most certainly do. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is included in the numbers above. Also, some Obama defenders are claiming the graphic above represents biased Heritage Foundation numbers. While we stand behind the numbers we put out 100%, the numbers, and the graphic itself, above are from the Washington Post. We originally left out the link to WaPo. It has now been added.
CLARIFICATION: Of course, this Washington Post graphic does not perfectly delineate budget surpluses and deficits by administration. President Bush took office in January 2001, and therefore played a lead role in crafting the FY 2002-2008 budgets. Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for the FY 2009 budget deficit that overlaps their administrations, before President Obama assumes full budgetary responsibility beginning in FY 2010. Overall, President Obama’s budget would add twice as much debt as President Bush over the same number of years.
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/...t-in-pictures/
War is not a act of aggression and occupation of a country that did not attack us, nor had any role in attacking us..
Your supposed to run deficits when your working your way out of the Bush recession, the worst in the history of the U.S. since the great depression...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
