1. Confessor wrote:
For one thing, the American government has shipped money by the shipload over to muslim countries for years. We are probably funding the so-called Arab spring. Our tax dollars are also being spent to remodel mosques in various muslim countries. The liberals can’t say no to entitlements for those who don’t work and even for non-citizens. They want to open our borders to all comers and increase spending to provide services.
We need to shut the barn door and make sure those who live here are working and paying their way and learning English (I’m tired of reading microscopic print on every can and bottle in three languages) and learning about the Constitution, American customs and laws before we accept any more new immigrants. We need to deport those who are here without permission and those who are hostile and malevolent toward our constitution and draining our economy.
NO Sharia. NO honor killings. NO misogyny. NO polygamy. NONE.
July 30, 2:45 pm | [comment link]
2. hunter27 wrote:
Why do I think that in order to reflect the whole truth, that chart would have indicated the political make-up of the House and the political make-up of the Senate year to year ?
July 30, 4:33 pm | [comment link]
3. Tomb01 wrote:
So Obama has accumulated as much debt in each of his 2 years as any other administration (aside from George W) has in 8?
And I could be wrong, but his record looks like it is going to add another 10 Trillion to the debt over the next 10 years? And the Democrats think anyone that wants a balanced budget amendment is unfit to govern?
July 30, 11:59 pm | [comment link]
4. John Wilkins wrote:
Tomb, you’re right. If Obama wants to go into two more wars and have more tax cuts, he’d have a problem. We put the wars on a credit card, and the revenues from tax cuts never materialized.
The question is, for you, how much do you want to pay for the wars and the previous tax cuts? Obama is just holding the line, arguing (wrongly) that we shouldn’t raise taxes.
One thing tax-cuts do to a culture is teach people that you can get something for nothing.
Republicans don’t really want a balanced budget. A balanced budget would be easy: raise taxes, end the wars, and raise the cap on social security.
They want to starve government and see Obama lose the election. You can’t cut taxes and balance the budget. That is, if you believe in math.
There used to be a time when Republicans believed in math.
July 31, 1:15 pm | [comment link]
5. montanan wrote:
John and Tomb01 - I disagree with both of you, as everyone is simply espousing his/her own political predispositions as it relates to the economy and to government spending.
There are a few basic questions in this:
1) What is the obligation of an individual citizen to pay for the services she/he receives from her/his government?
2) How much is that obligation?
3) Do all individual citizens have that obligation or does it vary by some criteria - some have it, some don’t.
4) Is it a flat dollar number, as the services are arguably the same for a rich person and a poor person (in fact, many would argue the poor person uses more government dollars than a rich one)?
5) If not, is it a flat percentage of income?
6) If not again, what is the appropriate percentage for different levels of income, given the large amount left over for a rich person and the small amount left over for a poor one?
7) Are corporations citizens?
8) If so, do they enjoy the same services from the government that other citizens do?
9) If not, should they pay less for those services or not?
10) Who bears responsibility for the poor and vulnerable (Christ told us they will always be with us) - government, church, the poor and vulnerable themselves or other individuals?
11) and on and on.
These are the basic questions. When fiscal or social conservatives argue for tax cuts, it is because of how they would answer these questions. When fiscal or social liberals argue for more spending, it is because of how they would answer these questions.
Tomb01 - I don’t know why one would exempt W from the equation you mentioned - he was a president and the debt did increase under his pen - unless you want to say, “Well, he wasn’t really one of us” - in which case, the liberals might say (and are, currently) the same about the current President.
July 31, 2:17 pm | [comment link]
6. Tomb01 wrote:
W absolutely added to the debt. In fact, as far as I can tell, there has never been a government that has NOT added to the debt. What I was talking about was the dramatic INCREASE in spending that started at the end of W’s term. Prior to that, the debt increased in small amounts. So ‘do the math’? In the next 10 years we are going to add another 10 TRILLION dollars to our debt. That is if we actually have one of the ‘aggressive’ tax cut plans happen….. If we don’t it will actually be more. I completely agree that government has an obligation to keep us safe, to insure domestic peace, to provide a safety net for the truly disadvantaged. What I don’t understand is why that is costing TWICE what it did while Clinton was president (OK, so we’re spending money on ‘wars’, and that is part of it). So, do you think the interest rates are going to stay artificially low? What do you think is going to happen when interest rates go up? In June we paid $110 BILLION dollars in debt service. Almost $400 Billion this year in debt service alone… And it is only the end of July….. That money is not going to the poor, roads, Medicare, Social Security….
So, montanan (my Mother was from Great Falls, by the way), how much debt are you willing to allow the government to accrue? How much spending do you think is enough? Given that in our existing system the top levels of income earners pay most of the taxes, how much more uneven should we make it? Does ‘fair share’ mean the top earners should pay twice as much as they are now? 50% more? We are not actually talking about ‘fair share’ as the bottom half of income earners in the US pay nothing…. (OK, they do pay into Social Security and Medicare) Even if we did double the tax on the highest income earners, it would not scratch the deficit…
I’m actually leaning to Herman Cain’s concept of eliminating the current system altogether and implementing a consumption tax. That would mean that those who spend more, pay more…. Would that satisfy you for making the rich pay more?
I’m still uncertain I understand how we could have so many loopholes in our system that major corporations do not pay any taxes, but a sales tax would fix that as well….
I also find it astonishing that our government, which is demonstrably incapable of controlling spending, fights a balanced budget initiative so vehemently. Surely their constituents are not opposed to living within our means?
July 31, 6:10 pm | [comment link]
7. John Wilkins wrote:
There’s nothing wrong with having a balanced budget, but one can’t be for both cutting taxes and balancing the budget without also deciding we don’t want to pay our bills. George Bush decided to put his wars and tax cut on a big credit card. The stimulus, which was supposed to jumpstart the economy, was only half-what was needed and couldn’t offset the spending cuts that states were forced to do when their revenues dropped.
Unfortunately, we’re held hostage by the idea that tax cuts will somehow increase government revenues. If anything, by cutting government spending we ensure that there will be even fewer tax revenues down the road.
It’s totally justifiable to argue that we should live beyond our means. It’s not justified that tax cuts are the only way to get there.
August 2, 5:12 pm | [comment link]
8. John Wilkins wrote:
Actually: “Not” live beyond our means….
August 2, 5:13 pm | [comment link]
9. Tomb01 wrote:
I understand, John. Just am unclear on what we are getting in our government for the extra Trillion Dollars we are spending now that we did not spend just 5 years ago (when both wars were in full swing). Not sure I understand why we can’t simply go back to that level of spending. With our new ‘compromise deal’ we will add many Trillions of dollars to the debt in the next few years. In 2009 we paid $381 Billion in interest, in 2010 we paid $414B in interest, and the 2012 ‘estimate’ is $475 Billion. That, of course, is just interest. Fortunately, the economic downturn has let us keep that interest rate low. We will add to that in 2011, as we are borrowing $1.7 Trillion this fiscal year. What do you think is going to happen to our government when the rating agencies put our rating down, and our interest rate doubles? Do you think we are immune to that? What if our interest rate gets to even half what the Greek government is now forced to pay (we are currently paying about 3%)? We will add “ONLY” about $1.1 Trillion to the debt in 2012. If you review President Obama’s 12 year plan, No year in that 12 year projection gets the deficit below $600 Billion. Absolutely unsustainable. Given the proven inability of our government to control spending I am actually surprised the ratings organizations have not already downgraded us.
Here’s our monthly interest from the Treasury:
I’m sorry, but this is a classic example of a group of people that do not understand the first rule of holes…..
August 2, 6:36 pm | [comment link]