is that Obama still reducing the nations debt?

[AlexVega]

lets talk about that

 

[JackLuis]

lets talk about that

You first.

 

[Hard_Rom]

lets talk about that

.....

No.

 

[CeriseBuss]

I'm Confused

How can you say the President has reduced national debt?

To put any politics aside, I went to the government's own website to get the numbers. (Actually, if anything, this favors the President, as it is his Treasury Department that currently controls the website.)

According to the Obama Administration's own Treasury Department, the national debt was about $11 trillion when President Obama took office. It has gone up every year since then and is now well over $18 trillion.

The current budget also runs a deficit.

How does adding over $7 trillion to the debt equate to "reducing" it?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Its unfortunate. Everyone sees it. Everyone knows about it. No one (not Dems or Republicans) are talking about deficit reduction or debt reduction.

Can't reduce debt....the rich have all the money, no one else can cover those bills not even if they had 100,000 fuckin' years, but we just won't tax them because that's socialism.

Till we get past that or burn the house down the beatings will continue until morale improves.

 

[Sean Renaud]

National Debt just went over 19 Trillion and will likely be over 20 Trillion before the next president takes office.

Of course, that's only obligations we've incurred to date. It doesn't count future obligations. We're also benefiting from artificially low interest rates. Once those normalize, say around 3% to 4%, our deficit will increase significantly just because our interest payments go up.

Its unfortunate. Everyone sees it. Everyone knows about it. No one (not Dems or Republicans) are talking about deficit reduction or debt reduction.

Obama isn't talking about deficit reduction, he's done it. Probably shouldn't have given the circumstances but hey it is what it is.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Obama isn't talking about deficit reduction, he's done it. Probably shouldn't have given the circumstances but hey it is what it is.

Reducing the deficit doesn't help much. The debt, which is what counts, still increases, although by not as much as in previous years. The thing to do is to eliminate the deficit and start running a surplus. If pols have the belly for it, this would reduce the debt.

I remember how, late in Clinton's administration, there was talk of a surplus and people were speculating on the way to use it. This resulted from the GOP contract with America and from the dot-com boom. The latter collapsed, though, and the nation went into a recession in 2000, which was Clinton's last year in office.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Reducing the deficit doesn't help much. The debt, which is what counts, still increases, although by not as much as in previous years. The thing to do is to eliminate the deficit and start running a surplus. If pols have the belly for it, this would reduce the debt.

I remember how, late in Clinton's administration, there was talk of a surplus and people were speculating on the way to use it. This resulted from the GOP contract with America and from the dot-com boom. The latter collapsed, though, and the nation went into a recession in 2000, which was Clinton's last year in office.

Not that I think the debt is nearly as important as we're sold on it being but at the moment someone stated that nobody talks about reducing the deficit. Unless he literally meant that Obama doesn't talk about it much that statement was false.

I remember reading about how they might eliminate the debt and then realizing that the way our economy is built they had no clue what what would happen economically if there was no debt.

 

[AlexVega]

Not that I think the debt is nearly as important as we're sold on it being but at the moment someone stated that nobody talks about reducing the deficit. Unless he literally meant that Obama doesn't talk about it much that statement was false.

I remember reading about how they might eliminate the debt and then realizing that the way our economy is built they had no clue what what would happen economically if there was no debt.

all debt has to be paid

 

[Sean Renaud]

all debt has to be paid

Not really it doesn't.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Unfortunately, a wide swath of this country is salivating over more free stuff (endless wars with no point to them and military shit we don't need and can't even use or sell so Republicans have a welfare check, dont' forget the full militarization of our police force and the ever present war on drugs they just can't let go of.).

Fixed your post.

 

[BotanyBoy]

You haven't fixed anything. In typical fashion, you've opted for Ad Hominem attacks...which are always a logically weak approach.

It's not, it's simply pointing out that it isn't just liburhulz and evil socialism!

You simply can't blame wastefully and corruptly taking care of your people any more than you can wastefully and corruptly 'defending', policing, incarcerating, polluting and poisoning them.

Unless you're a partisan hack and a total establishment Rethuglican who watches too much FOX and listens to too much Mark Levin. Then that's practically your job.

 

[Tigersman]

Reason for the national debt and the deficit

Can be easily laid where it belongs, on Congress. With all their wasteful spending bills, pork barrel spending, plus adding new dole outs to existing programs, it's little wonder our nation has not gone into bankruptcy. Add to this all the foreign aid and you constantly will have a budget deficit and a ever growing national debt.

Back in the 80s or 90s it was published that to keep just one senator in office for one year cost over a million dollars. At that time we had 565 elected members to Congress costing our country 565 million plus to keep all of them in Congress. The solution is easy. Fire them all without benefits and find one man to run the country at the present level of pay that our Presudent receives.

 

[MrBates2]

How can you say the President has reduced national debt?

He doesn't play as much golf.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I've done none of those things.

Liar.

Unless the US slows/restricts/reduces our spending...we'll continue to run deficits and the debt will increase. Unfortunately, a wide swath of this country is salivating over more free stuff (college, healthcare, cradle-to-grave entitlements).

This is you blaming all them evil liburhul entitlements while failing to mention any of the 'conservatives' favorite welfare programs.....(50 billion dollar subs we don't need and can't man, JSF, Endless war with no goal in the middle east, war on drugs, militarization of our police, private prison industry, Big Ag/monsanto)

Yeaaa the TRILLIONS spent on all that shit doesn't hurt does it? It's all that evil liburhul education, health care and 'cradle-to-grave' entitlements right?

Maybe it's our complete inability to get the people with the money to pay the bills because they own the government and simply say no with huge republican support??

NAWWW that' couldn't play into it AT ALL!!! It's god damn evil educations fault!! Right?

What the fuck are these 'cradle-to-grave' entitlements you speak of anyhow? Can you point one out or is that just some good sounding bullshit you were sold on so you thought you would regurgitate it?

Quit evading the issue.

You first hack.

You plagiarized my post, added your own insults, and created precisely nothing. Congratulations.

Either add something to the discussion, besides insults, or go buzz somewhere else. If you don't understand the subject...don't post.

Very well....

Unless the US slows/restricts/reduces our spending...we'll continue to run deficits and the debt will increase. Unfortunately, a wide swath of this country is salivating over more free stuff (college, healthcare, cradle-to-grave entitlements).

^^ you're full of shit.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Unfortunately, a wide swath of this country is salivating over more free stuff (college, healthcare, cradle-to-grave entitlements).



This is also factually correct.

Only because you now define cradle-to-grave entitlements, and only in the vaguest of ways.

Right up until then you were making shit up.

Cradle to Grave: A-10 aircraft, ethanol subsidies, pork-barrel spending projects, Medicare drug benefit, etc.

How are these cradle to Grave? The A-10 is arguably the greatest air to surface/close air support vehicle ever built...it's so fucking bad ass and ahead of it's time it's still king shit of it's role to this very day. Hardly an entitlement, it's arguably some of the best dollars ever to come out of the defense budget right next to bullets and beans.

Pork-barrel spending projects are just generic welfare...there is nothing cradle to grave about really any of that. It's just point blank scamming and you only get that shit as long as your bobbing senator/representative knob. As soon as you stop so do your projects.

Medicare? Ok in the case of some people who are born sick maybe you're right.

Hardly think they are breaking the US bank though. Most of that Medicare cost is a bunch of old folks who run their mouths about personal responsibility incessantly but have none themselves turning to that big evil gubbmint they hate so much and saying "oh please gubbmint gimme some pills!"

Ethanol subsidies aren't very cradle to grave either....they are more uber multinational corporation welfare. It's like whole other level bullshit welfare.


Still don't really know what the fuck you mean by cradle to grave but I kinda have an idea.....whatever the fuck you pull out of your ass at any given time.

YOU chose to assume I was speaking about only entitlement programs supported by democrats.

You chose to only list programs supported by democrats....

If you had any self-respect, class, or modicum of maturity you'd apologize. If that's beyond you, how about you stop posting.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/cd/50/60/cd5060bdac1d4eab166c0f31f600e1e3.gif

I mean that sincerely.

WOOOOOOOOOO~~~!!!!!

https://media.giphy.com/media/HokF0Le0wiopy/giphy.gif

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/7b/f2/66/7bf266e042b680863820fc0aa4bc7b8d.gif

 

[phrodeau]

Which Republican candidate is promising to reduce the national debt?

Oh right, none of them. Too many investors would lose their usury.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Every Republican candidate has been asked how they'll reduce the debt. Chris Christie was just asked last night. It's an ugly fact and no amount of gift or insults will change it.

We're 19 trillion in debt. We can point fingers all day long about how we got here, but it's not going to change unless we adjust out spending.

We could adjust our taxes just as easily.

 

[Sean Renaud]

We could...and if the additional revenue went towards our deficit and debt...I'd support it. The financial services tax..on transactions, makes a lot of sense to me.

What we've seen in the past though is that additional tax revenue goes right into spending. It was only during the Clinton administration, when the rate of growth in government spending was restricted, that we saw surpluses. There was a lot more going on then (stock market, previous tax increase, etc) that contributed to the surplus, but holding government spending increases to 4% or below made a huge difference.

But prior to Reagan lowering taxes the debt had been shrinking since WWII. So first aside from it's politically impossible, what mechanical reason is there not to emulate the early Reagan admin or any of the ones between FDR and him for that matter?

 

[BotanyBoy]

And seriously...why are you still here?

Because I want to be.

You don't write. You obviously don't read.

Oh well lookie here Cpt.LiarN'Fullashit is back.

How many times have the moderators had to warn you about your posts?

Ummmmm NEVER.

Most of what you post is just to inflame the subject.

I'm not saying you're a troll. I'm just saying you live under a bridge and yell at passersby.

If that's what you want to call it fine.....your bias is still glaring at a near comical level.

Twitter, dude. You don't have to spell anything correctly. You can post all the gifs you want and there are a lot of people who'll think your intelligent.
You will fit right in.....

Don't do twitter.

I don't really care if you or anyone else thinks I'm intelligent. I come here to turn my filter off and dump knee jerk style, because it feels good.

Sometimes I engage in the freak legitimately civilized, rationally thought out discussion on a topic.

And other times I just like to point out what a partisan twat someone is just to watch them get all kinds of sand in their coochie over it.

 

[JackLuis]

The President has little to do with the National Debt. That is mostly controlled by the House of Representatives. They originate the budgets and allocate funds according to the instructions of their overlords... errr, constituents.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Never Been Warned.....Interesting...

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=95450

I know..I know...you're going to indignantly claim the moderator got it wrong. Whatever.

Not really....I just don't post peoples personal info nor do I talk about kiddy fucking so that preeeeeeetty much covers the not being warned bit. It's not a very hard situation to avoid.

It's obvious you'll post anything and everything, just to get a response. You've already admitted you do it because "It Feels Good" in your words. Congrats. You're a whole lot cooler online.

It's not just to get any response it's to get the response I want.

Your posts are obviously designed to inflame and start arguments rather than discussions.

Like you give 2 squirts of rat shit about discussions LOL

I don't come to this board to get into personal conflicts, so I'm done with you, but I think the sound your hearing is people blocking you on this site.

Peace.

OHHH NOEZ!!! JAYCUCK AND THE PLAYGROUNDAZ IS GONNA BLOCK ME CUZ I'M A DICK!!

LOL get fucked.