National debt

medicineman

New Member
I heard on NPR a program detailing the future of America under the Bush-Cheney Debt plan! How does 46 Trillion in 20 years sound? we couldn't even pay the interest on that with our GNP. We're at 8+ trillion now and growing at an alarming rate, A -8.5 trillion takeover from clinton, any views on this?
 
"A -8.5 trillion takeover from clinton, any views on this?"

Would you explain this statement please? Thanks ...

Vi
 
"A -8.5 trillion takeover from clinton, any views on this?"

Would you explain this statement please? Thanks ...

Vi
Well I'll eat crow on this, It's only -4 trillion In other words it's 4 trillion more than when Bush took office, a virtual doubling in 6 years!
[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica]The National Debt when Bush Took Office was around4.7 trillion! The Outstanding Public Debt as of 05 Nov 2006 at 12:15:15 AM GMT is:[/FONT]
debtiv.gif

[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica]The estimated population of the United States is 300,147,631[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica]so each citizen's share of this debt is $28,652.06. [/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica]The National Debt has continued to increase an average of[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica]$2.55 billion per day since September 29, 2006![/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica]Concerned? Social Security is not part of the Federal Budget general fund. It is a separate account and has its own source of income. Social Security payments do not go into the general fund, they go in the Social Security trust fund, and should NOT be counted as general revenue. The trust fund is supposed to be used to pay future benefits. But....keep reading....[/FONT]

[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica]Currently, there is more being payed into the Social Security Trust Fund than is being paid out to beneficiaries. What's left over is routinely being "borrowed" and used as if it were general budget revenue. Government agencies using that money promise to pay it back (IOUs). All of the money in the Social Security Trust Fund has been spent! That's part of the National Debt. So Social Security is just a very large tax collection tool.[/FONT]
 
Actually, Med ... the national debt is FAR greater than the 8+ trillion that you posted when all unfunded mandates are taken into account. That would include federal employee's unfunded retirement funds as well.

Do you feel if the Democrats take over the both houses the debt would come down? If so ... how?

Vi

 
Both the Dems and Repubs spend like proverbial drunken sailors! A pox on both their houses I say!
The entrenched two party system is rapidly unraveling.
 
Actually, Med ... the national debt is FAR greater than the 8+ trillion that you posted when all unfunded mandates are taken into account. That would include federal employee's unfunded retirement funds as well.

Do you feel if the Democrats take over the both houses the debt would come down? If so ... how?

Vi
I don't know if it will or not, they all like to spend money they don't have, and as you probably know, the debt includes the money stolen from and owed to social security, and unless they destroy that last safety net for the millions of people whom never made enough to save for their retirement, I'm sure that by continuing to steal from the SS fund it will get larger. First they must establish a Pay as you go taxation policy, which means you either spend less or tax more, then they must set aside a portion of the taxes to pay down the debt. Every penny that is payed down decreases the interest being wasted on this 10,000 lb. gorilla! I don't have a degree in economics, but I know if you spend more than you make you have a negative cash flow, and that it is not sustainable ad infinitum! Yes they might have to take away your tax cuts (waaaahhhhh) to get the job done, but they need to take control of run-away pork barrel and military spending as well as corporate and wealthy tax reliefs. Sorry V, but pay up sucker!!
 
Actually, Med ... the national debt is FAR greater than the 8+ trillion that you posted when all unfunded mandates are taken into account. That would include federal employee's unfunded retirement funds as well.

Do you feel if the Democrats take over the both houses the debt would come down? If so ... how?

Vi

Here is a link for you Vi.
http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/CRS-Belasco-2006-09-Iraq-Costs-RL33110.pdf

If you want to admit it or not Vi, Taxes will have to be raised in order to pay for the misadventures of this current administration. Since we as a country have stirred up a hornet’s nest the best we can do is keep the Islamic radicals at bay. There is no way short of Nuking the entire Islamic world that we can win a Global War on Terror. Were we right in going to Afghanistan? Absolutely. Afghanistan was harboring the leadership of the perpetrators of 9-11. (although there are some things about 9-11 that are fishy to say the least.)
But going into Iraq? No. Iraq really never posed a threat. At most they were a minor irritation. And yet we focus everything on a war that we have no chance of winning. Look at it this way, we haven’t won a war since WWII. Why is that? We do not have the stomach to perpetrate a bigger atrocity than the enemy.
We could have had Bin Laden, we were ordered to stand down when we had him cornered. We should have dropped MOABs on the area and been done with it.
Needless to say that the republican leadership have put more pork into bills (which were meant to protect our country) than the democrats ever thought of doing in 40 years of office. Yet these people were supposed to be conservatives.
 
"If you want to admit it or not Vi, Taxes will have to be raised in order to pay for the misadventures of this current administration."

The deficit has been cut in half because the tax cuts left more money in the hands of the private sector. As history shows, more money in the hands of producers results in more revenue for the government coffers. And you guys want to RAISE taxes?

Vi
 
"If you want to admit it or not Vi, Taxes will have to be raised in order to pay for the misadventures of this current administration."

The deficit has been cut in half because the tax cuts left more money in the hands of the private sector. As history shows, more money in the hands of producers results in more revenue for the government coffers. And you guys want to RAISE taxes Ok I get what you're saying, I just ask for a link as you always ask for. Your saying that the republicans are borrowing less by 50% than they were before, but they're still spending more than they're taking in because of your cherished tax cuts, and the"private sector" is reaping the benefits. Hey what do the workers get out of this, 5.50 an hour, because the corporations are cutting all the high paying jobs either by outsourcing or flat out moving their operations overseas. When Bush says the economy is doing better, he's right, it's better for the corporations and the wealthy. I get the feeling that you're not wealthy at all, just a wannabe! It's the wannabes that enabled the BC regime to fuck this country to tears. They ALL think they're going to be rich, well the jokes on them, because just like the poor and middle class, there's no place for wannabes in GWs America!
 
Well, I can't answer to gibberish. Can you be more succient in your questions? Thanks ...

While you're getting organized, here's some info for you:

(Washington, DC) — Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert today made the following statement regarding the news from the Bush Administration that the federal deficit has been cut in half three years ahead of schedule:

“Republicans have cut the deficit in half three years ahead of schedule because they know that tax relief fuels America’s economy. Coupled with an improving deficit picture, inflation remains low, unemployment is at historically low levels, family income is up, and gas prices at the pump fell by more than 70 cents per gallon in just a few months. We want to keep driving down the deficit with responsible fiscal policies.

“In contrast to the Republican track record of economic growth, the Democrats are promising to ‘roll back’ the Bush tax cuts should they be in the majority next year. Unfortunately 85 percent of House Democrats in 2001 and 97 percent of House Democrats in 2003 voted against popular tax cuts that have grown our economy, including the child credit, marriage penalty relief, 10 percent rate bracket, across-the-board rate reductions, small business tax relief, and capital gains and dividends relief. If Democrats were to raise taxes, it would destroy jobs and hurt the economy.”

Note: The FY2006 deficit is down to $248 billion, $71 billion less than the deficit last year and $175 billion less than estimated just nine months ago. As a share of GDP, the deficit is under 2 percent, comfortably below the 40 year historical average.

Both OMB and CBO credit the improved deficit totals to surging federal receipts. In 2006, revenues grew by 12 percent on top of a 14.5 percent increase in revenues in 2005. Republicans are responsible for promoting economic growth and investment which, in turn, has led to continued strength in the U.S. economy.

Here's another great link for you:

The Five-Step Solution: Cutting the Budget Deficit in Half by 2009 While Extending the Tax Cuts and Rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan

Vi
 
Well, I can't answer to gibberish. Can you be more succient in your questions? Thanks ...

While you're getting organized, here's some info for you:

(Washington, DC) — Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert today made the following statement regarding the news from the Bush Administration that the federal deficit has been cut in half three years ahead of schedule:

“Republicans have cut the deficit in half three years ahead of schedule because they know that tax relief fuels America’s economy. Coupled with an improving deficit picture, inflation remains low, unemployment is at historically low levels, family income is up, and gas prices at the pump fell by more than 70 cents per gallon in just a few months. We want to keep driving down the deficit with responsible fiscal policies.

“In contrast to the Republican track record of economic growth, the Democrats are promising to ‘roll back’ the Bush tax cuts should they be in the majority next year. Unfortunately 85 percent of House Democrats in 2001 and 97 percent of House Democrats in 2003 voted against popular tax cuts that have grown our economy, including the child credit, marriage penalty relief, 10 percent rate bracket, across-the-board rate reductions, small business tax relief, and capital gains and dividends relief. If Democrats were to raise taxes, it would destroy jobs and hurt the economy.”

Note: The FY2006 deficit is down to $248 billion, $71 billion less than the deficit last year and $175 billion less than estimated just nine months ago. As a share of GDP, the deficit is under 2 percent, comfortably below the 40 year historical average.

Both OMB and CBO credit the improved deficit totals to surging federal receipts. In 2006, revenues grew by 12 percent on top of a 14.5 percent increase in revenues in 2005. Republicans are responsible for promoting economic growth and investment which, in turn, has led to continued strength in the U.S. economy.

Here's another great link for you:

The Five-Step Solution: Cutting the Budget Deficit in Half by 2009 While Extending the Tax Cuts and Rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan

Vi
Well isn't that a pile of horse shit? The Republicans have made America better. Your living in fantasyland. I'm tired of debating your concrete head. I drove a concrete truck for ten years, so I know a little about concrete, and it's a goddamn cinch that your head is made out of it! I hope when the Democrats win they Roll back all the Bush tax cuts and make them retroactive to the beginning. You'd sure see some crying going on then you whimpering sniveling little bitch!
 
I couldn't say that you are more full of shit Vi, Clinton got rid of a national debt in 8 years by launching the largest tax increase in the History of the United States. The Economy boomed both in the stock market and on the street level. (meaning Jobs)
 
Dank ...

Here's a good link: Clinton's Budget: Higher Taxes and More Spending

More:

BALANCING THE BUDGET

Candidate Clinton's Promise

"I would present a five-year plan to balance the budget."
--Bill Clinton (CNN's Larry King Live, 6/4/92)

President Clinton's Broken Promise

Clinton never submitted a five-year plan to balance the budget. Indeed, Republicans had to drag him kicking and screaming to the table to agree to a seven-year plan to balance the budget.

The first budget Clinton submitted in February of this year proposed an almost 50 percent increase in federal spending between now and 2002 and projected deficits of $200 billion to $300 billion and more, as far as the eye could see (Congressional Budget Office). It went down to defeat in the Senate on a vote of 99-0. Former Sen. Paul Tsongas (D-Mass.), co-chairman of the bipartisan anti-deficit Concord Coalition, said, "The budget which came from the president said, `I've given up; that as long as I am president of the United States, there will never be a balanced budget.' That is an astonishing statement." --Sen. Paul Tsongas, press conference, 2/7/95

In March, Clinton killed the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution by pressuring six Democrat senators who had previously voted for the amendment to switch their votes and vote against it.

Clinton submitted a new budget in June of 1995, just as Republicans were poised to pass the first balanced budget in 26 years. He claimed his new budget reached balance in 10 years, but the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said it didn't balance in 10 years, or ever. In fact, it would have produced a deficit of $209 billion in 2005 -- a deficit higher than we have today. Democratic Sen. Bob Kerrey of Nebraska said the White House "cooked the numbers" (The Washington Times, 6/26/95), and The Washington Post editorialized on 6/20/95 that Clinton had "converted a fiscal problem into a credibility problem."

No Democrat would even introduce Clinton's so-called balanced budget for a vote, and when a Republican did, it was defeated in the Senate 96-0.

On November 20, 1995, the Republican-led Congress passed and sent to the president's desk the first balanced budget in 26 years. But on December 6, 1995, Bill Clinton -- the candidate who had promised a balanced budget -- vetoed it.

Clinton would submit a total of five different FY 96 budgets before he finally came up with one that balanced using honest numbers, according to CBO. But even it was a status-quo plan which contained the standard liberal fare of more taxes, more spending and no entitlement reform. The Washington Post (1/9/96) editorialized that the president's latest budget would "achieve all kinds of things, but a balanced budget is likely not among them."
 
Uhhh Vi did you notice the date on that article? February 18, 1993

I think that the Haritage foundation was proven wrong.
 
More:

February 2, 2000

Issue Analysis 102 - Clinton's Bait-and-Switch FY 2001 Budget Raids Social Security and Taxpayers' Wallets



[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial]By: Scott Hodge

The Clinton administration claims that its $1.84 trillion budget for FY 2001 is a “balanced and fiscally responsible” framework to retire debt, secure Social Security and Medicare, cut taxes, and invest in key priorities. Behind the rhetoric, however, the numbers show that Bill Clinton is proposing a massive increase in the size of government, a trivial amount of tax relief, and a phony scheme to extend the lives of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds.

If enacted, the president’s FY 2001 budget would mean:

A raid on the $2.2 trillion in projected Social Security surpluses in a phony scheme to retire federal debt in exchange for a mountain of IOUs, which do nothing to head off the large cash deficits facing Social Security in 14 years;
More than $7 of new spending for every $1 of net tax cuts;
Nearly $1.2 trillion in new spending over the next 10 years – an astonishing $857 billion in new discretionary spending and more than $300 billion in new entitlement initiatives;
A return to “baseline” budgeting, which gives discretionary programs and their advocates a virtual entitlement to automatic spending increases each year;
A paltry 23 percent of the $746 billion in projected non-Social Security surpluses would be returned to taxpayers in tax relief, the rest would be spent;
More than 100 new tax and fee increases, in an attempt raise nearly $220 billion more revenue than the $24 trillion in total tax collections already forecast over the next decade;
A $4 billion net tax hike in FY 2001, tempering the trivial $169 billion net tax cut over 10 years, equal to less than a penny on the dollar of total tax collections; and
A plan to waste $334 billion in non-Social Security surplus funds to buy more IOUs for the Medicare trust fund.
Charting a Course for Bigger Government

The Clinton FY 2001 budget proposes $1.835 trillion in spending for next year, which on the surface appears to be a modest 2.5 percent increase above this year. The underlying story, however, is that Clinton has explicitly scrapped the discretionary spending caps that have governed budgeting for the past nine years and returned to the “baseline” method of budgeting that gives government programs a virtual entitlement to yearly increases.

This bait-and-switch change in budget methods has subtly ensured a massive increase in federal spending over the next decade – shrinking the size of the projected surpluses – even before Clinton explicitly calls for a dollar of new spending. The bottom line is that Clinton’s budget calls for nearly $1.2 trillion in new spending over the next decade, even though the president is claiming credit for just a fraction of that amount.

To be sure, the emergence of large budget surpluses over the past two years has undermined Washington’s commitment to the discretionary spending limits agreed to in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Two years ago, the White House and the Congress enacted spending bills that exceeded the FY 1999 spending caps by some $20 billion. Last year, lawmakers approved $31 billion more spending than the FY 2000 spending caps allowed. Over the past three years, lawmakers have used various gimmicks and emergencies to spend $78 billion more than was allowed by the original caps set by the 1997 Act.



This year, Clinton has dropped any pretense of spending restraint or abiding by the discretionary spending limits. Indeed, as Chart 1 shows, his budget proposes $626 billion for discretionary programs in FY 2001. While this amount is just $8 billion higher than what was approved for FY 2000, it is $60 billion more than was allowed by the original spending caps.

More troubling, however, Clinton’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has returned to the “baseline” method of budgeting for discretionary programs, which assumes spending will grow at the rate of inflation every year. As Chart 2 shows, when compared to current levels of spending, the administration’s use of this technique effectively “builds in” nearly $860 billion in new discretionary spending into the budget in the same way that Social Security’s cost of living adjustments (COLAs) are built in to the budget. What this means is that the administration has effectively captured $860 billion of future surpluses for new spending without having to formally request it. This new spending has simply been “assumed” within the budget.

For taxpayers, the use of baseline budgeting leads to serious consequences. First, the technique gives program advocates a sense of entitlement over the projected annual increase. If spending should fall below this magical rate of increase, advocates will claim that lawmakers have “cut” the program’s funding when, in fact, spending has still increased. As a result, baseline budgeting distorts taxpayers’ frame of reference for understanding when an increase is an actual increase, and when a cut is an actual spending cut.



Another practical effect of returning to baseline budgeting is that, unlike the discretionary spending caps that have been enforced since 1991, the baseline levels become a floor for congressional decisions, not a ceiling. So if Congress goes along with this way of budgeting, it is more than likely that discretionary spending will grow even more than the $860 billion already built into the budget.


[/FONT]
 
More:

Clinton’s Shrinking Surpluses

Since it has assumed such dramatic spending increases in its budget forecast, the White House’s projections of future budget surpluses are far less than even the mid-range projections of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The difference between these two forecasts is entirely due to their assumptions over what happens to discretionary spending over time. In contrast to OMB’s use of an inflated baseline, which it claims is “fiscally conservative,” CBO’s mid-range forecast assumes that discretionary spending is “frozen” at FY 2000 levels for 10 years. While this may not be entirely realistic, it is, at least, politically neutral since lawmakers must approve the level of discretionary spending each year.

Higher Taxes Lead To Puny Tax Cuts

The Clinton budget assumes that the economy will continue to flood the Treasury with tax revenues, though at a slightly lower rate than has been the case in recent years. Since 1993, federal tax revenues have grown by an average of 7.6 percent per year, far outpacing the growth in the economy and personal incomes. Over the next decade, however, OMB projects revenues to grow by an average of 4.1 percent per year, still 50 percent faster than the rate of inflation. Overall, Washington is expected to collect more than $24 trillion in total tax revenues over the next 10 years.

By Assuming Higher Spending
OMB Forecasts a Smaller Surplus Total Estimates
2001-2010
(in $Billions) OMB CBO Difference OMB to CBO
Unified Surplus $2,919 $4,179 - $1,260
On-Budget $ 746 $1,858 - $1,112
Off-Budget
(Social Security) $2,173 $2,320 - $ 147


Despite these remarkable growth figures, Clinton is not only proposing a paltry tax cut package, he is actually proposing more than 100 new taxes and fees that would raise nearly $220 billion over 10 years. The majority of these tax and fee hikes are used to offset Clinton’s tax cut plan, while the remainder are used to offset spending increases elsewhere in the budget.

The budget includes about 60 highly targeted tax relief measures, including: a tax cut for college expenses; an expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC); a tax credit to encourage pre-seniors to buy into Medicare; and, a tax credit to buy “hybrid” automobiles.

Although the White House claims that these measures would cut taxes by $102 billion over five years and $351 billion over 10 years, the actual net size of the tax relief is nearly half that amount. First, the budget overstates the gross tax cut figures by some $20 billion by including the refundable portions of the proposed tax credits. (These funds are actually expenditures out of the budget because they are payments to refund money beyond what a person has paid in taxes.)

Next, the net value of the tax cut plan is further reduced by more than 80 separate tax increases that the administration euphemistically calls eliminating “unwarranted benefits” in the tax code. While many of these proposals effect arcane provisions in the tax code – such as the proposal to “require capitalization of mutual fund commissions” or the one to “clarify recovery period of utility grading costs” – their elimination does constitute a serious tax increase by any measure. Indeed, the administration figures these measures will raise $47 billion in revenues over five years, and $96 billion over 10 years.

In addition to these measures, the administration wants to raise another $66 billion over 10 years by increasing the 34 cents-per-pack excise tax on cigarettes (which is scheduled to increase to 39 cents) by an additional 25 cents. As well, the administration proposes to levy an “assessment” on tobacco manufacturers if the youth smoking rate is not reduced by 50 percent. This last provision makes as much sense as punishing auto manufacturers for teen speeding.



All of these new taxes reduce the size of the net tax cut to just $17 billion over five years, and $169 billion over 10 years. Remarkably, as Chart 3 shows, in FY 2001 and FY 2002 the new taxes overwhelm the tax cuts, resulting in a net tax increase in both of those years.

More Taxes And Fees

The administration also proposes a variety of other tax increases, tax extensions, and user fee increases to offset increases in spending elsewhere in the budget. For example, the budget would offset $36 billion in higher entitlement spending through such measures as reinstating the Superfund tax that expired in 1995 and extending customs user fees. Also, the budget would offset more than $20 billion in new discretionary spending through such measures as an increase in FAA user fees, the creation of a new harbor services fee, and the creation of an “immigration premium processing fee.”

Clinton's Bait-and-Switch FY 2001 Budget (Part II)

[SIZE=-1]FreedomWorks Home | Back to Issues Section | Back to Article [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]

Back to Top
[/SIZE]

For more information visit FreedomWorks: Fighting for Lower Taxes, Less Government, and More Freedom



FreedomWorks
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 11th Floor, Washington, DC 20006-5805
Phone: (202) 783-3870 Fax: (202) 232-8356 Toll Free: 1-888-564-6273
www.freedomworks.org E-mail: [email protected]
 
Back
Top