Of course, your wife controls the checkbook. So, ultimately, that makes any direct participation on your part a moot point.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm The govt.'s fiscal year runs Sept. to Sept. The debt at the end of the fiscal year, 2 months before the election and W became a lame duck was $10T, or $4.4T more than what he entered office. Realize the thread is about the debt under Pelosi's watch. All spending bills originate in the House, and she's been the speaker since 2006 when the debt was $8.5T. The current $13.5T - $8.5T comes out to... $5T as the thread title states.
Not disagreeing with the title of the thread. I was only asking Shooter if he was aware of the recent history of the debt. I'm just not buying that either party is going to stop increasing the national debt because a politician doesn't gain power by not spending money.
There's three things that can cut the deficit: 1) Increase taxes 2) Cut spending 3) Grow the economy #1 - I don't think they can get more than another $400B in taxes out of the economy, which leaves us a huge $800B deficit anyway. #2 - It's 10 years after Clinton and the budget is $3.5T vs. the $2T he left us with, a $1.5T increase which is absurd. No way inflation has been 75% over those 10 years. Cut back to the $2T level and we're running a surplus. #3 - Revenues are a % of GDP. Grow GDP and revenues grow without raising taxes. But you have to hold spending down. The Bush sized deficits might have taken 10 years to grow out of. The Obama ones, 30 years. No way you're going to hold spending down enough, so it's more like 50 years.
There's a #4, which isn't at all a good idea, but it's what has been going on under Obama. It's called debt monetization. Here, the govt. prints money and buys debt securities with it. The debt is gone but the dollar buys some fraction of what it did before. Do it enough and the cost of a loaf of bread is a wheelbarrow full of cash. http://www.cnbc.com/id/39604937/Fed_Undaunted_by_Uncertain_Prospects_for_Money_Printing So you can add another $1.5T of debt that isn't on the books as debt. $6.5T under Pelosi's watch.
it kind of brings up a point, though... Doesn't Congress hold more responsibility over budgets than the President? Whether you want to say Reid/Pelosi, or Gingrich, or whoever...
The Fed is a willing accomplice. They can't control the spending, so they have to deal with the consequences. Which means monetizing the debt.
Not entirely. The president submits a budget and congress generally accepts most of it and changes it some. In the case of Reagan, his budgets were declared DOA by the Democratic Party controlled House. In the case of Clinton, the Republicans (John Kasich to be precise) wrote balanced budgets for him while he was out talking about balancing the budget some random time in the future.
When there is a good budget scenario, whatever position my party holds is who has more responsibility over the budget. If it's bad, it's the other guys fault.
The tea party sprang to life the minute a black man won the presidency, quit fooling yourself. Every other reason is window dressing.
