Debt has increased $5 trillion under Pelosi

[Shooter]

It's hard to get a handle on the enormous spending that this administration has done, but this article helps put it all into perspective. Read it and weep.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/debt-has-increased-5-trillion-speaker-pe

 

[SlyPokerDog]

How much did it increase under Bush?

How much did it increase under Clinton?

Under Bush St?

Reagan?

 

[Denny Crane]

How much did it increase under Bush?

How much did it increase under Clinton?

Under Bush St?

Reagan?

< $5T under W, all 8 years.

Clinton it increased, even though they paid down a lot of the public debt, because the Social Security Trust Fund was forced to by govt. debt.

~ $2T under Reagan.

 

[Rhal]

< $5T under W, all 8 years.

Clinton it increased, even though they paid down a lot of the public debt, because the Social Security Trust Fund was forced to by govt. debt.

~ $2T under Reagan.

The only reason it didn't increase more under W was he got to give the recession to Obama while the economy had just started crashing.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

The only reason it didn't increase more under W was he got to give the recession to Obama while the economy had just started crashing.

Obama didn't need to enter such deficit spending.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

< $5T under W, all 8 years.

Clinton it increased, even though they paid down a lot of the public debt, because the Social Security Trust Fund was forced to by govt. debt.

~ $2T under Reagan.

I was asking Shooter. I figured you knew. What's interesting is that it doubled under the last Bush. Neither party cares about debt when they're in the majority.

 

[Shooter]

Neither party cares about debt when they're in the majority.

We will see just how much the American people care on Nov. 2nd.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

We will see just how much the American people care on Nov. 2nd.

And if they don't vote the way you think they should it means they don't care?

 

[ABM]

Irrespective of which party gets voted in, I'm jumping on that special national sales tax towards paying down the debt. Along with that, though, would necessarily include a balanced and "highly" scrutinized budget.

 

[Denny Crane]

I was asking Shooter. I figured you knew. What's interesting is that it doubled under the last Bush. Neither party cares about debt when they're in the majority.

Doubling means nothing. It doubled under Carter, too. Doubling from $1 to $2 isn't as big a deal as it is doubling from $7T to $14T. There's about a $7T difference there.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

The only way that would work is if we get a national initiative first. It's way past time for federal ballot measures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_initiative

But could you imagine the 50,000 page voters pamphlet that would have shown up in the mail if we had gotten to vote on the Health Care bill?

 

[Denny Crane]

The only way that would work is if we get a national initiative first. It's way past time for federal ballot measures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_initiative

But could you imagine the 50,000 page voters pamphlet that would have shown up in the mail if we had gotten to vote on the Health Care bill?

I think the initiative would have been to allow congress to pass a bill in the first place, not the bill itself.

I'd like to see an initiative required to spend at a deficit or raise taxes. "We want to raise taxes (or borrow) for X, Y, and Z." Otherwise they live within the amount they bring in.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Doubling means nothing. It doubled under Carter, too. Doubling from $1 to $2 isn't as big a deal as it is doubling from $7T to $14T. There's about a $7T difference there.

Going from $5T to $10T under GW Bush sure as hell was a big deal. Just like going from $10T to $14T under Obama is a big deal.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I think the initiative would have been to allow congress to pass a bill in the first place, not the bill itself.

I was making a joke. I think with N.I. the health care bill would have been much more simplified.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Irrespective of which party gets voted in, I'm jumping on that special national sales tax towards paying down the debt. Along with that, though, would necessarily include a balanced and "highly" scrutinized budget.

Endorsing my idea I started talking about several years ago. Hell, I should run for office. Afterall, when ABM starts endorsing a candidate's ideas...

 

[Denny Crane]

Going from $5T to $10T under GW Bush sure as hell was a big deal. Just like going from $10T to $14T under Obama is a big deal.

Bush Administration Adds $4 Trillion To National Debt

That's over 8 years, or about $500B/year. Obama's spending at a deficit of nearly 3x that with no real end in sight. If things don't change, he'll have added $12T to the debt over a similar time frame.

And yeah, $1T is huge, $4T is huge, $12T is huge. The $4T is a hole, the $12T is digging to china.

 

[ABM]

Endorsing my idea I started talking about several years ago. Hell, I should run for office. Afterall, when ABM starts endorsing a candidate's ideas...

Would you vote Yes on Measure 75? Tell the truth!!

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

My great concern is that Obama & Pelosi have placed us on a track to complete insolvency. I thought for sure Obama was for a balanced budget and lowering the debt. But I was dead dog wrong.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Bush Administration Adds $4 Trillion To National Debt

That's over 8 years, or about $500B/year. Obama's spending at a deficit of nearly 3x that with no real end in sight. If things don't change, he'll have added $12T to the debt over a similar time frame.

And yeah, $1T is huge, $4T is huge, $12T is huge. The $4T is a hole, the $12T is digging to china.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

That's where I get my numbers and it shows it was $5T under Bush's watch.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Would you vote Yes on Measure 75? Tell the truth!!

Would I vote "yes" on 75? Are you kidding? My friends and fellow Americans...

Does that answer your question?

 

[ABM]

Would I vote "yes" on 75? Are you kidding? My friends and fellow Americans...

Does that answer your question?

Of course, your wife controls the checkbook. So, ultimately, that makes any direct participation on your part a moot point.

 

[Denny Crane]

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.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

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.

 

[Denny Crane]

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.

 

[Denny Crane]

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

The Fed, which has held interest rates near zero since December 2008, launched its asset-buying spree nearly two years ago, swelling its balance sheet to nearly $2.3 trillion from a pre-crisis level of around $800 billion.

So you can add another $1.5T of debt that isn't on the books as debt. $6.5T under Pelosi's watch.

 

[barfo]

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.

That makes sense, since Pelosi controls the Fed.

Or not.

barfo

 

[BrianFromWA]

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...

 

[Denny Crane]

That makes sense, since Pelosi controls the Fed.

Or not.

barfo

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.

 

[Denny Crane]

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...

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.

 

[julius]

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...

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.