18 trillion

[Headinjun]

2 Middle East occupations, check

Homeland security department, check.

A doubling of the defense department budget, check

A lack of cuts in relation to tax cuts, check

Medicare prescription drug program, check

Look at all this legacy spending!! 

I wonder if we should've raised taxes if we wanted all this stuff.

#libtard

#yawn

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Gosh, what was all that meltie-downy stuff from prog-libs in 2006?  Remember?  Promising war extraction (instead they just spent more) and promising deficit reduction and national debt reduction?   Now, it's just, ya know, numbers.

LOL, well played prog-libs.   Until the new Congress comes in and suddenly it's going to be a huge prog-lib talking point again, well, maybe not as much since Obama will still be in office.   But if a Pub gets elected in 16, the prog-lib cries for a budget and all that stuff will be an amazing cacophony for the ears.

Yeah I'm gonna have to disagree here, respectfully of course. The GOP is much more conservative now than it was under the free-spending GWB years. The incoming GOP controlled congress will make deficit reduction a key focus. The libtards aren't going to join them on this. Instead, they'll bitch and moan about how we should be raising taxes instead of taking food out if the mouths of poor children. Typical libtard talking points.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

In the 18 Mos the libtards had a filibuster proof senate they added 4 trillion to the deficit, so there's that

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Also lol at blaming legacy costs on W while completely ignoring social security, medicare and the social welfare state.

[Cire]

Lucky for all of us the republicans now own the legislature and can right the ship

[CNS]

Lucky for all of us the republicans now own the legislature and can right the ship

I am excited that we are about to get this all figured out.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Lucky for all of us the republicans now own the legislature and can right the ship

I thought you said it didn't matter

[Cire]

I'm on team pub now

[chuckjames]

"Countries with socialized medicine are happier and healthier" is an unfounded quip and libtard favorite.


Locking at these charts, it's hard to believe B.O. was able to take us from 50% debt:gdp to 100% in just 2 years. Frightening how reckless his policies were.

Caring about debt is stupid. Good lord. We are the USA.

YES ITS THAT SIMPLE AND EASY.

Inform me on what bad things happen by the country going further in debt.

Aren't we already devoting more and more of our revenue just to servicing the interest on our browing debt? Oh right, I keep forgetting, none of that matters 'cause we can just keep printing money. Party on, everyone!

Basically you can as long as major inflation doesn't happen, which it isn't since workers wages continue to stagnant. This isn't near the crisis you're making it out to be. There hasn't been a shift in the yield curve, again it's fear mongering to the stupid by telling them they owe this much of the National Debt.

[chuckjames]

Also the dollar seems to be doing pretty good.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

When your shadow bank buys 80 billion in bonds per month, interest rates can be kept artificially low for a while, provided your peers are already entrenched as social welfare states. This sitch won't last forever.  Use some foresight. Western Europe was the beta test, it doesn't work.

[chuckjames]

When your shadow bank buys 80 billion in bonds per month, interest rates can be kept artificially low for a while, provided your peers are already entrenched as social welfare states. This sitch won't last forever.  Use some foresight. Western Europe was the beta test, it doesn't work.

Again what got a lot of Western Europe is the fact they don't control their own sovereign currency. That's a completely different situation. Would I rather have less debt, sure, but I'll worry once some economic metric tells me to worry.

[Cire]

Asinine thread.  Congress will soon fix all of this.

[Rage Against the McKee]

That is a great point about the republicans taking over. We should see a budget surplus next year.

[Cire]

That is a great point about the republicans taking over. We should see a budget surplus next year.

Hopefully but I'm sure Obama will do something to torpedo it.

Wait til Jeb is president.

[Rage Against the McKee]

That is a great point about the republicans taking over. We should see a budget surplus next year.

Hopefully but I'm sure Obama will do something to torpedo it.

Wait til Jeb is president.

We will have to wait and see. If Obama vetoes a budget surplus, then clearly it's the dems' fault. Otherwise, these republicans are nothing more than RINOs and we need to start hunting.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

I'd be happy with a 10 year plan to a balanced budget. We could start by, you know, actually passing a new budget instead of all these CRs. A unified GOP Congress will at least help with that. I'm not expecting miracles - I'm expecting progress.

[sonofdaxjones]

Just going back to 2006 and thinking about all the prog-lib sniveling and wailing about $250 billion dollar budget deficits, you know, back when the Federal Gov't actually had budgets.

[chuckjames]

Just going back to 2006 and thinking about all the prog-lib sniveling and wailing about $250 billion dollar budget deficits, you know, back when the Federal Gov't actually had budgets.

You arent really adding anything to discussion, other than who is to blame, which is both sides. The main problem is Raising spending is much easier politically than raising taxes. We could have done alot of the spending programs on budget if we had raised taxes on the 1% or got rid of the ridiculous dividend marginal rate. But Im a tax and spend libtard, so what do I know?

[chuckjames]

I'd be happy with a 10 year plan to a balanced budget. We could start by, you know, actually passing a new budget instead of all these CRs. A unified GOP Congress will at least help with that. I'm not expecting miracles - I'm expecting progress.

In Modern Economic theory there is no need for a balanced budget!!!!! If youre a governement and can borrow at the lowest rate of anyone in the world, you would be stupid not to. All a balanced budget will do is slow growth. Ive never understood people's obsession with a balanced budget.

[star seed 7]

They think the country is run like a household

[chuckjames]

They think the country is run like a household

Indeed, which is incredibly stupid and small minded. Lets go back and look at the deficits the great conservetard hero Reagan ran up shall we?

[sonofdaxjones]

Just going back to 2006 and thinking about all the prog-lib sniveling and wailing about $250 billion dollar budget deficits, you know, back when the Federal Gov't actually had budgets.

You arent really adding anything to discussion, other than who is to blame, which is both sides. The main problem is Raising spending is much easier politically than raising taxes. We could have done alot of the spending programs on budget if we had raised taxes on the 1% or got rid of the ridiculous dividend marginal rate. But Im a tax and spend libtard, so what do I know?

Not Much.

The point is, nothing is going to happen until the Federal Gov't has a budget.   

[chuckjames]

Just going back to 2006 and thinking about all the prog-lib sniveling and wailing about $250 billion dollar budget deficits, you know, back when the Federal Gov't actually had budgets.

You arent really adding anything to discussion, other than who is to blame, which is both sides. The main problem is Raising spending is much easier politically than raising taxes. We could have done alot of the spending programs on budget if we had raised taxes on the 1% or got rid of the ridiculous dividend marginal rate. But Im a tax and spend libtard, so what do I know?

Not Much.

The point is, nothing is going to happen until the Federal Gov't has a budget.

Lulz Im actually trying to have a real discussion about economic theory and not just trying to prove its the other guys fault more than my guy's fault. But whatevs, a budget is sure to solve everything!!!!

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Just going back to 2006 and thinking about all the prog-lib sniveling and wailing about $250 billion dollar budget deficits, you know, back when the Federal Gov't actually had budgets.

You arent really adding anything to discussion, other than who is to blame, which is both sides. The main problem is Raising spending is much easier politically than raising taxes. We could have done alot of the spending programs on budget if we had raised taxes on the 1% or got rid of the ridiculous dividend marginal rate. But Im a tax and spend libtard, so what do I know?

This isn't even remotely true. We're running deficits in excess of $500 billion a year. Jacking up rates on "the 1%" - assuming such an increase has no adverse impact on the economy - would cover about $20 billion at most.

Consider, from a historical perspective, no matter what the tax structure, you can only realistically squeeze about 14-19% of GDP in federal revenue. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205

By contrast, federal spending as a percentage of GDP over the past decade has ranged from 20 to 25%. https://ycharts.com/indicators/govt_spend_gdp

We have a spending problem, plain and simple. We cannot tax our way out of this. We must reduce spending to about 18% of GDP.