Don't rush to close this. We all get tired of the big numbers...beyond our
comprehension (and Congress' and BO's, too, apparently) but after the big
numbers below it is pared down by removing 8 zeroes and looking at it as a
household budget, debt, etc. JLS



Courtesy of Jack "Goat" Hogan, USMC Huey Gunship driver RVN
1968-69............Retired Delta Captain......"Fighter by Day, Lover by
Night, Drunkard by Choice"



Federal Budget 101

The U.S. Congress sets a federal budget every year in the
trillions of dollars. Few people know how much money that is so we created a
breakdown of federal spending in simple terms. Let's put the 2011 federal
budget into perspective:

a.. U.S. income: $2,170,000,000,000
b.. Federal budget: $3,820,000,000,000
c.. New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
d.. National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
e.. Recent budget cut: $ 38,500,000,000 (about 1 percent
of the budget)
f.. Deficit "Reduction" $2,200,000,000,000 over ten
years

It helps to think about these numbers in terms that we can
relate to. Let's remove eight zeros from these numbers and pretend this is
the household budget for the fictitious Hogan family.

a.. Total annual income for the Hogan family: $21,700
b.. Amount of money the Hogan family spent: $38,200
c.. Amount of new debt added to the credit card: $16,500
d.. Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
e.. Amount cut from the budget: $385

Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Federal Budget 101

According to Rush Limbaugh, technically there hasn't been an official
Federal Budget for the past 2 years.

Just continuing resolutions to raise the debt ceiling.

On 2011-08-11, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

a.. Total annual income for the Hogan family: $21,700
b.. Amount of money the Hogan family spent: $38,200
c.. Amount of new debt added to the credit card: $16,500
d.. Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
e.. Amount cut from the budget: $385

So, what's the problem? Looks like the budget of most every middle
class family in the US, overextended to the limit. Buy that new 2500
sq ft cathedral ceilinged home in the burbs and two new $30-40K cars
while both parents work till they die of hypertension. It's the
American dream and exactly how the World Bank and other grind out
bust-yer-balls MBA factories planned it. Doesn't matter, as the life
on this trashed orb is circling drain of imminent extinction. Go out
in high style, I say!

nb

In article , Home Guy wrote:

Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Federal Budget 101

According to Rush Limbaugh, technically there hasn't been an official
Federal Budget for the past 2 years.

Just continuing resolutions to raise the debt ceiling.

The budget President Obama submitted for this fiscal year was turned down
97-0 in the Dem-controlled Senate and nothing happened since. Nobody
talks about the good side of bipartisanship. (g)'

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On Aug 11, 9:36*am, notbob wrote:
On 2011-08-11, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

* * * * * * * * * * a.. Total annual income for the Hogan family: $21,700
* * * * * * * * * * b.. Amount of money the Hogan family spent: $38,200
* * * * * * * * * * c.. Amount of new debt added to the credit card: $16,500
* * * * * * * * * * d.. Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
* * * * * * * * * * e.. Amount cut from the budget: $385

So, what's the problem?

The problem is a household in that position would not
be able to raise it's credit limit and go about borrowing.
They would be maxed out on credit cards and the lenders
would not be stupid enough to lend them more. In the
case of govt, they have no such restriction.



*Looks like the budget of most every middle
class family in the US, overextended to the limit.

Clearly while some families have too much debt, very
few have anything close to the above situation where
they are borrowing an additional 80% of what they earn
each year to pay bills. To say that's typical is a
dangerous exageration, because it then starts to
make what's going on with govt look OK.

The above simple budget analysis is a good one. It
might get more people to begin to understand what
is really going on and what is at stake.



*Buy that new 2500
sq ft cathedral ceilinged home in the burbs and two new $30-40K cars
while both parents work till they die of hypertension. *It's the
American dream and exactly how the World Bank and other grind out
bust-yer-balls MBA factories planned it. *Doesn't matter, as the life
on this trashed orb is circling drain of imminent extinction. *Go out
in high style, I say! *

nb

In article , "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
Don't rush to close this. We all get tired of the big numbers...beyond our
comprehension (and Congress' and BO's, too, apparently) but after the big
numbers below it is pared down by removing 8 zeroes and looking at it as a
household budget, debt, etc. JLS



Courtesy of Jack "Goat" Hogan, USMC Huey Gunship driver RVN
1968-69............Retired Delta Captain......"Fighter by Day, Lover by
Night, Drunkard by Choice"



Federal Budget 101

The U.S. Congress sets a federal budget every year in the
trillions of dollars. Few people know how much money that is so we created a
breakdown of federal spending in simple terms. Let's put the 2011 federal
budget into perspective:

a.. U.S. income: $2,170,000,000,000
b.. Federal budget: $3,820,000,000,000
c.. New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
d.. National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
e.. Recent budget cut: $ 38,500,000,000 (about 1 percent
of the budget)
f.. Deficit "Reduction" $2,200,000,000,000 over ten
years

It helps to think about these numbers in terms that we can
relate to. Let's remove eight zeros from these numbers and pretend this is
the household budget for the fictitious Hogan family.

a.. Total annual income for the Hogan family: $21,700
b.. Amount of money the Hogan family spent: $38,200
c.. Amount of new debt added to the credit card: $16,500
d.. Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
e.. Amount cut from the budget: $385

You left out one thing, Ed: the Hogan's credit card was nearly maxed out, and
they figured the solution to the problem was to increase the limit on the card
by $21,000.

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

Don't rush to close this. We all get tired of the big numbers...beyond
our comprehension (and Congress' and BO's, too, apparently) but after the
big numbers below it is pared down by removing 8 zeroes and looking at it
as a household budget, debt, etc. JLS
. . . It helps to think about these numbers in terms that we can relate
to. Let's remove eight zeros from these numbers and pretend this is the
household budget for the fictitious Hogan family.

a.. Total annual income for the Hogan family: $21,700
b.. Amount of money the Hogan family spent: $38,200
c.. Amount of new debt added to the credit card:
$16,500
d.. Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
e.. Amount cut from the budget: $385

Admirable illustration -- but is the practical question
not what your elected government can agree to do about it?

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

"Don Phillipson" wrote in news:j21g9f$k02$3
@speranza.aioe.org:

Admirable illustration -- but is the practical question
not what your elected government can agree to do about it?

You mean elected representatives, I suppose. The House makes the budget or
at least starts it. If the left and the right can only agree that each one
wants to be reelected, deservedly or not, then of course taking extreme
positions is good policy (feeding your constituents). The hullabaloo comes
when they want to show the home folks how much they care about them, which
means pork ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 09:09:07 -0400, Home Guy wrote:

Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Federal Budget 101

According to Rush Limbaugh, technically there hasn't been an official
Federal Budget for the past 2 years.

I didn't know you were a Dittohead.

Just continuing resolutions to raise the debt ceiling.

True. 832 days.

"Home Guy" wrote in message ...

According to Rush Limbaugh, technically there hasn't been an official
Federal Budget for the past 2 years.

Just continuing resolutions to raise the debt ceiling.

That sounds like something he would say, perhaps he didn't notice that
during the Bush administration almost all Republican members of Congress
voted to raise the debt ceiling *seven* times, which is perhaps why the
federal debt doubled while Bush was in the White House.

" wrote:

According to Rush Limbaugh, technically there hasn't been an
official Federal Budget for the past 2 years.

I didn't know you were a Dittohead.

Far from it. I'll sometimes tune my car radio to WJR to listen to that
windbag if my regular station (CBC radio) plays some god-damn french
music for a few minutes. Once my ears start to bleed, that's when I
know I've been listening to the pompous ass long enough, and I'll change
back to CBC.

I will admit that it would be a real hoot to bring in a case of "Two if
by Tea" into the office one day.

Question: Is Snerdly a real person?

I used to listen to Sean Hanity in the evenings on the radio back 5+
years ago. I remember when he said "David Kay is our man in Iraq.
He'll find the WMD's - just you wait". Yea - that turned out real well,
didn't it Sean? What an ass Hanity was. Still is. He said Hussein
killed people by putting them into basically a large blender. Hanity
was nothing more than a gov't propaganda mouthpiece.

On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 23:02:01 -0400, Home Guy wrote:

" wrote:

According to Rush Limbaugh, technically there hasn't been an
official Federal Budget for the past 2 years.

I didn't know you were a Dittohead.

Far from it. I'll sometimes tune my car radio to WJR to listen to that
windbag if my regular station (CBC radio) plays some god-damn french
music for a few minutes. Once my ears start to bleed, that's when I
know I've been listening to the pompous ass long enough, and I'll change
back to CBC.

Come on now. You've been outed.

I will admit that it would be a real hoot to bring in a case of "Two if
by Tea" into the office one day.

Question: Is Snerdly a real person?

How should I know? It could be several, over the past, what, 25 years.

I used to listen to Sean Hanity in the evenings on the radio back 5+
years ago. I remember when he said "David Kay is our man in Iraq.
He'll find the WMD's - just you wait". Yea - that turned out real well,
didn't it Sean? What an ass Hanity was. Still is. He said Hussein
killed people by putting them into basically a large blender. Hanity
was nothing more than a gov't propaganda mouthpiece.

Do you always talk in such an unorganized stream of drivel?

On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 18:46:18 -0700, "DGDevin" wrote:



"Home Guy" wrote in message ...

According to Rush Limbaugh, technically there hasn't been an official
Federal Budget for the past 2 years.

Just continuing resolutions to raise the debt ceiling.

That sounds like something he would say, perhaps he didn't notice that
during the Bush administration almost all Republican members of Congress
voted to raise the debt ceiling *seven* times, which is perhaps why the
federal debt doubled while Bush was in the White House.

You really can't read, can you?

DGDevin wrote:
"Home Guy" wrote in message ...

According to Rush Limbaugh, technically there hasn't been an official
Federal Budget for the past 2 years.

Just continuing resolutions to raise the debt ceiling.

That sounds like something he would say, perhaps he didn't notice that
during the Bush administration almost all Republican members of
Congress voted to raise the debt ceiling *seven* times, which is
perhaps why the federal debt doubled while Bush was in the White
House.

In eight years the Bush administration ran up $800 billion worth of
deficits.

We just hit a $1 trillion deficit for this fiscal year, with two months left
to go.

Each year of the Obama administration has seen deficits in excess of one
trillion dollars.

Eight hundred billion was a manageable number in a robust economy; four
trillion is a disaster in ANY economy.

In article ,
"DGDevin" wrote:

"Home Guy" wrote in message ...

According to Rush Limbaugh, technically there hasn't been an official
Federal Budget for the past 2 years.

Just continuing resolutions to raise the debt ceiling.

That sounds like something he would say, perhaps he didn't notice that
during the Bush administration almost all Republican members of Congress
voted to raise the debt ceiling *seven* times, which is perhaps why the
federal debt doubled while Bush was in the White House.

ANd most of the Dems voted (or at least railed against it). Actually I
view the GOP more along the lines of a reformed spendaholic. We all know
that there are few more vehmently against something than the reformed
user.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On Aug 12, 7:26*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
DGDevin wrote:
"Home Guy" *wrote in ...

According to Rush Limbaugh, technically there hasn't been an official
Federal Budget for the past 2 years.

Just continuing resolutions to raise the debt ceiling.

That sounds like something he would say, perhaps he didn't notice that
during the Bush administration almost all Republican members of
Congress voted to raise the debt ceiling *seven* times, which is
perhaps why the federal debt doubled while Bush was in the White
House.

In eight years the Bush administration ran up $800 billion worth of
deficits.

We just hit a $1 trillion deficit for this fiscal year, with two months left
to go.

Each year of the Obama administration has seen deficits in excess of one
trillion dollars.

Eight hundred billion was a manageable number in a robust economy; four
trillion is a disaster in ANY economy.

obama became president during our economic collapse. largest since
depression.

obviously obama wasnt cause of collapse it began well before his
election cycle.

lay the blame where it belongs, bush missmanaged our country mired us
in at least one unjustified war

On Aug 12, 1:04*pm, bob haller wrote:
On Aug 12, 7:26*am, "HeyBub" wrote:









DGDevin wrote:
"Home Guy" *wrote in ...

According to Rush Limbaugh, technically there hasn't been an official
Federal Budget for the past 2 years.

Just continuing resolutions to raise the debt ceiling.

That sounds like something he would say, perhaps he didn't notice that
during the Bush administration almost all Republican members of
Congress voted to raise the debt ceiling *seven* times, which is
perhaps why the federal debt doubled while Bush was in the White
House.

In eight years the Bush administration ran up $800 billion worth of
deficits.

We just hit a $1 trillion deficit for this fiscal year, with two months left
to go.

Each year of the Obama administration has seen deficits in excess of one
trillion dollars.

Eight hundred billion was a manageable number in a robust economy; four
trillion is a disaster in ANY economy.

obama became president during our economic collapse. largest since
depression.

obviously obama wasnt cause of collapse it began well before his
election cycle.

lay the blame where it belongs, bush missmanaged our country mired us
in at least one unjustified war

Make that TWO unjustified wars.

Just to be non-partisan, Johnson shamelessly lied our way into
Vietnam, with the greatest number of soldiers killed/wounded, millions
of innocent civilians killed; a country devastated by Agent Orange for
generations.

Back to the Republicans: It was Reagan who sent the Marines into
Greneda, ostensibly to protect US medical school students; actually
because he didn't like the local government. It was Bush I who
invaded Panama because the local dictator Noriega was getting too
greedy about his cut of the drug money? (Lots of innocent civilians
killed.)

And so it goes...

HB

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...


In eight years the Bush administration ran up $800 billion worth of
deficits.

Seriously, what color is the sky on your planet? Five trillion in debt when
he got the job, just shy of ten trillion when he left.

$800 billion is an interesting number, that's how much Reagan's annual
budget requests grew over his two terms which probably has something to do
with why the federal debt tripled on his watch.

But tell us again how the debt belongs to those rascally Democrats, that
Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility.

With the exception of one vote by one member, all the current leaders of the
Republican Party in Congress voted to raise the debt ceiling during the Bush
administration seven times. That's a fact Jack. The problem isn't that
Democrats spend too much money, it's that CONGRESS spends too much money and
it doesn't matter which party is in control. Until you get it through your
head that the party you approve of is just as loose with the public purse as
the party you don't like..., wait, what am I saying, like there is the
slightest chance of you being that open-minded.

In article , bob haller wrote:


obama became president during our economic collapse. largest since
depression.

obviously obama wasnt cause of collapse it began well before his
election cycle.

It started about a year and a half before he was elected -- but it's gotten a
hell of a lot worse since then.

lay the blame where it belongs, bush missmanaged our country mired us
in at least one unjustified war

Indeed, let's "lay the blame where it belongs." The economy was doing just
fine, thank you very much, during the first six years of Bush's presidency --
when Republicans controlled Congress. Then the Democrats gained control of
Congress in 2006, and the economy has been in the crapper pretty much ever
since.

On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 09:07:01 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"DGDevin" wrote:

"Home Guy" wrote in message ...

According to Rush Limbaugh, technically there hasn't been an official
Federal Budget for the past 2 years.

Just continuing resolutions to raise the debt ceiling.

That sounds like something he would say, perhaps he didn't notice that
during the Bush administration almost all Republican members of Congress
voted to raise the debt ceiling *seven* times, which is perhaps why the
federal debt doubled while Bush was in the White House.

ANd most of the Dems voted (or at least railed against it). Actually I
view the GOP more along the lines of a reformed spendaholic. We all know
that there are few more vehmently against something than the reformed
user.

You can certainly trust a reformed alcoholic near a bottle more than a gutter
bum. The reformed may indeed fall off the wagon but you *know* what the
gutter bum will do.

bob haller wrote:

In eight years the Bush administration ran up $800 billion worth of
deficits.

We just hit a $1 trillion deficit for this fiscal year, with two
months left to go.

Each year of the Obama administration has seen deficits in excess of
one trillion dollars.

Eight hundred billion was a manageable number in a robust economy;
four trillion is a disaster in ANY economy.

obama became president during our economic collapse. largest since
depression.

obviously obama wasnt cause of collapse it began well before his
election cycle.

lay the blame where it belongs, bush missmanaged our country mired us
in at least one unjustified war

Oh, if we could only go BACK to the mess at the end of the Bush
administration, we'd be in a happy place (relatively).

Doug Miller wrote:
In article
,
bob haller wrote:


obama became president during our economic collapse. largest since
depression.

obviously obama wasnt cause of collapse it began well before his
election cycle.

It started about a year and a half before he was elected -- but it's
gotten a
hell of a lot worse since then.

Yep. About the time the Democrats took over Congress. Cause and effect or
coincidence. You be the judge.


lay the blame where it belongs, bush missmanaged our country mired us
in at least one unjustified war

Indeed, let's "lay the blame where it belongs." The economy was doing
just
fine, thank you very much, during the first six years of Bush's
presidency --
when Republicans controlled Congress. Then the Democrats gained
control of
Congress in 2006, and the economy has been in the crapper pretty much
ever
since.

"Fine" is not the word for it. Unemployment below 5%, DJIA above 12,000, low
inflation, 23 consecutive quarters of sustained economic growth, and more.
These in spite of Katrina, 9-11, and two wars.

But what's past is past. Let's look at now. Now is pitiful.

DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...


In eight years the Bush administration ran up $800 billion worth of
deficits.

Seriously, what color is the sky on your planet? Five trillion in
debt when he got the job, just shy of ten trillion when he left.

There's a difference between a budget deficit and the national debt. They do
not measure the same thing.


$800 billion is an interesting number, that's how much Reagan's annual
budget requests grew over his two terms which probably has something
to do with why the federal debt tripled on his watch.

Ah, but federal revenues increase by twice that amount. In Washington,
SPENDING has more of an effect on debt and deficit than revenues.


But tell us again how the debt belongs to those rascally Democrats,
that Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility.

Okay, I guess repetition can't hurt: The [current] debt [increase] belongs
to the rascally Democrats and Republicans are the party of fiscal
responsibility.


With the exception of one vote by one member, all the current leaders
of the Republican Party in Congress voted to raise the debt ceiling
during the Bush administration seven times. That's a fact Jack. The
problem isn't that Democrats spend too much money, it's that CONGRESS
spends too much money and it doesn't matter which party is in
control. Until you get it through your head that the party you
approve of is just as loose with the public purse as the party you
don't like..., wait, what am I saying, like there is the slightest
chance of you being that open-minded.

Sure, the debt ceiling has been raised many times, at the behest and with
the support of both parties. But just like credit card debt in a family,
there comes a point where the card debt cannot be sustained by the income
the family has. Spending has to be cut.

The issue is not the commonality of the historical debt limit increases, the
issue is which member of the family recognizes that the debt is too big.

In article ,
"DGDevin" wrote:

"H
$800 billion is an interesting number, that's how much Reagan's annual
budget requests grew over his two terms which probably has something to do
with why the federal debt tripled on his watch.
Not really since the Democratic controlled Congress-- who has, as we
have established, actual control over what is finally spent--ADDED an
average of 2.8% to the expenditures.
http://www.presidentreagan.info/reagan_budgets.cfm

But tell us again how the debt belongs to those rascally Democrats, that
Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility.

Don't have to, the facts do, at least in the Reagan years. Bush
II, you have much better argument.


With the exception of one vote by one member, all the current leaders of the
Republican Party in Congress voted to raise the debt ceiling during the Bush
administration seven times. That's a fact Jack. The problem isn't that
Democrats spend too much money, it's that CONGRESS spends too much money and
it doesn't matter which party is in control. Until you get it through your
head that the party you approve of is just as loose with the public purse as
the party you don't like..., wait, what am I saying, like there is the
slightest chance of you being that open-minded.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On Aug 12, 10:38*pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,

*"DGDevin" wrote:
"H
$800 billion is an interesting number, that's how much Reagan's annual
budget requests grew over his two terms which probably has something to do
with why the federal debt tripled on his watch.

* * Not really since the Democratic controlled Congress-- who has, as we
have established, actual control over what is finally spent--ADDED an
average of 2.8% to the expenditures.http://www.presidentreagan.info/reagan_budgets.cfm



But tell us again how the debt belongs to those rascally Democrats, that
Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility.

* * * Don't have to, the facts do, at least in the Reagan years. Bush
II, you have much better argument. *



With the exception of one vote by one member, all the current leaders of the
Republican Party in Congress voted to raise the debt ceiling during the Bush
administration seven times. *That's a fact Jack. *The problem isn't that
Democrats spend too much money, it's that CONGRESS spends too much money and
it doesn't matter which party is in control. *Until you get it through your
head that the party you approve of is just as loose with the public purse as
the party you don't like..., wait, what am I saying, like there is the
slightest chance of you being that open-minded.


You'd have to be living in a parallel universe to conclude that
both parties are equally to blame for spending too much money.
I agree the Republicans under Bush were spending too much
money, but at least now they have come to their senses.
The Democrats have not changed their ways and in fact,
have ACCELERATED spending. The budget is now 40%,
FORTY PERCENT higher than it was in just 2008.

We just went through the best example you will ever have.
The Republicans put forward multiple plans to reduce spending.
Each of them was met by Democrats villifying the Republicans
and refusing those cuts while also refusing to offer up real cuts
of their own. It took the tea party standing up to the Dems and
pushing with all their might to get ANY cuts. And at the end of
it all, with the Dems still screaming about draconian cuts,
we wound up with a whopping $60bil in cuts over the next
two years. That's a cut of .7% in the federal budget and it
will reduce the annual deficit from $1.600 tril to $1.570 tril
BFD.

On 8/11/11 10:02 PM, Home Guy wrote:

Question: Is Snerdly a real person?

Bo Snerdley is actually James Golden. A bit about him he
http://tinyurl.com/par89k
I don't know if there were other Snerdleys before him.

James left the show a couple years ago. There is a new
snerdly, but I don't remember much about the new one.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Dean Hoffman" wrote in message
...
On 8/11/11 10:02 PM, Home Guy wrote:

Question: Is Snerdly a real person?

Bo Snerdley is actually James Golden. A bit about him
he
http://tinyurl.com/par89k
I don't know if there were other Snerdleys before him.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

Seriously, what color is the sky on your planet? Five trillion in
debt when he got the job, just shy of ten trillion when he left.

There's a difference between a budget deficit and the national debt. They
do not measure the same thing.

Especially when you run two wars off the books, that lets you run up a hell
of a debt while claiming not to have much of a deficit at all.

$800 billion is an interesting number, that's how much Reagan's annual
budget requests grew over his two terms which probably has something
to do with why the federal debt tripled on his watch.

Ah, but federal revenues increase by twice that amount. In Washington,
SPENDING has more of an effect on debt and deficit than revenues.

At some point are you going to explain why the debt tripled if revenues were
pouring in faster than spending increases?

But tell us again how the debt belongs to those rascally Democrats,
that Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility.

Okay, I guess repetition can't hurt: The [current] debt [increase] belongs
to the rascally Democrats and Republicans are the party of fiscal
responsibility.

Riiiight, those Repubs who until recently never met a debt ceiling increase
they didn't like, they're the ones being careful with our money even if they
sort of managed to spend a trillion bucks in Iraq which they had to borrow
from China, the interest on which will bring the final price to well over
two trillion. None of that counts, only the money the *current*
administration is spending is a problem, the ten trillion we owed before
that was no big deal. What was it Dick Cheney told the then Sec. of the
Treasury? Oh yeah, Reagan proved deficits no longer matter--that must be
some of that fiscal responsibility type thinking you're referring to.

Sure, the debt ceiling has been raised many times, at the behest and with
the support of both parties. But just like credit card debt in a family,
there comes a point where the card debt cannot be sustained by the income
the family has. Spending has to be cut.

And by a miracle that moment just happens to arrive when Democrats win the
White House, but if McCain were President it is a safe bet that the recent
debt ceiling fiasco would not have happened.

There is also the issue that if you owe money and even after cutting
spending you can't handle the payments, you might have to get a part-time
job to bring in some more cash to pay down that debt. Or in the case of
govt. you could close some tax loopholes, say for the oil industry which is
currently making record profits--but not if the Repubs have anything to say
about it. So we can't afford spending that might benefit working class
families, we're just too broke. But we can afford tax breaks for
millionaires and billionaires, those we can handle.

Not much chance of the money lenders being thrown out of the temple these
days, is there.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...


$800 billion is an interesting number, that's how much Reagan's annual
budget requests grew over his two terms which probably has something to
do
with why the federal debt tripled on his watch.

Not really since the Democratic controlled Congress-- who has, as we
have established, actual control over what is finally spent--ADDED an
average of 2.8% to the expenditures.

One year they spent less than requested, one year they spent 7% more, but
yes, the average was a little under 3%. Now on what planet does spending 3%
more per year over eight years triple the debt? That would be a hell of an
investment return, where can I sign up for that? Reagan increased his
budget requests by $800 billion a year from his first to last year, that's
what drove up the debt. The 3% extra the Dems tacked on was just icing on a
very big cake.

On Aug 14, 1:00*am, "DGDevin" wrote:
"HeyBub" *wrote in message

...

Seriously, what color is the sky on your planet? *Five trillion in
debt when he got the job, just shy of ten trillion when he left.
There's a difference between a budget deficit and the national debt. They
do not measure the same thing.

Especially when you run two wars off the books, that lets you run up a hell
of a debt while claiming not to have much of a deficit at all.

I've seen this accusation frequently made, but I've never seen
it backed up by anything. If you have some credible reference
that shows how the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were not
reflected in the federal budget, I'd like to see it.






$800 billion is an interesting number, that's how much Reagan's annual
budget requests grew over his two terms which probably has something
to do with why the federal debt tripled on his watch.
Ah, but federal revenues increase by twice that amount. In Washington,
SPENDING has more of an effect on debt and deficit than revenues.

At some point are you going to explain why the debt tripled if revenues were
pouring in faster than spending increases?

He never said that spending did not rise faster than tax receipts.
After all, Congress was controlled by Democrats most of the
time Reagan was in office. The House was the entire time and
the Senate was most of the time.





But tell us again how the debt belongs to those rascally Democrats,
that Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility.
Okay, I guess repetition can't hurt: The [current] debt [increase] belongs
to the rascally Democrats and Republicans are the party of fiscal
responsibility.

Riiiight, those Repubs who until recently never met a debt ceiling increase
they didn't like, they're the ones being careful with our money even if they
sort of managed to spend a trillion bucks in Iraq which they had to borrow
from China, the interest on which will bring the final price to well over
two trillion. *None of that counts,

Sure it counts. No question that too much spending was going
on during the Bush years.



only the money the *current*
administration is spending is a problem, the ten trillion we owed before
that was no big deal.

The obvious problem is that the Obama administration has
taken the excessive spending of Bush and more than
doubled down on it. Do you not realize that the federal
budget has gone up by 40 PERCENT from 2007 to
today? Obama submitted a budget so ludicrous back
in Feb that it got not a single vote, not even one Democrat
would vote for it because it was such a joke. Obama's
budget calls for deficits averaging $1tril a year for the
NEXT DECADE.




*What was it Dick Cheney told the then Sec. of the
Treasury? *Oh yeah, Reagan proved deficits no longer matter--that must be
some of that fiscal responsibility type thinking you're referring to.


Kindly provide the source for that. I doubt it's true. The Reagan
deficits as a percent of GDP were modest. The current ones
are not.




Sure, the debt ceiling has been raised many times, at the behest and with
the support of both parties. But just like credit card debt in a family,
there comes a point where the card debt cannot be sustained by the income
the family has. Spending has to be cut.

And by a miracle that moment just happens to arrive when Democrats win the
White House, but if McCain were President it is a safe bet that the recent
debt ceiling fiasco would not have happened.

You're right. Because McCain would have shown leadership and
offered up real spending cuts. Multiple concrete spending cut plans
were put on paper by the Republicans. How many did we see
from Obama? zippo





There is also the issue that if you owe money and even after cutting
spending you can't handle the payments, you might have to get a part-time
job to bring in some more cash to pay down that debt. *Or in the case of
govt. you could close some tax loopholes, say for the oil industry which is
currently making record profits--but not if the Repubs have anything to say
about it. *So we can't afford spending that might benefit working class
families, we're just too broke. *But we can afford tax breaks for
millionaires and billionaires, those we can handle.

The Bush/Obama tax cuts extend to all taxpaying Americans,
not just millionaires and billionaires. That millionaire/billionaire
horse **** is more Obama smoke and mirrors. He uses that
term, but actually if look closely, he wants to raise the taxes
on people making $200,000. Here in the nyc area, with the
high cost of living, the high sales taxes, real estate taxes, etc
that's a middle class family with two hard working wage
earners. Why does he want' to nail them? Because he
knows that unless you nail the middle class you'll never
get enough additional money.

As for the spending issue, get this through your head.
Federal spending has risen by 40% since 2007. So,
why should we be talking about taxes when clearly this
is a spending driven problem?

On Aug 14, 1:06*am, "DGDevin" wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" *wrote in message

m...

$800 billion is an interesting number, that's how much Reagan's annual
budget requests grew over his two terms which probably has something to
do
with why the federal debt tripled on his watch.
* *Not really since the Democratic controlled Congress-- who has, as we
have established, actual control over what is finally spent--ADDED an
average of 2.8% to the expenditures.

One year they spent less than requested, one year they spent 7% more, but
yes, the average was a little under 3%. *Now on what planet does spending 3%
more per year over eight years triple the debt? *That would be a hell of an
investment return, where can I sign up for that? *Reagan increased his
budget requests by $800 billion a year from his first to last year, that's
what drove up the debt. *The 3% extra the Dems tacked on was just icing on a
very big cake.

Money very well spent. We saw the most jobs created and the longest
peacetime expansion in history up to that point. Interest rates went
from 18% to 9%, inflation was cut in half, unemployment declined
sharply, America's respect in the
world was restored. We were no longer kicked around and held
hostage by the likes of Iran. Instead of gas lines, we had cheap
oil. Most of that additional money was spent on rebuilding the
US military and along the way, we defeated the Soviet Union
without firing a shot. That's why he was re-elected in a landslide.
Mondale could only win MN.

Now Obama on the other hand, who's taken spending and
deficits to unheard of levels, what exactly do we have to
show for that?