APPROVED! 1 More Trillion in Dept

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Ok to be correct it is a trillion dollar spending bill. but where is the money coming from? you can not spend money you do not have. Since the government will not stop their wasteful spending, every year the spending bill will go up more and more, while the national debt increases. So it might as well be call the trillion dollar debt bill

A good portion of that money comes from tax revenues that the government will take in over the course of the next several months. You might find it interesting that most of what government spends actually comes from taxes - not from China. So, no, you might not call it the trillion dollar debt bill because that label would incorrectly suggest that the bill adds a trillion dollars to the national debt. It doesn't do that. Very simple, really. Even right wingers and deficit fetishists should be able to understand that.

And then there's the not so minor issue that cutting government spending has yet to demonstrate that it is a viable policy approach to improve the economic outlook and with that the fiscal picture anywhere in the developed world. They've done a good bit of that cutting in Greece and Spain and Portugal and Ireland. And what exactly did it buy them - aside from austerity induced recessions, shrinking economies for several years going and the 15%-25% unemployment rates that go along with that? That's right. Nothing. It hasn't bought them a first damned thing except malaise and misery and political instability. What a success!

[j&ana 363]

And then there's the not so minor issue that cutting government spending has yet to demonstrate that it is a viable policy approach to improve the economic outlook

The United States public debt as a percentage of GDP reached its highest level during Harry Truman's first presidential term, during and after World War II. Public debt as a percentage of GDP fell rapidly in the post-World War II period, and reached a low in 1973 under President Richard Nixon. Debt as a share of GDP has consistently increased since then, except during the terms of Democratic presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Public debt rose during the 1980s, as President Reagan cut taxes and increased military spending. It fell during the 1990s, due to decreased military spending, increased taxes and the 1990s boom. Public debt rose sharply in the wake of the 2007–08 financial crisis and resulting significant tax revenue declines and spending increases

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the United States last had a surplus during fiscal year 2001. From fiscal years 2001 to 2009, spending increased by 6.5% of gross domestic product (from 18.2% to 24.7%) while taxes declined by 4.7% of GDP (from 19.5% to 14.8%). Spending increases (expressed as percentage of GDP) were in the following areas: Medicare and Medicaid (1.7%), defense (1.6%), income security such as unemployment benefits and food stamps (1.4%), Social Security (0.6%) and all other categories (1.2%). Revenue reductions were individual income taxes (−3.3%), payroll taxes (−0.5%), corporate income taxes (−0.5%) and other (−0.4%).

The 2009 spending level was the highest relative to GDP in 40 years, while the tax receipts were the lowest relative to GDP in 40 years. The next highest spending year was 1985 (22.8%), while the next lowest tax year was 2004

From wiki history of united states http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_public_debt#Changes_in_debt_by_political_affiliation

I will prefer that we did not cut military spending. However if you cut wasteful government spending you can decrease the debt which improves the economic outlook

Edited December 14, 2014 by j&ana

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Again, they've done it in various European nations. None of them has anything desirable to show for all that reduced government spending. None of them. Nothing at all. If we had gone that course, we'd be at 10%+ unemployment rates, would be fighting deflation and wonder when the economy is going to start growing again. Austerity - that dog don't hunt.

[j&ana 363]

Again, they've done it in various European nations. None of them has anything desirable to show for all that reduced government spending. None of them. Nothing at all. If we had gone that course, we'd be at 10%+ unemployment rates, would be fighting deflation and wonder when the economy is going to start growing again. Austerity - that dog don't hunt.

This is America not Europe .It has been proven during the Carter and Clinton presidency,that cutting government spending can reduce debt which improves the economy

Edited December 14, 2014 by j&ana

[j&ana 363]

you can not compare USA and Europe economy due to the fact that America is a single country while Europe is combine countries

The official currency of the European Union is the euro used in all its documents and policies. The Stability and Growth Pact sets out the fiscal criteria to maintain for stability and (economic) convergence. The euro is also the most widely used currency in the EU, which is in use in 18 member states known as the Eurozone.

All other member states, apart from Denmark and the United Kingdom, which have special opt-outs, have committed to adopting the euro once they have fulfilled the requirements needed to do so. Also, Sweden can effectively opt out by choosing when or whether to join the European Exchange Rate Mechanism, which is the preliminary step towards joining. The remaining states are committed to join the Euro through their Treaties of Accession.

Budget[edit]

Further information: Budget of the European Union

The operation of the EU has an agreed budget of €141 billion for the year 2011, and €862 billion for the period 2007–2013,^[2] this represents around 1% of the EU's GDP.

Economic variation[edit]

wiki

[j&ana 363]

what fiscal impact the partial government shutdown actually had (hint: it didn't save a dime but rather caused more money to be spent than would have been the case without that shutdown). So, why don't you go and acquire at least a basic understanding of these two things and then come back here and try to have an informed discussion

.

Of course the last government shutdown did not save any money. The reason for the shutdown was that a minority of congress say hey we are spending to much while the majority say hey lets spend more. it is like borrowing money from Paul to pay Peter to screw Mary

Edited December 14, 2014 by j&ana

[Karee 4,189]

Again, they've done it in various European nations. None of them has anything desirable to show for all that reduced government spending. None of them. Nothing at all. If we had gone that course, we'd be at 10%+ unemployment rates, would be fighting deflation and wonder when the economy is going to start growing again. Austerity - that dog don't hunt.

Well He!!, let's run the debt up to 200% of GDP. I mean by your logic, if 100% is good, then 200% should be twice as good.

it's becoming apparent that you are absolutely unable to look at anything objectively if it paints Obama or the Dems in a bad light. You're so stuck on "Bush/Reagan did it" that you can't even see that running a debt that is now more than 100% of GDP is a bad thing.

It's a shame really, because you seem to be a smart guy.

[j&ana 363]

My thought is that it is glaringly obvious that have a very poor grasp of 1) what was approved in Congress (hint: it was not another trillion dollars in debt) and 2) what fiscal impact the partial government shutdown actually had (hint: it didn't save a dime but rather caused more money to be spent than would have been the case without that shutdown). So, why don't you go and acquire at least a basic understanding of these two things and then come back here and try to have an informed discussion.

I was ready to have an inform discussion with you but apparently you are not to inform. Perhaps next time instead of correcting someone and telling them they need a basic knowledge of something, you should do some research and back up your augments.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

This is America not Europe and it has been proven doing Clinton Carter term that cutting government spending can decrease the debt which improves the economy outlook

Clinton did not just cut spending, he also raised taxes. And only both steps combined could balance the budget. But it didn't matter. As soon as Republicans had a chance once Clinton left office, they blew it all anyways. And the economic outlook during the Clinton years improved mainly on the emerging internet bubble. Which, of course, soon enough popped and put a damper on that outlook.

you can not compare USA and Europe economy due to the fact that America is a single country while Europe is combine countries

You don't say. If you had paid attention, I did not compare the US to Europe. But nice try anyways.

Well He!!, let's run the debt up to 200% of GDP. I mean by your logic, if 100% is good, then 200% should be twice as good.

it's becoming apparent that you are absolutely unable to look at anything objectively if it paints Obama or the Dems in a bad light. You're so stuck on "Bush/Reagan did it" that you can't even see that running a debt that is now more than 100% of GDP is a bad thing.

It's a shame really, because you seem to be a smart guy.

Just show me where I have ever said any such thing.

I was ready to have an inform discussion with you but apparently you are not to inform. Perhaps next time instead of correcting someone and telling them they need a basic knowledge of something, you should do some research and back up your augments.

I'm sorry. What was your informed discussion here? The falsehood that Congress passed one more trillion in debt and some cut-and-pastes from wiki.

[j&ana 363]

Clinton did not just cut spending, he also raised taxes. And only both steps combined could balance the budget. But it didn't matter. As soon as Republicans had a chance once Clinton left office, they blew it all anyways. And the economic outlook during the Clinton years improved mainly on the emerging internet bubble. Which, of course, soon enough popped and put a damper on that outlook.

Of course he raise taxes. everyone know that beside decreasing spending you have to raise taxes to get the budget down. The internet bubble help Clinton, but in all fairness the wars hurt bush. so take them two factors away. Then you have increase spending equal increase debt. To decrease debt you have to decrease spending. which is why the trillion dollar spending bill should be the trillion dollar debt bill

You don't say. If you had paid attention, I did not compare the US to Europe. But nice try anyways.

Again, they've done it in various European nations. None of them has anything desirable to show for all that reduced government spending. None of them. Nothing at all. If we had gone that course, we'd be at 10%+ unemployment rates, would be fighting deflation and wonder when the economy is going to start growing again. Austerity - that dog don't hunt. Is that not your quote? It is hard to have an inform discussion when the other person does not know what he is auguring for

Just show me where I have ever said any such thing. I

I'm sorry. What was your informed discussion here? The falsehood that Congress passed one more trillion in debt and some cut-and-pastes from wiki.

yes my was reply was from wiki,but t least I took the time to have a little clue as to what I was talking about unlike someone that does not have a clue but yet want to put some one else down.

[MyLittlePony 340]

Obama has more golf funds and fund raising in the bay area.

[j&ana 363]

My thought is that it is glaringly obvious that have a very poor grasp of 1) what was approved in Congress (hint: it was not another trillion dollars in debt) and 2) what fiscal impact the partial government shutdown actually had (hint: it didn't save a dime but rather caused more money to be spent than would have been the case without that shutdown). So, why don't you go and acquire at least a basic understanding of these two things and then come back here and try to have an informed discussion.

one trillion spending bill + wasteful spending = one trillion dollar debt bill

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

one trillion spending bill + wasteful spending = one trillion dollar debt bill

Still incorrect. You can twist that any way you want to in your mind but the fact remains that the bill that passed Congress does not add a trillion dollars to the debt.

[j&ana 363]

Still incorrect. You can twist that any way you want to in your mind but the fact remains that the bill that passed Congress does not add a trillion dollars to the debt.

ok you are correct the one trillion dollar spending bill will not add a trillion dollar in debt .However it will increase the debt you can not add a spending bill and expect the debt not to go up without cutting wasteful spending and or increase taxes

[Sousuke 1,214]

If I were to summarize Government spending it would be this:

1.Run deficits during extreme situations such as: major recessions and wars (I mean the congressionally declared wars - Not Iraq 1, 2 or 3)

2. After said event, attempt to minimize deficits within a timeframe of less than 20 years (depending on level of calamity).

3. Do not run a deficit during peace or positive economies unless you are still in recovery from previous calamity.

4. Allow inflation and GDP growth to erode value of government debt.

Edited December 15, 2014 by Sousuke