2016 Presidential Candidate

[Jeremy E.]

First come the facts, then come the desperate rationalizations.

Fact, Obama increased the debt more in 6 years than W Bush did in 8.

I would sure as hell like to see a *reliable* source for this.

W Bush increased it from 5.8 trillion to 11.65 trillion
Obama has raised it to 18.4 trillion so far
11.65-5.8=5.85
18.4-11.65=6.75
6.75>5.85

So, I would like to see a reliable source.  Like, a source.

I'm not saying you are wrong.  I would like to see a reputable source cited. Not you typing out numbers.

Notice how Jeremy is not intellectually honest enough to Define the debt as nominal debt or debt as a proportion of GDP.

This sophistry is a favorite tactic for those who try to argue what is untrue.

Here is a fair piece on debt by presidents.  The last chart shows debt as a proportion of GDP. Look at how well the Reagan Bush supply side experiment works at decreasing deficit levels.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/01/07/the-story-behind-obama-and-the-national-debt-in-7-charts/

Okay, compare those charts to a similar one from when FDR was in office and you won't even notice the republicans.

[milesdividendmd]

Why would I look that up? It's "common knowledge."

[Jeremy E.]

Why would I look that up? It's "common knowledge."

I don't care if you look it up, but FDR raised both taxes and debt, by far more than any other republican and their is no disputing it.

[Jeremy E.]

First come the facts, then come the desperate rationalizations.

Fact, Obama increased the debt more in 6 years than W Bush did in 8.

I would sure as hell like to see a *reliable* source for this.

W Bush increased it from 5.8 trillion to 11.65 trillion
Obama has raised it to 18.4 trillion so far
11.65-5.8=5.85
18.4-11.65=6.75
6.75>5.85

So, I would like to see a reliable source.  Like, a source.

I'm not saying you are wrong.  I would like to see a reputable source cited. Not you typing out numbers.

It is common knowledge that isn't disputed by either party, if you don't believe me I'll let you look it up yourself and choose your own source.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_knowledge

Posting a wikipedia link about "common knowledge" after asking me for a reputable source for the national debt multiple times? LOLOLOLOLOLOL

[milesdividendmd]

Sources. LOL. 

[Kris]

First come the facts, then come the desperate rationalizations.

Fact, Obama increased the debt more in 6 years than W Bush did in 8.

I would sure as hell like to see a *reliable* source for this.

W Bush increased it from 5.8 trillion to 11.65 trillion
Obama has raised it to 18.4 trillion so far
11.65-5.8=5.85
18.4-11.65=6.75
6.75>5.85

So, I would like to see a reliable source.  Like, a source.

I'm not saying you are wrong.  I would like to see a reputable source cited. Not you typing out numbers.

It is common knowledge that isn't disputed by either party, if you don't believe me I'll let you look it up yourself and choose your own source.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_knowledge

Posting a wikipedia link about "common knowledge" after asking me for a reputable source for the national debt multiple times? LOLOLOLOLOLOL

Jeremy: "Common knowledge" is a logical fallacy.

It is not about Wikipedia. I can give you other sources pointing out that your "logic" is a fallacy.

The point is, citing "common knowledge" is, pure and simple, BS.

So...

Present actual sources for your assertions. Or else, admit that your assertions are groundless.

[Glenstache]

Here's some neutral data on debt (note the numbers do not appear to be inflation adjusted).
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm

Most of the big historical inflection points align with the World Wars and economic downturns. These outlier events (where we didn't bring them on ourselves, like with Iraq) are somewhat divorced from the ideology of the individual parties, so arguing based on those administrations is a bit inaccurate.

While there has been some grumbling about it, I don't see a huge groundswell of opposition to the details of the major policies driving up federal debt from the side of the deficit hawks, but much wrangling about small pieces of the pie in discretionary programs. 

[Kris]

First come the facts, then come the desperate rationalizations.

Fact, Obama increased the debt more in 6 years than W Bush did in 8.

I would sure as hell like to see a *reliable* source for this.

W Bush increased it from 5.8 trillion to 11.65 trillion
Obama has raised it to 18.4 trillion so far
11.65-5.8=5.85
18.4-11.65=6.75
6.75>5.85

So, I would like to see a reliable source.  Like, a source.

I'm not saying you are wrong.  I would like to see a reputable source cited. Not you typing out numbers.

It is common knowledge that isn't disputed by either party, if you don't believe me I'll let you look it up yourself and choose your own source.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_knowledge

Posting a wikipedia link about "common knowledge" after asking me for a reputable source for the national debt multiple times? LOLOLOLOLOLOL

Jeremy: "Common knowledge" is a logical fallacy.

It is not about Wikipedia. I can give you other sources pointing out that your "logic" is a fallacy.

The point is, citing "common knowledge" is, pure and simple, BS.

So...

Present actual sources for your assertions. Or else, admit that your assertions are groundless.

http://www.academia.edu/285486/On_common_knowledge_and_ad_populum_Acceptance_as_grounds_for_acceptability

[Jeremy E.]

First come the facts, then come the desperate rationalizations.

Fact, Obama increased the debt more in 6 years than W Bush did in 8.

I would sure as hell like to see a *reliable* source for this.

W Bush increased it from 5.8 trillion to 11.65 trillion
Obama has raised it to 18.4 trillion so far
11.65-5.8=5.85
18.4-11.65=6.75
6.75>5.85

So, I would like to see a reliable source.  Like, a source.

I'm not saying you are wrong.  I would like to see a reputable source cited. Not you typing out numbers.

It is common knowledge that isn't disputed by either party, if you don't believe me I'll let you look it up yourself and choose your own source.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_knowledge

Posting a wikipedia link about "common knowledge" after asking me for a reputable source for the national debt multiple times? LOLOLOLOLOLOL

Jeremy: "Common knowledge" is a logical fallacy.

It is not about Wikipedia. I can give you other sources pointing out that your "logic" is a fallacy.

The point is, citing "common knowledge" is, pure and simple, BS.

So...

Present actual sources for your assertions. Or else, admit that your assertions are groundless.

Whatever, since you keep bringing it up, i'll rephrase by saying it makes you seem stupid to ask multiple times for reliable sources on what the national debt is now and between presidents, as those are VERY easy to find numbers that aren't disputed.

[Kris]

First come the facts, then come the desperate rationalizations.

Fact, Obama increased the debt more in 6 years than W Bush did in 8.

I would sure as hell like to see a *reliable* source for this.

W Bush increased it from 5.8 trillion to 11.65 trillion
Obama has raised it to 18.4 trillion so far
11.65-5.8=5.85
18.4-11.65=6.75
6.75>5.85

So, I would like to see a reliable source.  Like, a source.

I'm not saying you are wrong.  I would like to see a reputable source cited. Not you typing out numbers.

It is common knowledge that isn't disputed by either party, if you don't believe me I'll let you look it up yourself and choose your own source.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_knowledge

Posting a wikipedia link about "common knowledge" after asking me for a reputable source for the national debt multiple times? LOLOLOLOLOLOL

Jeremy: "Common knowledge" is a logical fallacy.

It is not about Wikipedia. I can give you other sources pointing out that your "logic" is a fallacy.

The point is, citing "common knowledge" is, pure and simple, BS.

So...

Present actual sources for your assertions. Or else, admit that your assertions are groundless.

Whatever, since you keep bringing it up, i'll rephrase by saying it makes you seem stupid to ask multiple times for reliable sources on what the national debt is now and between presidents, as those are VERY easy to find numbers that aren't disputed.

http://www.mcckc.edu/longview/socsci/psyc/westra/CommonSense/cs4.html

It doesn't make me "look stupid" in the sense that you keep telling everyone that it is "very easy" to find these sources, and it is "common knowledge" but somehow, you can't take the negligible time to actually locate them.

Fallacy.

[Jeremy E.]

First come the facts, then come the desperate rationalizations.

Fact, Obama increased the debt more in 6 years than W Bush did in 8.

I would sure as hell like to see a *reliable* source for this.

W Bush increased it from 5.8 trillion to 11.65 trillion
Obama has raised it to 18.4 trillion so far
11.65-5.8=5.85
18.4-11.65=6.75
6.75>5.85

So, I would like to see a reliable source.  Like, a source.

I'm not saying you are wrong.  I would like to see a reputable source cited. Not you typing out numbers.

It is common knowledge that isn't disputed by either party, if you don't believe me I'll let you look it up yourself and choose your own source.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_knowledge

Posting a wikipedia link about "common knowledge" after asking me for a reputable source for the national debt multiple times? LOLOLOLOLOLOL

Jeremy: "Common knowledge" is a logical fallacy.

It is not about Wikipedia. I can give you other sources pointing out that your "logic" is a fallacy.

The point is, citing "common knowledge" is, pure and simple, BS.

So...

Present actual sources for your assertions. Or else, admit that your assertions are groundless.

Whatever, since you keep bringing it up, i'll rephrase by saying it makes you seem stupid to ask multiple times for reliable sources on what the national debt is now and between presidents, as those are VERY easy to find numbers that aren't disputed.

http://www.mcckc.edu/longview/socsci/psyc/westra/CommonSense/cs4.html

It doesn't make me "look stupid" in the sense that you keep telling everyone that it is "very easy" to find these sources, and it is "common knowledge" but somehow, you can't take the negligible time to actually locate them.

Fallacy.

This will be my last reply to you as you are wasting my time.
Here is what the national debt is,
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
Here are 5 (easily found by a simple google search) websites that show what the national debt was between Bush and Obama. I could find more but I don't feel like it.
http://useconomy.about.com/od/usdebtanddeficit/p/US-Debt-by-President.htm
http://goliards.us/adelphi/deficits/index.html
http://www.savingsbonds.gov/NP/debt/current
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/706025967449751-federal-debt-7t-under-obama
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/75-trillion-debt-added-under-obama_824147.html#!

[frugalecon]

Arguing about the Federal debt and deficits without reference to economic conditions during the administrations in question demonstrates a lack of understanding of the forces that drive Federal budget dynamics. Obama and FDR were both presidents during severe economic downturns. The idea that the Federal budget deficit was the most significant problem during these periods is laughable.

[Jeremy E.]

Arguing about the Federal debt and deficits without reference to economic conditions during the administrations in question demonstrates a lack of understanding of the forces that drive Federal budget dynamics. Obama and FDR were both presidents during severe economic downturns. The idea that the Federal budget deficit was the most significant problem during these periods is laughable.

I don't believe anyone has said the federal budget deficit was the most significant problem during these periods. That being said, a large part of FDRs debt was not incurred by the war, but instead the entitlement programs that he created.

[milesdividendmd]

"Entitlements" are not included in the national debt. That's federal budget 101. Our "entitlements" have a separate trust fund and are still in surplus. That is to date they have collected more than they have paid.

You need to start reading actual reality based reporting. Your arguments are embarrassingly misguided.

[Jeremy E.]

"Entitlements" are not included in the national debt. That's federal budget 101. Our "entitlements" have a separate trust fund and are still in surplus. That is to date they have collected more than they have paid.

You need to start reading actual reality based reporting. Your arguments are embarrassingly misguided.

We owe more money to social security than we owe any country.

[milesdividendmd]

Social security has a surplus.

[Jeremy E.]

Social security has a surplus.

It would have a surplus assuming we didn't take money out of it, but we did.

[milesdividendmd]

Let's take you at your word for the sake of argument. By any measure social security has contributed exactly nothing to our national debt.

Which makes this statement of yours laughably false:

That being said, a large part of FDRs debt was not incurred by the war, but instead the entitlement programs that he created.

[Jeremy E.]

Let's take you at your word for the sake of argument. By any measure social security has contributed exactly nothing to our national debt.

Which makes this statement of yours laughably false:

That being said, a large part of FDRs debt was not incurred by the war, but instead the entitlement programs that he created.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/05/news/economy/national_debt_spending/

[MDM]

"Entitlements" are not included in the national debt.

If by this you mean the liability for future payments that the US govt. would have to account for if subject to business accounting practices, that is correct.  Things would look much worse if the government had to do so.

That's federal budget 101. Our "entitlements" have a separate trust fund and are still in surplus. That is to date they have collected more than they have paid.
You need to start reading actual reality based reporting. Your arguments are embarrassingly misguided.

If you are talking about the cumulative differences between annual spending and tax revenue, and the gross outstanding federal debt issued by the United States Department of the Treasury to pay for those shortfalls, however, entitlements have been and are huge contributors to the national debt.

For many numbers, see
http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/debt_central.php#agency
http://www.usfederalbudget.us/
http://www.usfederalbudget.us/federal_budget_detail_fy16rs12012n_1li1n

For generic observations, see
http://www.aarp.org/politics-society/government-elections/national-debt-guide/faqs/how-did-debt-get-so-big/
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2013/nov/22/marco-rubio/medicare-and-social-security-not-defense-are-drivi/

[milesdividendmd]

"Entitlements" are not included in the national debt.

If by this you mean the liability for future payments that the US govt. would have to account for if subject to business accounting practices, that is correct.  Things would look much worse if the government had to do so.

That's federal budget 101. Our "entitlements" have a separate trust fund and are still in surplus. That is to date they have collected more than they have paid.
You need to start reading actual reality based reporting. Your arguments are embarrassingly misguided.

If you are talking about the cumulative differences between annual spending and tax revenue, and the gross outstanding federal debt issued by the United States Department of the Treasury to pay for those shortfalls, however, entitlements have been and are huge contributors to the national debt.

For many numbers, see
http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/debt_central.php#agency
http://www.usfederalbudget.us/
http://www.usfederalbudget.us/federal_budget_detail_fy16rs12012n_1li1n

For generic observations, see
http://www.aarp.org/politics-society/government-elections/national-debt-guide/faqs/how-did-debt-get-so-big/
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2013/nov/22/marco-rubio/medicare-and-social-security-not-defense-are-drivi/

You are conflating future liabilities with our current debt.

Recall that our right wing friend's argument is that FDR's contribution to our national debt was caused by "entitlements," not WWII spending/ depression which is clearly not true.

What will drive future debt, and how to address the shortfall  is a separate (and unrelated) question. It's interesting, but irrelevant to the topic at hand.

[beltim]

That being said, a large part of FDRs debt was not incurred by the war, but instead the entitlement programs that he created.

Not even a little bit.  Here's a graph.  Note that the first New Deal started in 1933, and the second New Deal started in 1935, and the US entered World War 2 in 1941.  See how the debt doesn't go up until after we entered the war?  That shows that you're completely wrong, and making up facts.  Please stop making up facts.

[MDM]

You are conflating future liabilities with our current debt.

Umm, no.  I agreed with you in the first part of that post that future liabilities are not part of current debt: "If by this you mean the liability for future payments that the US govt. would have to account for if subject to business accounting practices, that is correct.  Things would look much worse if the government had to do so."

But each year, as the federal govt. distributes more than it receives, it issues debt to pay the shortfall.  See the second part and links therein.

[Malaysia41]

Social Security Wiki (tl;dr even experts argue over whether the Social security trust fund of nearly $2.8 trillion 'exists' (since all but $18 billion has been borrowed in inter-governmental loans)- skip to the end of the page for that head-spinner).

Debt has increased under both republican and democratic leadership for various reasons over time. 

(edit - moved the other portion of this post to a new.. uh, post).

[milesdividendmd]

Oh I read/skimmed the links.

We can talk about future liabilities with the aging of the baby boomer generation. It's just a complete different discussion from the current one which is about Jeremy's "making shit up" about the cause of FDRs deficit.

[Jeremy E.]

"Entitlements" are not included in the national debt.

If by this you mean the liability for future payments that the US govt. would have to account for if subject to business accounting practices, that is correct.  Things would look much worse if the government had to do so.

That's federal budget 101. Our "entitlements" have a separate trust fund and are still in surplus. That is to date they have collected more than they have paid.
You need to start reading actual reality based reporting. Your arguments are embarrassingly misguided.

If you are talking about the cumulative differences between annual spending and tax revenue, and the gross outstanding federal debt issued by the United States Department of the Treasury to pay for those shortfalls, however, entitlements have been and are huge contributors to the national debt.

For many numbers, see
http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/debt_central.php#agency
http://www.usfederalbudget.us/
http://www.usfederalbudget.us/federal_budget_detail_fy16rs12012n_1li1n

For generic observations, see
http://www.aarp.org/politics-society/government-elections/national-debt-guide/faqs/how-did-debt-get-so-big/
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2013/nov/22/marco-rubio/medicare-and-social-security-not-defense-are-drivi/

You are conflating future liabilities with our current debt.

Recall that our right wing friend's argument is that FDR's contribution to our national debt was caused by "entitlements," not WWII spending/ depression which is clearly not true.

What will drive future debt, and how to address the shortfall  is a separate (and unrelated) question. It's interesting, but irrelevant to the topic at hand.

I'm not entirely right wing, I just don't want to become a socialist nation. Yes I want to cut entitlement funding, start zoning out social security, and balance the budget. But I also want to greatly decrease the military budget, I think anyone should be allowed to do whatever they want, so long as it doesn't greatly affect their neighbors, whether that's marry someone of the same sex, get an abortion, do drugs in the privacy of their own home, whatever. I feel like people should have the freedom to choose their own retirement program(not pay social security), get private insurance(why should I, a perfectly healthy adult who tries my best to stay very healthy, have to pay taxes to help fund the payment of insurance for people who don't care what they eat, do stupid things to get hurt, etc.), and choose whether or not they want to pay for college, and which one to go to(so I'd rather pay for 2 years for a community college and 2 years for university, rather than pay taxes for people to go to expensive public colleges the rest of my life). I don't think me wanting people to have the freedom to spend their money as they choose makes me right wing.

[Malaysia41]

Back to the presidential candidates ? : 

Bob W MoonShadow linked to Scott Adam's blog a while ago.  I've since been listening to Mr. Adam's audio book How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big.  He makes a lot of hilarious points in this book, one of which is this: if you think people make important decisions from a point of rationality, you'll go through life feeling baffled and confused.  And that's because people make decisions before they even get to the point of rationalization.  Their subconscious feely brain-part knows what it likes and then hands off this preference to the rational part of the brain to come up with some bullshit story for choosing that preference.

This election is particularly interesting because so many candidates are playing to this reality of human-behavior.  Examples of emotional bullshit appeals to our subconsciouses:
- proposing crazy solutions to minor problems (a wall along the Mexican border to keep people out)
- painting StephenKing-esque scenarios in our minds (CF in tears over evil Planned Parenthood doctors selling body parts to the highest bidder)
- using PUA 101 tricks to make us want them (Trump's alternate negging and approving of other candidates with barely any discussion of their policy decisions or objective qualifications)

I could go on but I don't want to introduce a bunch of points for you to contend with... because my main point is this:

It's a freaking freak show. Let's talk about the individual actors (yes, actors). 

This freak show makes me oddly attracted to learning more about Bernie Sanders.  I've been reading up on his FTT tax proposal*, learning more about income and wealth inequality aka the 1% v 99%**, and educating myself on carried interest***

But I'm an engineer by training. I'm jumping into research, even as I realize my feely brain-part has already decided who I'm voting for... even if she hasn't passed the info over to my pre-frontal reasoning centers yet. Reading up on the issues may be crazy but, hey, I'm human.  It's what we do.

Passing the popcorn, who y'all wanna talk about next? 

* FFT tax: Mr. Sanders proposes a tax of .5% per equity/derivatives trade.  As an individual investor who posts 0-5 trades a month, the idea of the tax could be okay but the actual tax he proposes is WAY too high.  A $50 tax on a $10,000 transaction TLH transaction?  No thanks.  $5 may be more palatable but still too high IMO.  So... maybe ... instead of a .5% tax we do a .01%? I could live with that.  In aggregate, .01% may not raise enough $ to fund 4 year college educations for all, but perhaps could finance 2 years comm college for all? That'd be pretty bitchin'.

**Spoiler: Mr. Pickety's Capital in the 21st Century fails to make me chuckle as often as Mr. Adam's How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big. Results may vary.

*** Carried Interest:  Yes! it should be taxed as ordinary income, duh. 

edits: formatting, making text more concise, grammar, punctuation, attribution for orig Scott Adam's link, y'know, the usual stuff.

[milesdividendmd]

Sorry, jeremy. I shouldn't have labeled you right wing. Everyone has their own unique view of the world  of course

But the fact that you have such an inaccurate view of what causes deficits, and that you have such a hostile view of social programs, and you appear to support only Republican candidates does suggest that you are right wing.

I will be the first to admit that I am left-wing. I'm proud of it in fact.

[Jeremy E.]

Sorry, jeremy. I shouldn't have labeled you right wing. Everyone has their own unique view of the world  of course

But the fact that you have such an inaccurate view of what causes deficits, and that you have such a hostile view of social programs, and you appear to support only Republican candidates does suggest that you are right wing.

I will be the first to admit that I am left-wing. I'm proud of it in fact.

bad budgets, large entitlement programs, insufficient taxes, bad economies and wars cause deficits.

[milesdividendmd]

Tax cuts. Don't forget tax cuts and supply side voodoo economics.

[MoonShadow]

Back to the presidential candidates ? : 

Bob W (I think) linked to Scott Adam's blog a while ago.

I believe that I was the first to link there from this thread.

  I've since been listening to Mr. Adam's audio book How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big.  He makes a lot of hilarious points in this book, one of which is this: if you think people make important decisions from a point of rationality, you'll go through life feeling baffled and confused.  And that's because people make decisions before they even get to the point of rationalization.  Their subconscious feely brain-part knows what it likes and then hands off this preference to the rational part of the brain to come up with some bullshit story for choosing that preference.

That's Adam's 'moist robot' theorem.  That the vast majority of adults aren't really independently thinking humans, but organic machines programmed to act a certain way and conditioned to convince themselves that they like whatever they were programmed to do.

[milesdividendmd]

Sounds like a gestalt impression of Kahneman's more rigorous Thinking Fast and Slow.

[Malaysia41]

Back to the presidential candidates ? : 

Bob W (I think) linked to Scott Adam's blog a while ago.

I believe that I was the first to link there from this thread.

Fixed it to give you credit - thanks!

[dramaman]

Sorry, jeremy. I shouldn't have labeled you right wing. Everyone has their own unique view of the world  of course

But the fact that you have such an inaccurate view of what causes deficits, and that you have such a hostile view of social programs, and you appear to support only Republican candidates does suggest that you are right wing.

I will be the first to admit that I am left-wing. I'm proud of it in fact.

bad budgets, large entitlement programs, insufficient taxes, bad economies and wars cause deficits.

I've been following the thread of this particular discussion and one significant detail that has been left out is that deficits are NOT always necessarily bad and policies put in place to remove deficits could do more harm than good.

[Bob W]

Back to the presidential candidates ? : 

Bob W (I think) linked to Scott Adam's blog a while ago.

I believe that I was the first to link there from this thread.

  I've since been listening to Mr. Adam's audio book How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big.  He makes a lot of hilarious points in this book, one of which is this: if you think people make important decisions from a point of rationality, you'll go through life feeling baffled and confused.  And that's because people make decisions before they even get to the point of rationalization.  Their subconscious feely brain-part knows what it likes and then hands off this preference to the rational part of the brain to come up with some bullshit story for choosing that preference.

That's Adam's 'moist robot' theorem.  That the vast majority of adults aren't really independently thinking humans, but organic machines programmed to act a certain way and conditioned to convince themselves that they like whatever they were programmed to do.

Yes, Moonshadow -- you are the one who turned me onto it.  Thanks for that.

[Bob W]

Sorry, jeremy. I shouldn't have labeled you right wing. Everyone has their own unique view of the world  of course

But the fact that you have such an inaccurate view of what causes deficits, and that you have such a hostile view of social programs, and you appear to support only Republican candidates does suggest that you are right wing.

I will be the first to admit that I am left-wing. I'm proud of it in fact.

bad budgets, large entitlement programs, insufficient taxes, bad economies and wars cause deficits.

You have that right.  Of course it is the Repulicrats who have lead this for the past 15 years.   Remember the good old days of Newt Gingrich/Bill Clinton?   Actual budget surpluses.  At the time I recall they were predicting that not only would be our of debt be gone by now but we would have a huge pile of cash setting around.   

I would say that the Bush tax cuts were the impetus that set us on this path.  Tax cuts only work if they don't have or negative impact on tax income and/or spending is kept within reason.   

What are we at now 19 Trillion in debt if you don't count student loan debt?   If you include unfunded social security obligations we are probably in the 80 Trillion range.  Amazing really.   

Well look at the 19 Trillion --- That is around 380,000 per tax paying household.   Luckily we are paying 2% interest on that loan.  Sadly none of the Pubs seems interested in this.   Haven't heard Trump address it.  One would assume that the basic Dem plan would be to raise taxes.   Of course they will raise spending more than taxes.

We're screwed. 

[Gin1984]

Sorry, jeremy. I shouldn't have labeled you right wing. Everyone has their own unique view of the world  of course

But the fact that you have such an inaccurate view of what causes deficits, and that you have such a hostile view of social programs, and you appear to support only Republican candidates does suggest that you are right wing.

I will be the first to admit that I am left-wing. I'm proud of it in fact.

bad budgets, large entitlement programs, insufficient taxes, bad economies and wars cause deficits.

You have that right.  Of course it is the Repulicrats who have lead this for the past 15 years.   Remember the good old days of Newt Gingrich/Bill Clinton?   Actual budget surpluses.  At the time I recall they were predicting that not only would be our of debt be gone by now but we would have a huge pile of cash setting around.   

I would say that the Bush tax cuts were the impetus that set us on this path.  Tax cuts only work if they don't have or negative impact on tax income and/or spending is kept within reason.   

What are we at now 19 Trillion in debt if you don't count student loan debt?   If you include unfunded social security obligations we are probably in the 80 Trillion range.  Amazing really.   

Well look at the 19 Trillion --- That is around 380,000 per tax paying household.   Luckily we are paying 2% interest on that loan.  Sadly none of the Pubs seems interested in this.   Haven't heard Trump address it.  One would assume that the basic Dem plan would be to raise taxes.   Of course they will raise spending more than taxes.

We're screwed.

Why would assume that?  Most dems I know want a balanced budget.

[Bob W]

They Dems you know aren't the lobbyist writing the budgets.   Virtually all Pubs I know want a balanced budget.  It will not happen until there is some sort of revolution.   Thus the interest in Trump. 

[Gin1984]

They Dems you know aren't the lobbyist writing the budgets.   Virtually all Pubs I know want a balanced budget.  It will not happen until there is some sort of revolution.   Thus the interest in Trump.

LOL, I have been involved in politics my entire life, please don't assume what others know.  My mother has written legislation, herself, at the local and federal level.  I was speaking of politicians, "special interest groups" like unions and voters.  The majority in all groups want a balanced budget.  They don't want a balanced budget amendment because of the fiscal harm it can do during recessions but they want a balanced budget.

[Jeremy E.]

Sorry, jeremy. I shouldn't have labeled you right wing. Everyone has their own unique view of the world  of course

But the fact that you have such an inaccurate view of what causes deficits, and that you have such a hostile view of social programs, and you appear to support only Republican candidates does suggest that you are right wing.

I will be the first to admit that I am left-wing. I'm proud of it in fact.

bad budgets, large entitlement programs, insufficient taxes, bad economies and wars cause deficits.

You have that right.  Of course it is the Repulicrats who have lead this for the past 15 years.   Remember the good old days of Newt Gingrich/Bill Clinton?   Actual budget surpluses.  At the time I recall they were predicting that not only would be our of debt be gone by now but we would have a huge pile of cash setting around.   

I would say that the Bush tax cuts were the impetus that set us on this path.  Tax cuts only work if they don't have or negative impact on tax income and/or spending is kept within reason.   

What are we at now 19 Trillion in debt if you don't count student loan debt?   If you include unfunded social security obligations we are probably in the 80 Trillion range.  Amazing really.   

Well look at the 19 Trillion --- That is around 380,000 per tax paying household.   Luckily we are paying 2% interest on that loan.  Sadly none of the Pubs seems interested in this.   Haven't heard Trump address it.  One would assume that the basic Dem plan would be to raise taxes.   Of course they will raise spending more than taxes.

We're screwed.

I agree that W Bush hurt the budget a lot, but republicans budgets helped out the Clinton administration to make the surplus. I think if we want to get out of debt, we HAVE to reduce military spending, reduce entitlement spending, and raise taxes. Since one side wants to reduce taxes and increase military spending, while the other wants to increase entitlement spending, we are definitely screwed. Rand Paul hates wars and wants to reduce entitlements, but he also wants to greatly decrease taxes, so it's basically a wash. John Kasich says he wants to reduce military spending, but I'm guessing it would just shift some money to the navy from other areas and the budget would stay about the same, he also wants to make a balanced  budget, so that would certainly help, but is it possible? Bernie Sanders wants to massively increase entitlement spending, increase taxes, and reduce war. I hate the idea of increasing entitlement spending because entitlements rarely go away and you're stuck with them forever, where as wars usually end at least for a little while, and taxes change quite often. The idea of either Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump or Carly Fiorina just makes me gag, it would be so horrible.

[Jeremy E.]

They Dems you know aren't the lobbyist writing the budgets.   Virtually all Pubs I know want a balanced budget.  It will not happen until there is some sort of revolution.   Thus the interest in Trump.

LOL, I have been involved in politics my entire life, please don't assume what others know.  My mother has written legislation, herself, at the local and federal level.  I was speaking of politicians, "special interest groups" like unions and voters.  The majority in all groups want a balanced budget.  They don't want a balanced budget amendment because of the fiscal harm it can do during recessions but they want a balanced budget.

Everyone wants a balanced budget, no one wants debt. But the problem is that the dems aren't willing to reduce entitlement spending and the pubs aren't willing to raise taxes or reduce the military budget.

[Bob W]

They Dems you know aren't the lobbyist writing the budgets.   Virtually all Pubs I know want a balanced budget.  It will not happen until there is some sort of revolution.   Thus the interest in Trump.

LOL, I have been involved in politics my entire life, please don't assume what others know.  My mother has written legislation, herself, at the local and federal level.  I was speaking of politicians, "special interest groups" like unions and voters.  The majority in all groups want a balanced budget.  They don't want a balanced budget amendment because of the fiscal harm it can do during recessions but they want a balanced budget.

Everyone wants a balanced budget, no one wants debt. But the problem is that the dems aren't willing to reduce entitlement spending and the pubs aren't willing to raise taxes or reduce the military budget.

Well everyone is a vast exaggeration but you have the problem defined pretty well.   

So what happens when there isn't a dem or pub at the tiller?  No one knows.  There is only one choice in that category. 


For those who have an interest in the Reuters poll I mention way above ---


September 18th, 2015 (5-day rolling)

972 Responses



Businessman Donald Trump

27.8%


Wouldn’t vote

23.6%


Surgeon and author Ben Carson

10.7%


Former Fla. Gov. Jeb Bush

8.8%


Former Ark. Gov. Mike Huckabee

4.9%


NJ Gov. Chris Christie

4.1%


Former Sen. candidate and business executive Carly Fiorina

3.8%


Tex. Sen. Ted Cruz

3.5%


Ken. Sen. Rand Paul

3%


Wis. Gov. Scott

[Jeremy E.]

They Dems you know aren't the lobbyist writing the budgets.   Virtually all Pubs I know want a balanced budget.  It will not happen until there is some sort of revolution.   Thus the interest in Trump.

LOL, I have been involved in politics my entire life, please don't assume what others know.  My mother has written legislation, herself, at the local and federal level.  I was speaking of politicians, "special interest groups" like unions and voters.  The majority in all groups want a balanced budget.  They don't want a balanced budget amendment because of the fiscal harm it can do during recessions but they want a balanced budget.

Everyone wants a balanced budget, no one wants debt. But the problem is that the dems aren't willing to reduce entitlement spending and the pubs aren't willing to raise taxes or reduce the military budget.

Well everyone is a vast exaggeration but you have the problem defined pretty well.   

So what happens when there isn't a dem or pub at the tiller?  No one knows.  There is only one choice in that category. 


For those who have an interest in the Reuters poll I mention way above ---


September 18th, 2015 (5-day rolling)

972 Responses



Businessman Donald Trump

27.8%


Wouldn’t vote

23.6%


Surgeon and author Ben Carson

10.7%


Former Fla. Gov. Jeb Bush

8.8%


Former Ark. Gov. Mike Huckabee

4.9%


NJ Gov. Chris Christie

4.1%


Former Sen. candidate and business executive Carly Fiorina

3.8%


Tex. Sen. Ted Cruz

3.5%


Ken. Sen. Rand Paul

3%


Wis. Gov. Scott

Or we could just vote Ralph Nader, there's no maximum age restriction right?

[MoonShadow]

So what happens when there isn't a dem or pub at the tiller?  No one knows.  There is only one choice in that category. 

Ah, no.  There has always been a third choice, and I've voted that way every single time.  You are basicly assuming that third party or write in candidates can never win.  Which might be true, but it is always a choice.  I have never voted for the lessor of two evils.

[dramaman]

They Dems you know aren't the lobbyist writing the budgets.   Virtually all Pubs I know want a balanced budget.  It will not happen until there is some sort of revolution.   Thus the interest in Trump.

LOL, I have been involved in politics my entire life, please don't assume what others know.  My mother has written legislation, herself, at the local and federal level.  I was speaking of politicians, "special interest groups" like unions and voters.  The majority in all groups want a balanced budget.  They don't want a balanced budget amendment because of the fiscal harm it can do during recessions but they want a balanced budget.

Everyone wants a balanced budget, no one wants debt. But the problem is that the dems aren't willing to reduce entitlement spending and the pubs aren't willing to raise taxes or reduce the military budget.

You keep bringing up entitlement reduction as if it is somehow key to balancing the budget. Most entitlements are currently funded by specific taxes and have funds that are in surplus. Now we know there are future funding issues that are coming, but that is irrelevant to balancing today's budget.

Democrats and Republicans were able to balance the budget 20 years ago, mostly by raising taxes and controlling spending growth. At the time there was talk of a peace dividend, but I can't recall if military spending was reduced or merely slowed. My main point is that there was no reduction in entitlements. My point is that balancing the budget is mainly about raising taxes and controlling spending. Entitlements could be part of the solution, but do not necessarily have to be.

[milesdividendmd]

They Dems you know aren't the lobbyist writing the budgets.   Virtually all Pubs I know want a balanced budget.  It will not happen until there is some sort of revolution.   Thus the interest in Trump.

LOL, I have been involved in politics my entire life, please don't assume what others know.  My mother has written legislation, herself, at the local and federal level.  I was speaking of politicians, "special interest groups" like unions and voters.  The majority in all groups want a balanced budget.  They don't want a balanced budget amendment because of the fiscal harm it can do during recessions but they want a balanced budget.

Everyone wants a balanced budget, no one wants debt. But the problem is that the dems aren't willing to reduce entitlement spending and the pubs aren't willing to raise taxes or reduce the military budget.

You keep bringing up entitlement reduction as if it is somehow key to balancing the budget. Most entitlements are currently funded by specific taxes and have funds that are in surplus. Now we know there are future funding issues that are coming, but that is irrelevant to balancing today's budget.

Democrats and Republicans were able to balance the budget 20 years ago, mostly by raising taxes and controlling spending growth. At the time there was talk of a peace dividend, but I can't recall if military spending was reduced or merely slowed. My main point is that there was no reduction in entitlements. My point is that balancing the budget is mainly about raising taxes and controlling spending. Entitlements could be part of the solution, but do not necessarily have to be.

Bingo.

[Jeremy E.]

They Dems you know aren't the lobbyist writing the budgets.   Virtually all Pubs I know want a balanced budget.  It will not happen until there is some sort of revolution.   Thus the interest in Trump.

LOL, I have been involved in politics my entire life, please don't assume what others know.  My mother has written legislation, herself, at the local and federal level.  I was speaking of politicians, "special interest groups" like unions and voters.  The majority in all groups want a balanced budget.  They don't want a balanced budget amendment because of the fiscal harm it can do during recessions but they want a balanced budget.

Everyone wants a balanced budget, no one wants debt. But the problem is that the dems aren't willing to reduce entitlement spending and the pubs aren't willing to raise taxes or reduce the military budget.

You keep bringing up entitlement reduction as if it is somehow key to balancing the budget. Most entitlements are currently funded by specific taxes and have funds that are in surplus. Now we know there are future funding issues that are coming, but that is irrelevant to balancing today's budget.

Democrats and Republicans were able to balance the budget 20 years ago, mostly by raising taxes and controlling spending growth. At the time there was talk of a peace dividend, but I can't recall if military spending was reduced or merely slowed. My main point is that there was no reduction in entitlements. My point is that balancing the budget is mainly about raising taxes and controlling spending. Entitlements could be part of the solution, but do not necessarily have to be.

http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/budget-entitlement-programs
66%, I think if we ignore this then it will be extremely more dificult to balance the budget. Also, ignoring future funding issues is ignorant. Those will be added to the debt when they hit, the main point of balancing the budget is to stop going into deeper debt.

[milesdividendmd]

The heritage foundation?  Are you kidding?

[dramaman]

They Dems you know aren't the lobbyist writing the budgets.   Virtually all Pubs I know want a balanced budget.  It will not happen until there is some sort of revolution.   Thus the interest in Trump.

LOL, I have been involved in politics my entire life, please don't assume what others know.  My mother has written legislation, herself, at the local and federal level.  I was speaking of politicians, "special interest groups" like unions and voters.  The majority in all groups want a balanced budget.  They don't want a balanced budget amendment because of the fiscal harm it can do during recessions but they want a balanced budget.

Everyone wants a balanced budget, no one wants debt. But the problem is that the dems aren't willing to reduce entitlement spending and the pubs aren't willing to raise taxes or reduce the military budget.

You keep bringing up entitlement reduction as if it is somehow key to balancing the budget. Most entitlements are currently funded by specific taxes and have funds that are in surplus. Now we know there are future funding issues that are coming, but that is irrelevant to balancing today's budget.

Democrats and Republicans were able to balance the budget 20 years ago, mostly by raising taxes and controlling spending growth. At the time there was talk of a peace dividend, but I can't recall if military spending was reduced or merely slowed. My main point is that there was no reduction in entitlements. My point is that balancing the budget is mainly about raising taxes and controlling spending. Entitlements could be part of the solution, but do not necessarily have to be.

http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/budget-entitlement-programs
66%, I think if we ignore this then it will be extremely more dificult to balance the budget. Also, ignoring future funding issues is ignorant. Those will be added to the debt when they hit, the main point of balancing the budget is to stop going into deeper debt.

So basically you want to balance the budget by keeping in place the taxes that were specifically put in place to fund Social Security, but then not spend that money on Social Security?

[Boston Blackie]

They Dems you know aren't the lobbyist writing the budgets.   Virtually all Pubs I know want a balanced budget.  It will not happen until there is some sort of revolution.   Thus the interest in Trump. 

Sorry, jeremy. I shouldn't have labeled you right wing. Everyone has their own unique view of the world  of course

But the fact that you have such an inaccurate view of what causes deficits, and that you have such a hostile view of social programs, and you appear to support only Republican candidates does suggest that you are right wing.

I will be the first to admit that I am left-wing. I'm proud of it in fact.

bad budgets, large entitlement programs, insufficient taxes, bad economies and wars cause deficits.

You have that right.  Of course it is the Repulicrats who have lead this for the past 15 years.   Remember the good old days of Newt Gingrich/Bill Clinton?   Actual budget surpluses.  At the time I recall they were predicting that not only would be our of debt be gone by now but we would have a huge pile of cash setting around.   

I would say that the Bush tax cuts were the impetus that set us on this path.  Tax cuts only work if they don't have or negative impact on tax income and/or spending is kept within reason.   

What are we at now 19 Trillion in debt if you don't count student loan debt?   If you include unfunded social security obligations we are probably in the 80 Trillion range.  Amazing really.   

Well look at the 19 Trillion --- That is around 380,000 per tax paying household.   Luckily we are paying 2% interest on that loan.  Sadly none of the Pubs seems interested in this.   Haven't heard Trump address it.  One would assume that the basic Dem plan would be to raise taxes.   Of course they will raise spending more than taxes.

We're screwed.

Why would assume that?  Most dems I know want a balanced budget.

Most of the dems I know are supporting Bernie Sanders and he's proposing programs at a cost of an additional $18T over 10 years, with tax increases of just over $6T during the same period. Maybe they don't understand what 'balanced' means.