Not to change the subject or be overly argumentative, but isn't this the fruit reaped by Ronald Reagan's trickle down economics?

im sure just about every president in the modern era has helped. the current problem regardless who is to blame has snow balled to a point that drastic measures must be implemented or the country will suffer for decades to come, if not longer

Bill Clinton?

yup

But didn't Bill Clinton actually do quite a bit towards shrinking our deficit?

somewhat, but with the help of the republican dominated house...

Democrats are also quick to criticize President Bush and the growing federal budget deficit. They especially like to point out how the federal budget went from running a surplus under Bill Clinton to running a deficit under President Bush.

Is that a fair comparison?

Let’s analyze the situation.

There are three fundamental ways to eliminate a budget deficit:
1) Increase tax revenues.
2) Decrease spending.
3) Do a combination of 1 and 2.

Democrats imply that Bill Clinton was fiscally responsible, controlled federal spending and enacted policies that caused economic growth. They believe the surplus was caused by President Clinton’s firm hand at the economic/budgetary wheel.

Curious to find the true story, I did some research, consulting the best source of information I could find about the federal budget – the federal budget itself.During Bill Clinton’s presidency, from 1992 to 2000:
- Spending increased by 29.49%.
- Tax revenues increased by 85.58%.

Obviously, Bill Clinton did not control federal spending since it increased by almost 30% during his tenure. What saved his goat was the dramatic 85.58% increase in tax revenues.

So the raw data show that although federal spending increased dramatically during Clinton’s term, tax revenues increased even faster!

That’s why there was a budget surplus - tax revenue increased at a faster pace than Bill Clinton could spend it. The surplus had nothing to do with his ability to intentionally balance the budget.

Voting up.

I would like to point out though that the Republican dominated house fought Clinton tooth and nail on quite a few issues and had a bone to pick, not necessarily with Bill but with Hillary who had embarrassed the hell out of the Republican base when she threw Nixon hard ball questions that even the prosecution was not too keen on asking.

And although spending increased 28% during the Clinton years, what did that increased spending go to?

Also, who received the 85.58% tax increase?

i'd have to do some more research. but whenever the house and senate has a majority opposite of that of the sitting presidents political persuasion these issues exist

obama?

pull your head out its all of them!

ok im on board as long as its all inclusive

More accurately, our government prints money for the private Federal Reserve, and then borrows it from them at interest, and then spends it. Prints, borrows at interest, and then spends, prints, borrows, spends. A significant improvement to the system would be to cut out the borrowing part (with limits on the printing, and a mandate to tax to make up the difference = balanced budgets).

You could be right. The 10% might be paying 70% of income taxes...however Income taxes are not the Only taxes. They do not pay a fair share, nor do corporations.

As far as fiscal responsibility all I have to say is this: in the past From 1980 - 2008 we had one democratic president, and he balanced the budget. All of the other presidents were "fiscal conservatives" - and they sent us into wars, borrowed money to pay for those wars, and sped-up the deficit spending rate exponentially.

Your one-sided views are not only on the wrong side, but are both narrow and short-sighted.

I believe it's the opposite. The Fed prints worthless money that is purchased by the US government with worthless bonds (essentially IOU's with interest). When those bonds come due the US government creates more bonds to get the money to pay them off creating a never ending cycle of debt.

The "Fed" is what happens when your privatize a critical government function (creating money) and place it into the hands of a group of privately held US and foreign banks. The primary concern of those banks is their own well being. If that comes at the expense of the US government and US citizens, so be it.

You are correct. I was just implying that the Bureau of Engraving and Printing actually makes the "Federal Reserve Notes" for the Fed, and then we borrow them (by issuing our bonds).

BTW, you just gotta love the Bureau of Engraving and Printing's URL:

http://www.moneyfactory.gov/

taxed enough already!

dont forget bosnia...Cost details of deployment to Bosnia
Cost aspects of the U.S. participation in Bosnia peacekeeping:

$2 billion total estimated cost for one-year's military deployment to Bosnia.
Of that total, $1.2 billion pays for actual force of 20,000 U.S. soldiers on ground in Bosnia and 5,000 U.S. soldiers in other parts of the former Yugoslavia.
$300 million pays for continued "Deny Flight" operations over Bosnia.
$500 million pays for troops serving support functions for mission outside of Bosnia.
Not counted in total are funds already budgeted for base salaries and some day-to-day military operations.
Bosnia cost figure includes hazardous duty pay which goes to service members in combat zones, temporary duty pay for those sent off-base to support missions but stationed outside Bosnia, transportation costs such as fuel, extra field rations, construction of tent camps and barracks, hiring of contractors locally to do basic work such as brush clearing or barracks construction, and airlift.
$2 billion estimate is based on a complex model that Pentagon says has been highly accurate in predicting costs of recent deployments.
Administration plans to submit supplemental defense bill to Congress early next year requesting $2 billion and, most likely, making corresponding cuts in other defense programs to help raise the money.
Until then, Bosnia mission will be financed out of operations and maintenance accounts, which fund day-to-day military operations such as training and maintenance. Those accounts would have to be replenished by next spring or else military might have to cut into its training budget severely.
Apart from cost of military operation, Secretary of State Warren Christopher said the United States expects to provide $600 million of the total estimated $6 billion it will cost to rebuild war-ravaged Bosnia. The amount would come in annual installments of $200 million over three years.

You can include Obama in your list of Presidents that sent us into wars, borrowed money to pay for those wars, and sped-up the deficit spending rate exponentially.

Yeah, let's jail the weatherman for forecasting the tornado.

As I recall, when Bush was in office and at anytime before the financial meltdown, they missed seeing the tornado coming, completely.

If the weatherman created an artificial tornado, or committed numerous acts of arson and blamed it on a "tornado", then yes, he should be jailed.

Wasn't it S&P that gave AAA ratings to all those subprime securities being generated by Wall Street? The weatherman in this case, ignored the tornado.

Also during the hearing they insisted that their ratings were merely opinions and therefore should not be taken as evidence of misleading investors.......sigh

Fuck Bush. I minded. The question is what are we going to do about it now, here, today? We just keep spending away our country's future sovreignty because George Bush did it?

No, we change the system so it's never possible again.

Tell that to the hundreds of millions of Americans looking to retire on the 401k's they have worked long and hard for. You think anyone can live on Social Security? Fat chance, if it's even still around when you and I retire, which is highly doubtful.

As if the people really enjoy betting in the market all their lives hoping for a timely exit into retirement. It really is a bet. Maybe you keep-up with inflation or maybe you plan to retire just as Wall Street goes through one of it's multi-yearlong gyrations?

What really would be something is if the money they had in their pockets and in their savings accounts wasn't devalued every fucking year forcing them to bet their life savings and retirement years in a computerized betting parlor.

Social Security is an insurance fund, and should be managed as such. There is no reason for it not to be around........unless myopic stupidity kills it. You're not supposed to live on it, it's supposed to keep you out of poverty in old age. Don't worry though, someone will fight on your behalf to ensure you have it when you retire.

Someone will fight on my behalf for me to eat cat food once a month when I'm eighty. I can't wait.

Ironically John . . . you speak honest truth.

They have almost a perfect record of getting it wrong.....

"Standard & Poor’s Triple A Ratings Collapse Again"
http://www.propublica.org/thetrade/item/the-trade-credit-rating-agencies-standar...

The government spends too much money on EVERYTHING! Our national debt is $14 trillion dollars, the highest percent of GDP in American history. We don't have any money to spend on anything. We are broke, we can't afford it, nothing. It all has to be slashed. Everything has to be cut, even the programs you like and the programs I like. The future of the country is at stake. Nothing can be taken off the table at this point.

That would work in a cohesive society, my Friend, but we are continually allowing ourselves to be played against one another for the most superficial reasons. We first have to believe that there IS such a thing as an American and embrace the notion with true pride, not simple-minded jingoism. It also involves acknowledging the fact that we're ALL in this together. When we stop being afraid of one another and stop being afraid to admit that: the free market ain't free; that Capitalism could use a little leavening of Socialism and that if we don't stay alert and engaged, we'll deserve whatever system we wind up living under.

By-the-way, thanks for all the information you sent. I'm still playing catch up from a quick trip out of town.

"We need deep cuts in every government program and department, as soon as possible."

What will happen to the base money supply of the country if they actually do that? How much should we destroy our country to preserve the debt-based money system and fractional reserve lending by private banks? I agree the system is broken, but the solution isn't to destroy our society for a balanced budget of made-up paper and electronic 'dollars' that are manipulated at every step along the way.

Don't buy into the hype. The IMF gets nothing. The S&P, even less. Our system is supremely corrupt, and that is the only thing they care about.....preserving that system.

Right problem! WRONG SOLUTION!

Stop all military spending except for supporting bases on our home turf. No new weapons or war instruments until further notice. Stop all spending on subsidies and tax abatements for business. That alone will solve this problem. Revenue will be dealt with on the other hand.

I said deep cuts in every program and department. That would be including the military and defense, and any and all subsidy programs. We have to, we must, cut absolutely everything down to the bone.

We need to cut everything for the very reason that we do have a debt-based money system. Debt will end us, the national debt will crush us, our money won't be worth the paper it's printed on to the rest of the world, and our society will be destroyed, we'll wish we had it as good as the Irish and the Greeks, if we don't start to address our enormous exploding national debt right now.

It is not worth the paper and metal it is printed on now!

I think you misunderstand the nature of the problem. If we don't have any debt, we also don't have any money. Our money is debt, we trade it around with each other like it's worth something......but in actuality it was the proceeds of someone else's loan. That's the problem at the heart of our system, unless you have a large amount of people borrowing money, there's nothing to trade with each other.

My father was a banker and I understand a certain amount of debt is not neccessarily a bad thing. But when your national debt is so expansive that the IMF and the S&P start calling you out on it, you have gone way way to far out of control and you need to reign it in now. I do believe those organizations need us more than we need them, but the path we are on is unsustainable by any calculations. We have to balance budgets and reduce debt, we have no choice if we want to remain a stable economy. And everyone can see this except our politicians.

When it takes 5 cents to make a penny, ten cents to make a dime, and the Fed rate is 0.25%, I suppose you are right.

We do have choices, but I'll admit, if you want to keep this corrupt system we've operated in for the last 100 years that we don't. Massive systemic deflation is the only cure left. I didn't understand that you subscribe to the banker's mentality, but now your defense makes sense.

I do not subscribe to banker's mentality. He was a banker, I am an accountant. The very first thing I would do is audit the Fed. The second thing would be to install a flat tax and disband the IRS. Then I would cut every program, every subsidy, every department, to the absolute bare bones. Then, and only then, would I consider any tax increase, and only then to reduce current national debt. Why would any one raise taxes, when we have absolutely no idea of how much we need to run the government now, we would be just giving them more money to waste. And why are 49% of Americans paying no federal tax at all when our national debt is becoming all consuming. It is a ridiculous situation that we must address, or else the rest of the world will address it for us. And I can guarantee they will be harder on us than we will ever be on ourselves.

OK, who gets to create the money then? Who gets to create the currency and electronic credits that circulate in the economy. Who and how?