Dragional

Another issue is the danger of foreign investors owning 40% of our public debt. China is the single biggest purchaser. If these investors or the government of CHINA WERE TO CHOOSE TO STOP BUYI NG OUR DEBT, we could be faced with a fiscal crises. We not only turn to them to refinance existing debt as it cones due but expect them to purchase the added debt our continuing annual deficit requires. Our fiscal policy is a Train wreck just waiting to happen.

Here is some more data on the growth in the National Debt:

National debt


As of Balance in Annual Increase in Comments
Trillions Billions

02/22/2007 $8.769 $ 262 5 Months Increase
09/30/2006 8.507 574 *
09/30/2005 7.933 554
09/30/2004 7.379 596
09/30/2003 6.783 555
09/30/2002 6.228 421
09/30/2001 5.807 133
09/30/2000 5.674 18 Bush 43 Took Over
09/30/1999 5.656 130
09/30/1998 5.525 113
09/30/1997 5.413 188
09/30/1996 5.225 251
09/30/1995 4.974 281
09/30/1994 4.693 282
09/30/1993 4.411 346
09/30/1992 4.065 400 Clinton Took Over
09/30/1991 3.665 432
09/30/1990 3.233 376
09/30/1989 2.857 255
09/30/1988 2.602 252 Bush 41 Took Over
09/30/1987 2.350 225
09/30/1986 2.125 169
12/31/1985 1.946 283 Reporting changed to 12/31
12/31/1984 1.663 252
12/31/1983 1.411 214
12/31/1982 1.197 168
12/31/1981 1.029 49
12/31/1980 .930 Reagan Took Over


* The Bush administration reported the budget deficit for 2006 as $248 Billion. However the truth is that the National debt increased in FY 2006 by $574 Billion. That is because Bush subtracted $226 Billion from the Surplus produced by Social Security and Medicare in FY 2006 from the actual annual deficit to make it appear lower.

The Canadians are not going to be invading any time soon. I feel confident in saying that.  I DO want a strong military, but I am not willing to pay more in taxes for it.

And no, I don't need seniors being "protected" by social security. The border protection is a trivial expense. 

The "big ticket" spending goes to 5 sources: 1) Social security 2) Medicare 3) Medicaid 4) Military 5) Interest on the debt.  The rest gets into triviality.

LOL. Gene, what exactly do you think that "spending" is?  It's taking money from one person and giving it to another individual. that's where the top 3 spending items do.

Don't tell me we "NEED" to raise taxes as long as we have give away programs like medicare and medicaid.

This is simply incorrect.

Conservatives do not support increased spending. Don't tell me what I believe and don't believe.

Eliminate social security, medicare, and medicaid and then come talk to me about fiscal needs.

Draginol

You do not get military protection without paying for it. You might like to but it does not work that way.

Your position is clear-- The Hell with what the majority need so long as you can keep you wealth. As I said this is a democracy and I BET the VAST majority will opt to increase your taxes before giving up Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, National Defense, Homeland Security, education, etc. You will just have to be unhappy or go live in some other country!!!!

Conservatives do not support increased spending. Don't tell me what I believe and don't believe.

You elected the Congress and President that spent the money!

America had that opportunity in '04 with John Kerry.  He proposed raising taxes on the same people you do, and America didn't care for it.  You keep speaking of the "majority of peopel" without backing that statement up. 

The election of 06 made what I am saying Clear. Wait until 08!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Take a look at Luke 16: 19-25 Lazarus and the Rich Man.

You say you have spent 30 years with the US Army. Yet you say we live in a democracy. Please allow me to instruct you in the basics of civics. We, that is Americans, live in a republic. A representative democracy where we elect our representatives and entrust them with the power to make decisions for us. They are supposed to listen to us and obey our wishes if they don’t we don’t re-elect them. The 06 election was a perfect example of that. The republicans failed to do as the conservatives wanted so they were removed from office. This allowed the democrats to take power as punishment for their failure to reduce spending, and failure to support the president. Almost all the republicans that were fired were liberal republicans, it was a foolish belief of the democrats to think that gaining the majority was the same as winning the majority. Had they not played such dirty rotten tricks on the Republicans the last two times the republicans took power the democrats would have had an easier time. But this time they have a numerical majority but not a true majority. Their plan was to win a majority and then end the war. Once some of the clear headed democrats learned the plan they backed off and now there is not enough people to end the war. less than five of the first fifty things Speaker Pelosi promised has been delivered.

Paladin 77

If you believe the voters would keep people in Congress and the White House that would opt to cut Social Security or Medicare to protect the tax cuts for the wealthy, you are a total IDIOT!

Never, not once have the republicans even suggested cutting social security or medicare. On a personal note. I don't call you names but you seem to enjoy calling people names instead of answering questions asked. I noticed that on almost every reply you made today you called someone an idiot. It is sad to see you run to name calling because you can't answer the qurestion or you lose an aargument.

paladin77

There are only two things that can happen with Social Security benefits-- CUT benefits or increases taxes. Since the GOP has said they will not support any tax increases, Social Security will at some point be unable to make the promised payments. Then Bush proposed the shift of Trillions of dollars currently pledged to pay benefits to create private accounts which makes the funding problem of Social Security worse. There were suggestions to lower the COLA which is cutting benefits. I was directly responding to the comments of Dragional who posted:

And no, I don't need seniors being "protected" by social security

Eliminate social security, Medicare, and Medicaid and then come talk to me about fiscal needs

The above is the position of many wealthy conservatives who realize that to keep the promised payments under Social Security and Medicare as the Boomers retire, will require MORE money that can only come from higher taxes. At the same time, the deficit is increasing the interest payments which make it even more difficult to provide help to fund Social Security and Medicare. We are heading for a very serious financial problem and if the economy begins to cool, tax revenue will drop further which just makes our financial problems worse!

I see you are still campaigning for democrats.

IdlandDog

No just for what the MAJORITY of Americans want!

57% of people polled want to win the war before pulling out of the area. A majority voted in GWB making him incharge until 08 so why don't you respect the will of the majority? The minority tried to end the war by cutting off funding but the majority stopped it from happening. Where is your respect for the majority when you are in the minority?

Here is another lie that Bush told us about the annual budget deficit that he claims is being cut in half:

National Debt increase under GWB


02/22/2007 $8.769 $ 262 5 Months Increase
09/30/2006 8.507 574 *
09/30/2005 7.933 554
09/30/2004 7.379 596
09/30/2003 6.783 555
09/30/2002 6.228 421
09/30/2001 5.807 133
09/30/2000 5.674 18

* The Bush administration reported the budget deficit for 2006 as $248 Billion. However the truth is that the National debt increased in FY 2006 by $574 Billion. That is because Bush subtracted $226 Billion from the Surplus produced by Social Security and Medicare in FY 2006 from the actual annual deficit to make it appear lower.

paladin77

I want us too win but that is not likely. We will not end a Civil War with 160,000 troops in a country of 26 Million. Only 34% say the Iraq War was worth the COST! Did you miss that poll?

papadin77 et al

You claim that Bush does not lie. How do you explain the fact he told us the deficit in 2006 was $248 Billion when it was $574 Billion?

For the first 5 months in FY 2007 we have a $262 Billion loss. If the loss continues at that rate we will have the biggest one year loss EVER!

Acturally I said I have not caught him in a lie that had to do with the war on Terror. The disparity I believe is because you wish it to be so. Remember You have lied so much that it will take a long time before I believe what you say. Sorry but you need proof while others I take at face value.

Or you can do what Mr. Reagan proposed which the democrats misrepresented. Reduce the increase in benefits while cutting spending in other areas that are nonproductive to society. Eliminating welfare would take billions off the table. It was told by the democrats that doing so would put people out on the streets well we finally got welfare cut by three quarters after 20 years of trying and the people are not homeless they are working, productive members of society instead of being a drain on society that pay taxes which fill the treasury that reduce the debt. When Mr. Reagan proposed the tax cuts the democrats were still fully in control of congress. He had to make deals to get the taxes cut. Costly deals to get the democrats to vote with him. You see, democrats are not against tax cuts if you bribe them. In this case big oil which was supporting the democrats at the time because big business always supports the people in power. The democrats got concessions for big oil, big sugar a major polluter in Florida, pretty much all the people you seem to hate col were protected by democrats during Mr. Reagan’s first term. Anyway Mr. Reagan gave in to get the tax cuts and when it was all tolled the democrats with their bribes busted the budget. We were looking at 10 trillion dollars that our grandchildren’s great-grandchildren would not be able to pay off. The secret was that if you let business grow even a little bit you can get a lot accomplished. So sure it looked like we were going deep into debt but the added revenue from newly created jobs and business expansion made it all back. Had the democrats not been so greedy and demanded being paid to vote for what was best for the nation we could have paid down the debt in 8 years instead of 15. You talk about 9 trillion dollars in debt as if this was new. When Mr. Reagan got his tax cuts it was because the Majority of the people wanted it but the majority of the legislators were committed to making Mr. Reagan a one term president. To do this they had to do what was bad for the nation in order to make the President look bad. It did not work. Commercials ran nation wide talking about how bad it would be for our children. When that did not have any traction ads talked about how bad it would be for our grandchildren. By the time it was voted on they were running ads saying our grandchildren’s grandchildren would still be paying off the 10 trillion dollar debt with monstrous taxes just to keep the nation afloat. Well my children were born while Mr. Reagan was president and my daughter just gave me my first grandchild and even with more tax cuts from our current President and spending for the war it looks like my granddaughter won’t have massive taxes to pay to support the nation. As long as we allow people to earn a living wage without taxing them to death the treasury will come out all right. We took 20 years to get welfare under control give us some time and we will get rid of the rest of the pork.

This is a lie. What is proposed is that people that want to may take as much as 3% of the money taken for social security can be invested in a personal savings account. Just for the record I have one of those accounts because all federal employees have been able to have one of those accounts for the last 15 or 20 years. All the president wants to do is provide to the rest of the nation what all federal employees including congress have been using for years. Your democrat congress men and women have had this but they don’t want you and regular people to have it. Sounds like the rich democrats want people to stay poor.

What will happen if the private accounts are allowed for the general public it will mean that democrats won’t have the control over old people and their reelection votes by promising to increase social security and that the republicans want to reduce social security. It was the democrats that raided the social security fund to pay for social programs in the 60’s this is the reason why social security is in trouble to begin with.

Paladin77

“Or you can do what Mr. Reagan proposed which the democrats misrepresented Reduce the increase in benefits.”

That is cutting the benefits from what was promised. If you reduce the COLA you reduce the benefits to future recipients as inflation continues. As I said you EITHER CUT benefits or INCREASE TAXES. If the objective is to keep the promise made to workers, then there are only ONE option-- Increase taxes to fully fund the system.

fine, Col....raise taxes...beginning at your tax bracket....because, you probably have more than I do....and I should have what you earn....

“What will happen if the private accounts are allowed for the general public it will mean that democrats won’t have the control over old people and their reelection votes by promising to increase social security and that the republicans want to reduce social security. It was the democrats that raided the social security fund to pay for social programs in the 60’s this is the reason why social security is in trouble to begin with.”

First the private account issues DOES NOT solve the Baby Boomer Funding issue. They are too old for that change to have any chance to work. What moving part of the future Social Security taxes to private accounts will do is make the problem of paying the Boomers their retirement WORSE?

As to who is spending the Social Security taxes-- Bush has that down to a science. In 2006, he spent $226 Billion of Social Security and Medicare money on the Iraq War! Bush and Reagan are the presidents who have spent the Social Security and Medicare money and issued IOU's of about $3 Trillion dollars to those two trust funds.

How do you know?  If the "majority" that you claim you know so much about want us out of Iraq, then why don't democrats do it?  I see today they are already backing away from their de-funding the war rhetoric. 

If democrats would have campaigned on their desire to de-fund and lose the war, they would have lost!