The figures from 1980 and 1980 and 1987 are from that noted left wing publication National Review (January 27, 1989). The current numbers are my calculation, based on a debt of 9.6 trillion and a GNP of about 14.1 trillion.

 

:thumb: I wasn't accusing your numbers of being wrong, just wondering. Also, for FWIW, National Review is a conservative source.

 

I am not sure why you used GNP.....

I'm 19 and I'd prefer that our economy not go in the direction that Senator Obama will enact. I appreciate your concern, but I will be able to handle McCain's overspending now instead of Obama's high taxes and reduced growth, which will be coupled with the same overspending as McCain anyways (or a crippled military, pick your poison)

 

Unlike Bush, Obama will tax the right people.

So in your opinion who are the "right people"?

 

And since I'm fairly sure of your answer just how rich is to rich?

:thumb: I wasn't accusing your numbers of being wrong, just wondering. Also, for FWIW, National Review is a conservative source.

 

I am not sure why you used GNP.....

 

Because National Review used GNP.

So in your opinion who are the "right people"?

 

And since I'm fairly sure of your answer just how rich is to rich?

 

Can't speak for HB but it often means everyone but me and everyone who makes more than me.

Not unprecedented at all. Much higher after WWII through the fifties. In fact, they were close to this level in the 90"s. I'm talking as a percentage of our economy, not raw numbers. In raw numbers you're right. I believe that the percentage of GDP is more meaningfull. I mean, who has the greater debt burden, a person making a million who owes $400,000 or a person making a $100,000 who owes $150,000?

 

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/thefederalbudget/ig/Political-Economic-Measures/Debt-as-a-Percent-of-GDP--1940.htm

 

Look at your graph. We ran up the debt to fight WW II and were paying it down (as a percentage of GNP) through the 50s, 60s,70s and 90s. It was the Reagan and Bush years that caused it to explode again and neither of those presidents was fighting WW II.

Look at your graph. We ran up the debt to fight WW II and were paying it down (as a percentage of GNP) through the 50s, 60s,70s and 90s. It was the Reagan and Bush years that caused it to explode again and neither of those presidents was fighting WW II.

 

That's my point. We've been higher before and it wasn't the end of the world. If you'll notice the pre WWII levels were about the same as now not including social security and that was before the war. The problem now is finding the common ground between the parties where they make it a priority. That's where I believe a split power may work again like it did during Clinton's second term. After increasing the debt during his first term to levels we're at now, he and congress brought it down. Unfortunately, the environment in Washington these days doesn't lend itself to the compromise that would be required. It seems that every bill has to have it's plums stuck into it.

Look at your graph. We ran up the debt to fight WW II and were paying it down (as a percentage of GNP) through the 50s, 60s,70s and 90s. It was the Reagan and Bush years that caused it to explode again and neither of those presidents was fighting WW II.

Reagan was tricked and lied to about spending, and Bush has been sub par fiscally.

 

The real problem isn't taxes. The real problem is transparency.

We the people need to be very informed on what our DC representatives are spending, and the internet can only help. We should be able to see how much pork each Congressperson has caused.

 

However, we need to become less selfish- we call it all "pork spending" but even some of the strongest fiscal conservatives on this website have said things (when speaking of re-electing a candidate) like "How much money did she bring back to the district?"

 

What it boils down to is that we conservatives are simply more hopeful. We hope that we can begin to elect officials who will bring down the spending in Washington (BTW, I am deeply, deeply dissappointed in myself for not throwing my support behind Ron Paul 100%). Democrats have resigned to a belief that enormous spending will always happen, all we can do is raise taxes.

Reagan wasn't tricked or lied to. He made deals with the democratic congress in order to push his own agenda and spending skyrocketed.

Reagan wasn't tricked or lied to. He made deals with the democratic congress in order to push his own agenda and spending skyrocketed.

After the first significant tax reduction, Reagan was blackmailed into domestic spending to help get his military buildup, so you are dead on there- but IMO that isn't the whole story.

 

In 1982, Reagan enacted a small tax increase because he was promised 1 dollar of tax increase in exchange for 3 dollars of spending restraints, which of course was never delivered. Reagan also admitted that this was the greatest mistake of his presidency.

So in your opinion who are the "right people"?

 

And since I'm fairly sure of your answer just how rich is to rich?

 

This answer, if you receive one, should be rich.....:thumb:

This answer, if you receive one, should be rich.....:thumb:

 

 

No one ever answers it.

If we want to save $5 million, couldn't we just end the war in Iraq a few hours early?

 

Iraq is a "pay me now or pay me much more later" kind of thingy.

Iraq is a "pay me now or pay me much more later" kind of thingy.

 

We'll have to disagree on that.

Iraq is a "pay me now or pay me much more later" kind of thingy.

 

No Iraq is a pay now and keep paying for the next 60 years. Iraq was and is a strategic error of historic proportion.