A lot of people get stuck on tax cuts being included here and they ask, "How is tax cuts considered spending?"  This graph is about income/expense, and that relates directly to the deficit.  Tax revenue represents a huge portion of the U.S. income and the tax cuts under the Bush administration benefited most those who needed it less, the very rich.  And that depleted the U.S. checking account balance. 

According to this graph, Bush has contributed $5+ trillion to the existing deficit while Obama has contributed a little less than $1.5 trillion.  Bush was in office 8 years.  That averages out to $634 billion per year.  Obama has been in office 2-1/2 years.  That averages out to $576 billion per year.  The debt trend has changed little.

One thing for sure, this graph flies in the face of the current Republican/Tea Party mantra that Obama is solely responsible for the current financial crisis.  Truth is, the U.S. just loves to spend.  And if they want to keep spending, they have to get the money from those who have it first.

Sadly, two and a half decades of working to destroy education in this country has paid off in great dividends for the Republicans as we now have a huge dogpile of people who can't even begin to understand any of that.

You will notice that the Obama side is for the projected costs of 2009 through 2017 and the Bush numbers are actual from 2002 to 2009. That changes things. If you take actual numbers from bush's first 2 years and Obama's first 2 years you would have a more accurate picture.

All this is pretty easy.  Stop the wars.  Bring the troops home.  Cut defense spending.

As for the individual impact, you can't look at it in aggregate.  I agree that in order for the US to keep spending, the money has to come from somewhere.  Just going off the graph, I think the gripe from the Tea Party and others is coming from the fact that Bush's tax cuts were greater then Obama's.  In their view of things, they're paying for more under Obama then they were under Bush and that's why they're angry.

I find the Tea Party interesting in that it tends to be mostly older, retired government workers.  Their working lives were paid for with tax dollars, they gladly accept social security and medicare benefits but scream bloody murder when it comes to paying taxes.  In short, they're ok with people paying taxes, just so long as its other people and not them. 

Quote from: tekla on July 27, 2011, 12:42:42 PM
All this is pretty easy.  Stop the wars.  Bring the troops home.  Cut defense spending.

And if we spent as much on the space program as we do on the military, we'd be living on Mars by now.  Both positions assume an awful lot...

For all the studies I've seen on government spending, the one I've never seen is who benefits most from the money we spend?  Our politicians or the U.S. citizens?

Politicians use tax revenue to buy votes.  The way they do that is to pay back their campaign contributors by passing bills that benefit those contributors.  The more you contribute, the more advantageous the bill is for you.  Corporations and big money people want a return on their investment and if they are going to donate money to your election campaign, you'd better make sure they get a nice return on their investment.

The size of the campaign war chest is directly related to the number of voters you can persuade to vote for you.  Peter Pauper isn't going to get as many votes as Ritchie Rich because no one will know Mr. Pauper.  All successful politicians know this.

Right now the Republicans are putting on a show for the Tea Party and the Tea Party is the puppet of the uber rich.  The Tea Party thinks it's going to change this country, the Republicans are cheering them on and getting their votes and the uber rich are filling the war chests of the Republicans who in turn are working to eliminate taxes for them, hand them "incentive money" for their businesses and give them big fat business contracts.  Their "campaign contributions" are paid back in spades, with our tax dollars. 

Oh yeah, and the blue collar Tea Party members also get a tax break but it's about $100 a year while the uber rich pocket tens and even hundreds of millions.  But the U.S. checking account doesn't have enough to pay it's bills so we take out loan after loan after loan.

At one time the highest tax bracket was 90%.  Our checking account was pretty healthy then.

Quote from: LordKAT on July 27, 2011, 12:36:14 PM
You will notice that the Obama side is for the projected costs of 2009 through 2017 and the Bush numbers are actual from 2002 to 2009. That changes things. If you take actual numbers from bush's first 2 years and Obama's first 2 years you would have a more accurate picture.

I was going to make the corrections to the numbers but Obama hasn't shown any backbone with the Republicans and seems to cave when they pout.  So we'll wait and see if Obama decides to implement Democrat politics or if he keeps caving to the pubs.

Now the Tea Party want's Boehner's head.  Geez, the guy has done his best to send the country into default and these Tea Party radicals are pissed he might not actually do it. 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/27/tea-party-activists-revolt-against-boehner-amid-debt-crisis/

The biggest mistake the Republicans have made with these nutballs is to cow-tow to them.  They have no idea how to run a country.  They have no idea what a budget entails.  They have no idea that defaulting on our loans will be globally catastrophic.  And somehow they think they will still be able to go about their everyday lives, as if nothing happened, if the U.S. can't pay its bills.  Ignorance is bliss.

And Sarah Palin, a beauty queen, half-term governor, is their darling.

A friend of mine wrote this, and it's spot on.

This is why it's a bad idea to send amateurs to the Big Show, and why the term "professional politician" shouldn't be an epithet. Say what you want about the old two party system, at least it was a halfway decent way to vet candidates and weed out the complete whack-jobs (usually). Remember back when people had to work their way up from city councilman to county board member to maybe doing a bit in the state legislature before anyone would take you seriously as a candidate for national office?

That used to mean that these people had done their share of 5-year county budgets and omnibus reconciliation bills and votes on bond issues, and all the other "good governance" nonsense so you knew that they new how to compromise, and horse-trade and do whatever was necessary to get shiat done. And that was comforting, because you knew that it meant that no matter what weird shiat they said in public, you could rest assured that it was , at least halfway, an act for the rubes in the cheap seat and not anything they really believed.

That's not what we have up on Capitol Hill anymore- a majority of the majority of the US house is comprised of untrained, uneducated idiots who haven;t the first clue what's really going on, and have no idea the harm they are about to cause. Scarier still, they actually BELIEVE those bumper-sticker length "solutions" they are constantly prattling on about, will actually work.

Yes, that is spot on.  And that is why we are in the mess we are in.  We don't have to worry about spending because we print the money.  A handsome or pretty face on TV is more highly valued than a dog-faced seasoned veteran who fought his way through the school of hard knocks and knows what to do in a real crisis.  A good sound bite or come back gets more press than solid logic. 

To be a successful politician you only have to know how to do one thing well: get votes.  And the U.S. voters are too lazy to do their homework before casting their ballots so the process of getting voter support has turned into something more like an America's Got Talent contest.

Quote from: tekla on July 27, 2011, 11:57:03 PM
A friend of mine wrote this, and it's spot on.

This is why it's a bad idea to send amateurs to the Big Show, and why the term "professional politician" shouldn't be an epithet. Say what you want about the old two party system, at least it was a halfway decent way to vet candidates and weed out the complete whack-jobs (usually). Remember back when people had to work their way up from city councilman to county board member to maybe doing a bit in the state legislature before anyone would take you seriously as a candidate for national office?

That used to mean that these people had done their share of 5-year county budgets and omnibus reconciliation bills and votes on bond issues, and all the other "good governance" nonsense so you knew that they new how to compromise, and horse-trade and do whatever was necessary to get shiat done. And that was comforting, because you knew that it meant that no matter what weird shiat they said in public, you could rest assured that it was , at least halfway, an act for the rubes in the cheap seat and not anything they really believed.

That's not what we have up on Capitol Hill anymore- a majority of the majority of the US house is comprised of untrained, uneducated idiots who haven;t the first clue what's really going on, and have no idea the harm they are about to cause. Scarier still, they actually BELIEVE those bumper-sticker length "solutions" they are constantly prattling on about, will actually work.

I agree.

The least we can do is force candidates to meet some specific requirements. Give them a civics test, a drug test, a mental health test, a general I.Q. test, and require they have previous relevant experience. That would be before they can even enter a race on the federal level.

I'm not joking about the mental health and I.Q. tests. It is a very big machine we have running here and the people who work in federal government need to understand as many details as possible while also understanding that their decisions effect people everywhere, not just in North America. The I.Q. test is to prevent people like Palin from even wasting our time running for office higher than some local office.

I'm not even knocking Palin's intelligence. She has some kind of mastery of image control and manipulation. I just doubt she can answer simple questions on the test.

There needs to be an absolute rule that the U.S. military is for defense only and should never be stationed anywhere other than within U.S. borders. These wars are a combination of ego (individuals think they are 'playing' some kind of game) and big business purchasing resources and foreign policy for the benefit of making money.

This is merely my opinion. I am stating that this is my opinion in the event that I offend someone with a college level education. If I recall correctly, opinions do not need to be vetted.

A lot of the money to get the republicans elected last election was coming from foreign entities. Those foreign entities want to destroy us from within and then come here after and buy us out and take over what we have. In the mean time they have created strife around the world to get us to use our resources to be police and that is killing us financially. The teapartiers are right about us getting out of other countries. But big business corporations want us there to protect their business transactions / theft of resources sold to the highest bidder. No longer is the spoils of war brought back to the people who supported the wars. Right now in the world its an all out take from whoever and get for yourself rich trying to get richer and no concern for their own safety because the world will be in such a havoc that there will be no safe place for even the ubber rich to go. Its also about creating strife because the world population is growing so fast and the next billion will be born in just 9 yrs and then 3 yrs after that and that will make world populations reach their max for resources so that right now the powers to be are hoarding and stockpiling what they can get and planning on a giant world war that will reduce the populations tremendously. However, it will be more like a bird flu war whiping out billions than a conventional war killing only millions.

google "crash course"  and see the truth

Myself i am preparing both physically and spiritually as i believe its time has come for the greatest power to rule over the world soon

We need US troops stationed outside the US for a vast number of reasons.  For at least the last century, we have been deemed the World's policeman.  When a small time dictator starts flexing their muscles and causing trouble within their region, it is in our national security intrest to respond with force quickly.  We let Hitler slide on too many things (all I need to be happy is Poland, ok all I need to be happy is Poland and France, etc) to allow that to happen again.  Being able to respond to an area quickly vs.  several days to weeks to mobilize a force makes all the difference in the world.  Aside from that, we have agreements with countries like Japan to provide for mutual defense, we can't simply walk away from those obligations.  And yes, there are plenty of economic reasons as well, the US produces 2/3rds of the sugar consumed in the world, not to mention corn, etc.  Maybe the idea of US troops protecting private economic interests doesn't feel good, but neither does the total collapse of the US economy either.  Yes foreign goods are sold here, maybe more then we would like to see, but we're just as guilty of it in other countries.

The real problem, and I'm quoting this from facebook, is that we've lost our professional politicians.  It used to be you had to work your way up to being a politician at the federal level.  You learned along the way the business of being a politician, including how to create and/or bargain (horse trade if you like) to set a municipal budget.  Now all it takes is a few Glen Beck sound bites for the masses and you too can be a US senator.  Now we're left with the Tea Party and the rest of the Republicans too busy fighting with each other to handle the economic crisis.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/07/28/avlon.debt.reagan/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29

The economies of the world need to change to self sustaining.

I disagree with wasting our military protecting resources such as sugar. By doing so, we prevent the people who live where the sugar is from gaining complete control of their own resources and economy.  Why should we defend Coca-Cola?

It is the business of the nation where sugar is grown if the price of sugar goes up or down.

The Japanese and the Germans don't need us hanging around. Each of them could fill the void by hiring more of their own citizens as soldiers.

It is not our business what dictators do. We only wrestle the ones who might effect U.S. interests, mostly concerning resources. Those nations with dictators are not allowed to come out from under the thumb of despotism because we keep their political systems in stasis. They are not allowed to change or grow as they should. They can't become the nations they are meant to be unless they face their issues and work through them. The only help we should give is strictly humanitarian.

Almost no one likes cops. I appreciate their general role, but if left unchecked, they start abusing citizens and become corrupt. Much like the U.S. Government, it's debauched CIA, and some of its military already is.

see photos of U.S. soldiers posing with murdered Afghan civilians http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-kill-team-20110327

I've a feeling I opened a can of worms with this post. I apologize ahead of time.

Their is nothing good about a military presence.

Quote from: Laura91 on July 29, 2011, 10:25:41 AM
Tgat is a great post, Rebis! Spot on!

Really? I thought I'd get yelled at.  I guess I'm still insecure.

Quote from: Laura91 on July 29, 2011, 10:31:10 AM
Why do you think that you would get yelled at? What you said is the truth.

I'm not so sure people like the truth.

plus, I come from a rotten childhood and suffer terrible anxiety.

Don't forget that Ronald Reagan spend a lot of our money, too (Star Wars?). The big elephant in the room is the military industrial complex. Ninety percent of the military bases should be closed. What do we need a base in Germany and Taiwan?

The Tea Party will soon realize (if they haven't already) to they are being used.  The US is involved in six wars at the present time. It's time the American people stood and say no more of this nonsense.

Gennee

I hote politics and the spin from both sides. The idea that we are going to default on loans if they don't extend the debt ceiling (by Aug 3?) is rediculous. There may be other bad things happen, but Geitener and the feds will do whatever has to be done to protect us from defaulting on debt and causing our AAA credit rating to get downgraded costing us hundreds of billions in higher borrowing costs.

I think this is exactly what has been needing to happen in Washington for a long time becasue something HAS to be done besides more spending and higher taxation, just to pay for debt financing. The biggest threat to our economy and freedom right now is rising debt. Human rights, medicine, LGBT rights won't mean much if we totally collapse financially.  This little economic slump we have been in for the last few years was NOTHING compared to the Great Deepression.  Not only do we need to quit the deficit spending, wh have to start paying off the debt.

Get out of the war business (they call it "defense" even though no one is attacking us)

Stop allowing politicians to fund their pet projects (pay back their campaign contributors)

Change policies so that the transfer of wealth comes back to the middle class, the people who actually do create more jobs, through their spending

Stop stealing from taxpayer contributions made on their behalf (Social Security, Medicare...) and invest it instead

Bring back manufacturing to this country

These are a few of my favorite things... to reduce the debt.