In the time of 12 years.
- Locked due to inactivity on Aug 4, '16 4:21pm
Thread Topic: In the time of 12 years.
-
Of which, 5 trillion has been added under President Obama 4 year term, so far.
Where I figured this:
Also, just for fun, here's the world debt clocks.
Funny how the countries with highest debt are in socialist Europe. -
I find this funny because to me managing money isn't that hard. Sometimes you aren't going to get what you want, and sometimes you have to work harder, but it's not impossible to be financially sound. .3.e
-
Most of that is actually the Bush debt from our two wars. Obama has actually contributed less to the national debt than any President in the last 30 years. It can be very hard for the government to break even or turn a surplus actually, especially during a recession, because the poor economy means less revenue from corporate taxes as well as income taxes, and also because the government has to spend more money to grow the economy (according to Keynesian economic theory, anyway). A recession also means that you can't raise taxes, so you can't get new revenue until the economy returns to pre-recession GDP. And then there is stuff like military spending and subsidies for energy and agriculture, which almost impossible to cut because the lobbies for those industries have so much pull. So what do you cut? The answer that Romney and Ryan are proposing is to cut social programs like Medicare and Medicaid among others. The poor convieniently are the only group to benefit from the government who don't have lobbyists. But that solves the problem, right? Wrong. Obama and his administration have gone out their way to protect benefits to the poor and unemployed not because of their desire for a socialist nanny state, but because the poor have buying power when the government gives them benefits, which ultimately continues to help the economy. It is debatable how much it helps: I've heard some reports that say the poor only contribute 0.25% to GDP, but that isn't neccessarily a small sum. At this point if we were to lose that GDP long term, we could end up in a recession again. And lastly, some economic theories show that a government running a debt is not neccessarily a bad thing. It is a bad thing when that debt is being continually added to, which we have done as a result of recessions caused by the gov't neglecting it's regulatory duties and a systematic subsidation of big business and the military-industrial complex.
-
dw1996 NewbieHmm, yes those are good points Tongue, however even you have admitted that Obama has contributed to the deficit. And even though he has spent government money to strengthen the economy, the economy still has not recovered. The government could better grow the economy by giving money back to us in the form of tax cuts. And you say we can't lower the deficit, but we can. 50% of Americans don't pay taxes, but if we went to a flat tax of 20% for everyone with no credits or loopholes, we could probably balance the budget. If we have to cut assistance to the poor, so be it. Private charities can take care of those who are truly in need, and with a better economy and more money in people's pockets, those charities will receive more donations.
This thread is locked, therefore no new posts can be made.
