Omg

[easeltine]

National Debt 10 Trillion to 15.7 Trillion in just 3 1/2 years.
That is a raise in the National Debt of 5.7 Trillion, 1.68 Trillion per year, A RAISE OF 57% TO THE NATIONAL DEBT IN UNDER 3 1/2 YEARS.

No Democrat, no Republican, NO LEADER IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD HAS EVER DONE THAT!

That isn't RIGHT-WING, THAT IS JUST FACTS! HISTORY OF THE WORLD FOLKS!!

Senator Obama would have yelled, "That represents a failure of leadership!," to himself.

...and these Left-Wingers are so blind they defend it!

[turtle]

EAseltine I glad you not me, however I disagree on your budget, yet you would disagree with mine. So we are even. Now with that said easeltine, you can try your best to solve the national budget, however even bill gates and all the rich men in the world tried to pay off the national debt, they could not do it and keep their money. I said that what 5 and 6 years ago and all chaos broke loose and people wanted me dead. Nah that could not of happened.

[easeltine]

National Debt

The average yearly increase to the National Debt under the Bush Administration was 5.6% per year.
5.5 Trillion to 10 Trillion, a 4.5 Trillion Dollar increase 45%, divided by 8 years equals 5.6% increase per year.

The average yearly increase to the National Debt under the Obama Administration is 16.3% per year.
10 Trillion to 15.7 Trillion, a 5.7 Trillion Dollar increase 57%, divided by 3 1/2, years equals 16.3% increase per year.

The Obama Administration and the Democrats are out spending the Bush Administration and the Republicans at a figure of almost 3 times average per year. The increase of the amount of Debt at this level will shortly bankrupt the United States of America, this amount of spending is unsustainable! Oh, here is the place Turtle told me to go for those figures - http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...ebt_histo5.htm

9/30/2000 - National Debt - 5.674 Trillion
Currently - 15.674 Trillion funny the last 3 digits match
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPD...application=np

Could this situation lead to a Constitutional Crisis with the Excecutive Branch, (either a Right-Wing or Left-Wing President), taking over the Government by Martial Law to solve these problems? That sounds like conspiracy stuff, but it might be a logical solution that a President may try.

[turtle]

Easeltine, think for a moment how many hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquake, Tsunami has USA had to baleout since Obama been in office, compare the debt on these crisis and war from war. Now which could be prevented and which could not. People need government aid when. When they lost everything. Not before. We are lucky that money did not have a total meltdown in the crisis. However america overcame with all the destruction, and continued to help the people through volunteers and paid people. Money going where it was suppose too. Problem solved by bush's mistakes maybe. maybe not. however we have to look at our nation over the last hundred years when the technology to send help an aid quickly was in place and based on availability of funds and economics how it all panned out. Now when you are done, consider this. Who achieved more economically Obama or another president and why? Democrates and republicans trying to work together, perhaps.

[easeltine]

The United States works best when the Executive Branch, (President), Legislative Branch, (House and Senate), are not all the same Party.

I'm not really sure I want the Republicans to win everything.

In this entire election cycle the most dumb comment came from not the President, rather a Republican. With all the economic problems I am talking about...promising a space colony on the moon within 8 years if they are elected President beats anything I have even heard VP Biden ever say.

[turtle]

Actually things work best if there is a split of republicans, and democrats as well other parties. Each getting an equal say, however I think there are people that are no longer let say true democrate or true republican that do not fall in other parties. There is a libertarian party but I not even sure who they really are. They made of both groups. The idea is we need both groups working together to work together on those things easily solved and fighting in for the rights of constitution. Do you agree with Obama current stand. I in truth religiously agree with him, but I an honestly say constitutionally I agree with him on gay rights. If I voted my religion, my faith gays would not have rights. Free speech is protected except in slander. Gossip is consider slander if it is false. It is also against God. Yet unless people sue these things are not upheld by our constitution.

Now gays in the Bible. God left them to there sin. As a nation can we leave these people to there sin giving them their God given right. Romans 1:18 to the end of the chapter. I don't know. Is it a state right or a federal one. It must be won in each state to really make it a federal agenda. However if to people caught in gay activities what is the punishment. Do thes people have freedom if there is no punishment. Yes, but they don't have a right to marry each other or to protect there families. Is this a God given right. Is this a federal right. Now those are issues that have to be establish state wide or federal. I would not mind it saying in a law that our nation does not agree with same sex marriage but constitutionally can not find fault in protecting these peoples rights. The same God given rights all american have to live freely and protect there "unconstitutional family group".
Is this double talk? It is. It making stand based on the foundation of rights based on the founding Father faith in God, as well as many that believe in God. Even saying it is an ungodly union, but one protected by our freedoms.

[theadmin]

http://factnet.org/what-going-factne...aden-our-scope

[ba2]

National Debt

The average yearly increase to the National Debt under the Bush Administration was 5.6% per year.
5.5 Trillion to 10 Trillion, a 4.5 Trillion Dollar increase 45%, divided by 8 years equals 5.6% increase per year.

The average yearly increase to the National Debt under the Obama Administration is 16.3% per year.
10 Trillion to 15.7 Trillion, a 5.7 Trillion Dollar increase 57%, divided by 3 1/2, years equals 16.3% increase per year.

The Obama Administration and the Democrats are out spending the Bush Administration and the Republicans at a figure of almost 3 times average per year. The increase of the amount of Debt at this level will shortly bankrupt the United States of America, this amount of spending is unsustainable! Oh, here is the place Turtle told me to go for those figures - http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...ebt_histo5.htm

9/30/2000 - National Debt - 5.674 Trillion
Currently - 15.674 Trillion funny the last 3 digits match
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPD...application=np

Could this situation lead to a Constitutional Crisis with the Excecutive Branch, (either a Right-Wing or Left-Wing President), taking over the Government by Martial Law to solve these problems? That sounds like conspiracy stuff, but it might be a logical solution that a President may try.

You need to be a little more honest with yourself. Another way to put it is that under Reagan, the debt doubled. Under GW, it doubled, or nearly doubled. If President Obama continues at the same pace for another 4 years, he will approximately double. He is doing no worse than Reagan and Bush JR. You can blame Obama for not improving the economy at a faster rate, but you certainly can’t blame him for starting this mess.

At least Obama has a reason to borrow; he inherited the worse economy since Roosevelt. What reason did Reagan have, except his belief in “voodoo” economics. What reason did GW have for nearly doubling the debt? Why don’t you complain about them? I am hoping that our next president surrounds himself with experts in macro-economics. Neither Obama nor Romney have that knowledge. Both are quite brilliant in their own fields of expertise, but as far as I can tell, neither understands how to pump up a failing economy.

[easeltine]

"I am hoping that our next president surrounds himself with experts in macro-economics. Neither Obama nor Romney have that knowledge. Both are quite brilliant in their own fields of expertise, but as far as I can tell, neither understands how to pump up a failing economy."

Ba2, I think that Governor Romney does understand the issue of the economy. He would proceed in a moderate, disciplined way. It would be a horrible mistake for the American people to re-elect President Obama. It would even be a mistake for the illegal aliens that vote Democrat in states like California. We need a person as President that understands business, and will be a job creator for the private sector.

[ba2]

"I am hoping that our next president surrounds himself with experts in macro-economics. Neither Obama nor Romney have that knowledge. Both are quite brilliant in their own fields of expertise, but as far as I can tell, neither understands how to pump up a failing economy."

Ba2, I think that Governor Romney does understand the issue of the economy. He would proceed in a moderate, disciplined way. It would be a horrible mistake for the American people to re-elect President Obama. It would even be a mistake for the illegal aliens that vote Democrat in states like California. We need a person as President that understands business, and will be a job creator for the private sector.

Maybe Romney understands the issues of economy, but I see no evidence of it. He has considerable experience as a business man, yes, but running a government and pushing for policies that help creat jobs are in no way the same as what a business owner does or wants. Business owners do not "create " jobs. Demand for products or services creates jobs. You can give all the tax breaks in the world, but unless they are actually tied to permement job creation, the tax break will do nothing but put more cash into the pocket of the owner. The business owner wants bigger profits. The biggest expense in most businesses is the compensation paid to employees. Therefore, the business owner will do everything they can to get the job done with fewer employees working for less wages. If you want to create jobs, you need to put more cash into the hands of the middle class, who will spend the money on local goods and services. That means tax breaks for the middle class. BTW: The effective tax on the wealthy class was over 90% during our country's most productive period (1950's). That didn't seem to hurt businesses very much.

Like I said earlier, the government needs to spend more money (and borrow to do it if they must) during recession and spend less (buy down the debt) during hot economic times. Cutting spending during recession only lengthens the recession. Increasing spending during good times causes prices to rise. We tend to do exactly the opposite in this country.

[turtle]

I think McCain should run again. I wonder how he do in a race against Obama now. Obama still has support from both parties and also individuals. but there many those in certain groups that disagree with Obama on something so it won't be a landslide. McCain could run independent.

[easeltine]

Listen,

If you are going to use your Liberal Macroeconomics approach it will only work if you actually raise revenue.
If you do not raise the revenue by raising taxes, and adapt an approach of uncontrolled spending, (investment/whatever), your Deficit will be uncontrolled.
This is what has happened!
Under President Bush the Deficit was under control. Under President Obama the Deficit has tripled, because instead of raising taxes/revenue, (as promised), he borrowed, and practiced uncontrolled spending, (What the Liberals like to call investment).

The GDP vs. Spending and the Deficit was under control when President Bush was in office. President Bush practiced more discipline on the Spending.

President Obama and the Democrats in Congress are practicing uncontrolled Spending, Borrowing, without raising Revenue, (TAXES).

From my point of view to raise Borrowing/Debt from 10 Trillion to 15.7 Trillion, (due to not raising taxes), tripling the Deficit from 400 Billion 2008, (was alway lower under the Bush Administration before that year), to 1,400 Billion today, (whatever the actual number is/it is close to that), makes them the biggest FOOLS to me in the history of the United States!

[turtle]

Easeltine there is another way. Why not raise money through government funded concerts how many well, think about it government sponser drug free zone, using parks, and other sources for things for people to attend would raise more money then raising taxes. You can still pay let say use retirees and jobless to earn extra money for summer, winter fuel or whatever. Type of food stamp reform, and plus for retirees working maybe two or three hour shift no longer then that. It also allow potential employees to see jobless working doing something besides sit on their duff. You know like in the depression days when parks and things were originally built to bring life back into the ecomonic depressed. however this is not hard labor this is just like having a bonus for those able to do it. A concert fifteen dollars, street vendors and such can do the food court. retirees and jobless can help with parking and seating.

[dodge]

We’re so fortunate to have such credible experts in economics here at FACTnet, who obviously are able to intuitively grasp the complexities of macroeconomics, taxes, spending and investment to the point of being able to know what the United States Government needs to do better than President Obama'a economic advisors. Hmmm…Easteline? Don’t you work for a landscape company in West Hollywood?

[ba2]

Listen,

If you are going to use your Liberal Macroeconomics approach it will only work if you actually raise revenue.
If you do not raise the revenue by raising taxes, and adapt an approach of uncontrolled spending, (investment/whatever), your Deficit will be uncontrolled.
This is what has happened!
Under President Bush the Deficit was under control. Under President Obama the Deficit has tripled, because instead of raising taxes/revenue, (as promised), he borrowed, and practiced uncontrolled spending, (What the Liberals like to call investment).

The GDP vs. Spending and the Deficit was under control when President Bush was in office. President Bush practiced more discipline on the Spending.

President Obama and the Democrats in Congress are practicing uncontrolled Spending, Borrowing, without raising Revenue, (TAXES).

From my point of view to raise Borrowing/Debt from 10 Trillion to 15.7 Trillion, (due to not raising taxes), tripling the Deficit from 400 Billion 2008, (was alway lower under the Bush Administration before that year), to 1,400 Billion today, (whatever the actual number is/it is close to that), makes them the biggest FOOLS to me in the history of the United States!

I think you are wrong on almost every point. The debt went way up under Reagan and again under Bush jr. It was not under control under either of them. The increase in debt is about as bad under Obama, but at least he has an excuse, he inherited the worst economy since Roosevelt. I am not pleased with Obama, but he is no worse than Reagan or Bush Jr. I don't think you understand the difference between debt and deficit. Have another look at the chart: http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

[easeltine]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Un...federal_budget
From - http://www.cbo.gov/publication/41166

Year 2007 - Total Revenue $2.57 Trillion Total Expenditures $2.73 Trillion Federal Deficit $161 Billion Debt $8.95 Trillion
Spending vs. GDP 36%

Democrats elected to Congress/President Obama Elected

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Un...federal_budget

Year 2012 - Total Revenue $2.627 Trillion $2.469 Trillion Enacted Total Expenditures $3.729 Trillion $3.796 Enacted Federal Deficit $1,101 Billion $1,327 Enacted, (almost 10 times since the year 2007) National Debt $15.7 Trillion, (almost double since 2007), Spending vs. GDP 42%

These people are nuts! Look at the facts yourselves everybody! To raise the Debt this much and have a Deficit this much is as empty headed and as foolish as it gets! In 2007 Senator Obama called it a, "Failure of Leadership," to raise the Federal Debt Ceiling over $8 Trillion...now HE IS AT $15.7 Trillion!

"I don't think you understand the difference between debt and deficit."

Deficit is taking your total Expenditures and Subtracting your Revenue, then the difference is thrown in the black hole called Debt. I know that $161 Billion is better than $1,300 Billion, and $8.95 Trillion is better than $15.7 Trillion!

...the first thing ain't good...but the second thing is worse...that I know Ba2, & it ain't good

[turtle]

Are government working in the red is not necessarily red, but it definitely a sign of over spending or a major crisis, either way it is a headache.

[easeltine]

A Liberal Democrat's desire is to invest money in the economy for helping the Lower Class. Socialism and the Liberal Democrats have always in the past understood that in order to do this we TAX AND SPEND. If you just Spend without raising Revenue to pay for your Spending you will be on the road to economic disaster.

Spending without raising Revenue will lead to bankruptcy. For the U.S. just to Print more money as the only solution will lead to a worldwide economic monetary collapse, and terrible inflation.

If you are going to Spend more you need more revenue. Dodge should understand these principles I am talking about.

The solution in this economy is not just to cut spending, but rather to cut the budget, raise taxes slightly on the Middle to wealthy, and to print more money at a slower pace. This solution is not a Tea Party solution, or a right-wing solution, rather a Moderate road. The current action is pure suicide, and I mean that in a worldwide sense. The world may be headed for a World Currency.

The President has not demonstrated Leadership to Cut the Budget, or Raise Taxes, he has to do either one.

[turtle]

Easeltine if a world currency happens do you not realize our money be no long actually money but computer numbers with no value. Gold will be gold and silver silver and copper copper, but as far as currency except what is saved will ony be worth billions. Actually currency will have no monetary value anymore. It just be numbers. The problem with this is money can increase at iightening speed with no value. Nothing will be worth oodles.