• Welcome To LPSG
    Welcome to LPSG.com. If you are here because you are looking for the most amazing open-minded fun-spirited sexy adult community then you have found the right place. We also happen to have some of the sexiest members you'll ever meet. Signup below and come join us.


A perspective on government spending

Joined
Mar 1, 2006
Posts
4,383
Likes
1
Points
183
Location
Midwest
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Nightfall in America - WSJ.com

The reason for these rising deficits is the huge increases in federal spending--the intended growth of the federal government--that Congress and the president are pushing. The deficit in 2007 was $160 billion. In the next year the Pelosi-Reid Congress took it up to $458 billion, and when President Obama came into office in 2009 it hit $1.4 trillion. The current 2010 projected deficit is $1.6 trillion, which will lead to a tripling of our national debt from 2008 to 2020.

It isn't even possible to put a math equation together to pay the debt down in the next ten years.

Biggest government of all time; and biggest spending agenda in U.S. history.

For those that like to deflect the spending issue back to the Bush Administration, consider this little detail:

Michael Boskin, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under the first President Bush, noted in The Wall Street Journal last week that President Obama will have added more debt in his first two years in office than George W. Bush did in eight years.

spending/stockpiling debt at a rate of 4X that of Bush II.

 

justasimpleguy

Admired Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2009
Posts
441
Likes
960
Points
273
Location
Alabama (United States)
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
You mean like when Bush tripled the debt in 8 years while privatizing the military, starting two wars without any plan to finish them, trashing social welfare programs, shredding environmental regulations and giving the finger to the world? No. Oh well it was worth a try.
 

ericbythebay

Verified
Gold
Joined
Oct 16, 2006
Posts
292
Likes
48
Points
273
Location
San Francisco
Sexuality
80% Gay, 20% Straight
Gender
Male
Bush and Obama are both big spenders, don't try and kid yourself. Bush had eight years, when he left office the country had more debt than when he took office. Obama is on track to do the same.
 
Joined
Mar 1, 2006
Posts
4,383
Likes
1
Points
183
Location
Midwest
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Bush and Obama are both big spenders, don't try and kid yourself. Bush had eight years, when he left office the country had more debt than when he took office. Obama is on track to do the same.

Agree.

Only Obama's administration is spending at a much greater rate - see OP.
 

B_talltpaguy

Banned
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Posts
2,332
Likes
13
Points
123
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
You missed the part where "Pelosi-Reid" budgets were actually for less spending than what Bush had proposed in his budget sent to Congress. In reality, if Bush had gotten his way, our deficits would be even higher. Just as has been the case since the 1980s, the only side of the aisle showing any fiscal restraint when they're in power are the Dems. The Reps howl about fiscal discipline when the Dems are in control, but when they themselves are in control, the Reps always act like a teenage girl on a shopping spree with daddy's platinum card.

So, thanks for the 'perspective' and the purposefully misleading information. It serves as a good reminder as to why the Reps were kicked out of office and haven't done a damn thing to prove that they have learned from their disastrous mistakes of the past and will not repeat them ever again. Hell, the Republicans haven't even confessed to their epic failures, let alone apologize for them. The notion that they should be or have been forgiven by voters is ludicrous. The idea that the Republicans are capable of leading this country is an absolute joke right now to everyone but the Republican base. They have done NOTHING to lead this nation forward for years and everyone knows it.
 

scottredleter

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Posts
717
Likes
61
Points
113
Location
San Diego
Website
gargman.blogspot.com
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
I thought Dick Cheney put all this to rest when he said that deficits don't matter... that's the way that dumb-shit reagan saw things too... Just run up the bill and then try to paint the democrats as tax and spend liberals
 

maxcok

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Posts
7,160
Likes
97
Points
83
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Male
You missed the part where "Pelosi-Reid" budgets were actually for less spending than what Bush had proposed in his budget sent to Congress. In reality, if Bush had gotten his way, our deficits would be even higher. Just as has been the case since the 1980s, the only side of the aisle showing any fiscal restraint when they're in power are the Dems. The Reps howl about fiscal discipline when the Dems are in control, but when they themselves are in control, the Reps always act like a teenage girl on a shopping spree with daddy's platinum card. . . .
I know, right? Plus now we're paying for two wars in the budget vs. off the books through 'emergency supplementals' as Bush did. Plus all the bailouts, support for the auto industry, increased demand for unemployment payouts, increased demand for social services, job stimulus, etc., etc. - all to clean up the colossal mess left by the previous administration.

You unfortunately have to spend money to pull out of recession and stimulate the economy. I keep trying to explain this to starpoop, but some people are hopeless ideologues and beyond help. btw, totally down with the rest of your post too.

... Just run up the bill and then try to paint the democrats as tax and spend liberals
So true.
 
Last edited:

ZOS23xy

Gold
Joined
Mar 22, 2007
Posts
4,909
Likes
20
Points
183
Location
directly above the center of the earth
And also hovering about is the banks not being regulated, the old problem of the cost of oil and gas and people just not interested in solutions, working for solutions and interested in pointing and laying blame. There's the diminished mentality at work when the whole of the problem can be laid at the feet of anyone "liberal".

Existing problems of a scientific nature are being turned into politics. What a stupid idea.
 

dreamer20

Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Posts
7,031
Likes
11,597
Points
618
Location
Nassau (New Providence, Bahamas)
Gender
Male
...the only side of the aisle showing any fiscal restraint when they're in power are the Dems...

That's hilarious.


So were you laughing when the senate Republicans voted against "pay as you go" on Jan 28, 2010? Fortunately senate Democrats voted to adopt statutory pay-go rules for legislative business , in what party leaders described as an affirmation of their commitment to budgetary discipline...

McCain, Three Other GOPers, Reverse Support For Pay-Go
 

B_talltpaguy

Banned
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Posts
2,332
Likes
13
Points
123
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
^Reminds me of the balanced budget act that the Dems passed which led to a budgetary correction and eventually supluses by the end of the 90s, which was later repealed once Bush II took over, and we all know what happened to the budget after the Reps ran if for a few years.

Isn't it funny how the surpluses Dems built up through good leadership were supposedly 'bad' for us, and had to be frittered away by the Republicans on tax breaks for the rich, BS wars, and other corrupt BS. The Reps even told us that 'deficits were good for the country'.. yet all we got to show for 8 years of their leadership is an absolutely wrecked economy and unimaginably huge deficits. And now that the country is pretty much fucked, and nobody is entirely sure what the best course of action is, where are the republicans? Are they being honorable leaders and taking responsibility for what they did? Nope. Are they out there being exemplars of leadership in bringing forth compelling new ideas to solve the crisis that their ideology and their votes created? Of course not, because the Republicans are not leaders, and they are not honorable, respectable or anything else that could be described as a desirable trait to have in a leader of men.
 
Last edited:

LambHair McNeil

Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Aug 21, 2005
Posts
201
Likes
1
Points
488
Age
32
Pay-go rules are just a sham. Democratic Congresses have no problem setting them aside to raise spending but promise to faithfully enforce them when dealing with the subject of tax cuts - tax cuts being something that can help out (even if temporary in nature) when trying to come out of steep recessions.

The 1990s were a unique decade, with fiscal changes brought about the the end of the Cold War and the resulting inflation-adjusted cuts in the defense budget throughout the decade. The fiscal follies of both sides were tamed by having split-party rule in Washington from 1995-onward, and the skyrocketing stock market (tech bubble) of the late 90's papered over a lot of state and federal balance sheets.

Besides, when you get down to it, that surplus money was more due to the Social Security trust fund + the stock market than any one party's brilliant ideas or execution. After all, if either Gingrich-inspired or Clinton-led policies were to credit, then why did neither side predict the surpluses in advance of their arrival?

I didn't exonerate the Republicans and what they did during the 00's. Bush was never a fiscal conservative & the only conservative side of him that I could find was on judicial nominations. Given the history of Republicans in the 00's when they held the reins and what Dems have started proposing in the way of deficit spending in their first full year of unified control of Washington, all of this is akin to arguing over whether lions or tigers are preferable when it comes to guarding the chickens.
 

dreamer20

Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Posts
7,031
Likes
11,597
Points
618
Location
Nassau (New Providence, Bahamas)
Gender
Male
Pay-go rules are just a sham...
The 1990s were a unique decade... The fiscal follies of both sides were tamed by having split-party rule in Washington from 1995-onward, and the skyrocketing stock market (tech bubble) of the late 90's papered over a lot of state and federal balance sheets.

Besides, when you get down to it, that surplus money was more due to the Social Security trust fund + the stock market than any one party's brilliant ideas or execution. After all, if either Gingrich-inspired or Clinton-led policies were to credit, then why did neither side predict the surpluses in advance of their arrival?

The Bush Budget Deficit Death Spiral

Whether or not surpluses were anticipated, in 1993 President Bill Clinton planned to move the deficit mountain he encountered and had faith that he would achieve this objective. Democrats in the House of Representatives, also having faith in Clinton's Economic and Deficit reduction plan of 1993, voted for it in an overwhelming majority , whilst all Republicans voted against it.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Bill Clinton reversed Reagan’s course, raising taxes on the wealthy, and lowering them for the working and middle classes. This produced the longest sustained economic expansion in American history. Importantly, it also produced budgetary surpluses allowing the government to begin paying down the crippling debt begun under Reagan. In 2000, Clinton’s last year, the surplus amounted to $236 billion. The forecast ten year surplus stood at $5.6 trillion. It was the last black ink America would see for decades, perhaps forever. [/FONT]

The Clinton Record - Clinton's Accomplishments
 
Joined
Mar 1, 2006
Posts
4,383
Likes
1
Points
183
Location
Midwest
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
The Bush Budget Deficit Death Spiral

Whether or not surpluses were anticipated, in 1993 President Bill Clinton planned to move the deficit mountain he encountered and had faith that he would achieve this objective. Democrats in the House of Representatives, also having faith in Clinton's Economic and Deficit reduction plan of 1993, voted for it in an overwhelming majority , whilst all Republicans voted against it.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Bill Clinton reversed Reagan’s course, raising taxes on the wealthy, and lowering them for the working and middle classes. This produced the longest sustained economic expansion in American history. Importantly, it also produced budgetary surpluses allowing the government to begin paying down the crippling debt begun under Reagan. In 2000, Clinton’s last year, the surplus amounted to $236 billion. The forecast ten year surplus stood at $5.6 trillion. It was the last black ink America would see for decades, perhaps forever. [/FONT]

The Clinton Record - Clinton's Accomplishments

The expansion under Clinton had EVERYTHING to do with the dot-com boom, and nothing to do with tax policy.
 

Bbucko

Cherished Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2006
Posts
7,240
Likes
254
Points
208
Location
Sunny SoFla
Website
thespincycle.blogspot.com
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
The expansion under Clinton had EVERYTHING to do with the dot-com boom, and nothing to do with tax policy.

That's funny*: according to conventional wisdom, it was the 1994 midterms and Gingrich's tenure as Speaker that led to Clinton's increased "pragmatism**" and eventually led to the budget surpluses. At the time, it was heralded as a true bi-partisan triumph toward fiscal sanity.

*Funny strange, not ha-ha.

**"Pragmatism" meaning that he moved from "far left" to a centrist, though in reality he was always a centrist, especially on social issues.
 

B_VinylBoy

Banned
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,365
Likes
37
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
starinvestor said:
The expansion under Clinton had EVERYTHING to do with the dot-com boom, and nothing to do with tax policy.

Apparently, ideology and belief, regardless of its high level of convolution, is more important than actual facts to some people.
 

houtx48

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2006
Posts
6,918
Likes
213
Points
208
Gender
Male
Why is it you never see the queen with a face and the transvestor in the same room? I would think all you have to do is change names get back on and support you alter ego.
 
Joined
Mar 1, 2006
Posts
4,383
Likes
1
Points
183
Location
Midwest
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
That's funny*: according to conventional wisdom, it was the 1994 midterms and Gingrich's tenure as Speaker that led to Clinton's increased "pragmatism**" and eventually led to the budget surpluses. At the time, it was heralded as a true bi-partisan triumph toward fiscal sanity.

*Funny strange, not ha-ha.

**"Pragmatism" meaning that he moved from "far left" to a centrist, though in reality he was always a centrist, especially on social issues.



I don't disagree. However, the raging fury of the technology bubble made any type of tax policy a mere rounding error during that era. In other words, nothing was stopping the economic expansion. Nothing in monetary or fiscal policy changes would have caused a hiccup.

Sarah Palin could have surfed that wave into a surplus.
 

dreamer20

Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Posts
7,031
Likes
11,597
Points
618
Location
Nassau (New Providence, Bahamas)
Gender
Male
I don't disagree. However, the raging fury of the technology bubble made any type of tax policy a mere rounding error during that era. In other words, nothing was stopping the economic expansion. Nothing in monetary or fiscal policy changes would have caused a hiccup.

Sarah Palin could have surfed that wave into a surplus.

Yet in reality when Bush II succeeded Clinton, and saw the balanced budget act led to budget surpluses, Bush II idiotically did away with the balanced budget act, denounced the surplus and chose to reinstate the disastrous Reaganomics policy with his own "Bush tax cuts" and deficit spending:

^Reminds me of the balanced budget act that the Dems passed which led to a budgetary correction and eventually supluses by the end of the 90s, which was later repealed once Bush II took over, and we all know what happened to the budget after the Reps ran if for a few years.

Isn't it funny how the surpluses Dems built up through good leadership were supposedly 'bad' for us, and had to be frittered away by the Republicans on tax breaks for the rich, BS wars, and other corrupt BS. The Reps even told us that 'deficits were good for the country'.. yet all we got to show for 8 years of their leadership is an absolutely wrecked economy and unimaginably huge deficits. And now that the country is pretty much fucked, and nobody is entirely sure what the best course of action is, where are the republicans? Are they being honorable leaders and taking responsibility for what they did? Nope. Are they out there being exemplars of leadership in bringing forth compelling new ideas to solve the crisis that their ideology and their votes created? Of course not, because the Republicans are not leaders, and they are not honorable, respectable or anything else that could be described as a desirable trait to have in a leader of men.
 

B_talltpaguy

Banned
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Posts
2,332
Likes
13
Points
123
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Democratic tax and spend plan = balanced budgets.

Republican borrow and spend plan = bankruptcy.
 
Joined
Mar 1, 2006
Posts
4,383
Likes
1
Points
183
Location
Midwest
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Yet in reality when Bush II succeeded Clinton, and saw the balanced budget act led to budget surpluses, Bush II idiotically did away with the balanced budget act, denounced the surplus and chose to reinstate the disastrous Reaganomics policy with his own "Bush tax cuts" and deficit spending:

Bush came into office when the technology bubble burst and the economy came to a screetching halt. And oh by the by, 9/11/01 further choked economic activity.

I suppose those two events were his fault.:rolleyes:

Yet you will not place any blame on Obama for this period of slow economic activity.
 

ericbythebay

Verified
Gold
Joined
Oct 16, 2006
Posts
292
Likes
48
Points
273
Location
San Francisco
Sexuality
80% Gay, 20% Straight
Gender
Male
Bush came into office when the technology bubble burst and the economy came to a screetching halt. And oh by the by, 9/11/01 further choked economic activity.

I suppose those two events were his fault.:rolleyes:

Yet you will not place any blame on Obama for this period of slow economic activity.

Bush should have cut spending to match revenue.

Why is it that when the party you like is in power they are responsible for the economic gains, but not the losses? And when it's the party you don't like, they are responsible for the losses and not the gains?
 
  • Like
Reactions: dreamer20

TomCat84

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Posts
3,415
Likes
147
Points
148
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Bush came into office when the technology bubble burst and the economy came to a screetching halt. And oh by the by, 9/11/01 further choked economic activity.

I suppose those two events were his fault.:rolleyes:

Yet you will not place any blame on Obama for this period of slow economic activity.

And even when Bush insisted on invading Iraq/Afghanistan, he didn't want anyone touching his precious trillion dollar+ tax cuts.....probably the first president EVER to cut taxes during a time of war.
 

tripod

Legendary Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2006
Posts
6,575
Likes
1,493
Points
333
Location
USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
The rich people in this country are holding back jobs to thwart Obama's presidency. Never before have so many people worked overtime to bring down one man. It's too bad that they didn't go after Osama Bin Laden like they went after our majority elected president.

Conservatives want to win at all costs and will take down anyone that is in their way... and that includes the American people.

The conservatives took their companies overseas for cheap slave labor.

The conservatives bankrupted our country with the Bush tax cuts and two simultaneous wars that were off the books.

The conservatives have been obstructing the recovery of our country through the constant filibuster.

The conservatives have made sure that we can't have an alternative source of fuel and keeps us on the suicide course of depleting worldwide diminishing oil reserves as fast as possible.

Conservatives have done more to damage our country over the years than the Russians and terrorists could combined.

Conservatives = terrorists against America

Fuck your perspective Star, it is as usual... the wrong one.

Conservatives worship a reality that doesn't exist, you are all insane.
 

mikeyh9in

Cherished Member
Joined
May 31, 2004
Posts
325
Likes
337
Points
293
Age
53
Location
San Francisco (California, United States)
Gender
Male
The rich people in this country are holding back jobs to thwart Obama's presidency. Never before have so many people worked overtime to bring down one man. It's too bad that they didn't go after Osama Bin Laden like they went after our majority elected president.

Conservatives want to win at all costs and will take down anyone that is in their way... and that includes the American people.

The conservatives took their companies overseas for cheap slave labor.

The conservatives bankrupted our country with the Bush tax cuts and two simultaneous wars that were off the books.

The conservatives have been obstructing the recovery of our country through the constant filibuster.

The conservatives have made sure that we can't have an alternative source of fuel and keeps us on the suicide course of depleting worldwide diminishing oil reserves as fast as possible.

Conservatives have done more to damage our country over the years than the Russians and terrorists could combined.

Conservatives = terrorists against America

Fuck your perspective Star, it is as usual... the wrong one.

Conservatives worship a reality that doesn't exist, you are all insane.

Great post Tripod...

I would add, as I've stated before... Japan (an economy very much like our own) went through a crippling recession in the 90's. They had the exact same argument that we are having right now... should the Government deficit spend, and if so, how much?

As they began crawling out of their recession (many years later), it has been the opinion of many economists, that Japan's very long recession was made longer by the Government not spending enough.

So, like most things conservatives do, they don't quite understand the whole picture.

Why do conservatives continue to insist that they know what they are doing?

Wage an unprovoked war costing over a trillion dollars in Iraq -- Wrong
Cut taxes on the richest 1% to stimulate the economy -- Wrong
Marriage is a right reserved only for heterosexuals -- Wrong
Keep the cost of two ongoing wars off the books to make it look like the deficit is much smaller than it actually is -- Wrong
Privatize Social Security -- Wrong
Drill baby drill -- Wrong

Here is an interesting piece that shows that in actuality, the Bush tax cuts along with the two wars are the bulk of the deficit projections through 2019.

Critics Still Wrong on What

I say let the conservatives run their businesses, but leave the real experts (the left) to run the government.

-Mike
 
Last edited: