Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > General Discussion > National Politics / Debate
Click Here to Login

Reply
Old 06-30-2011, 07:47 AM  
Senior Member

TN
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 118 | Kudos: +26
Now It's All They Can Talk About

Ronald Reagan assumed a national debt less than $1 trillion in 1981. Reagan and George Bush's Daddy quadrupled it to more than $4 trillion by 1993. Clinton raised taxes back to pre Reagan and actually generated surpluses by 2001. George W. Bush and the Republicans used reconciliation to block the Democrats and cut taxes for the wealthy twice, 2001 and 2003 and proceeded to double the national debt from $5.7 trillion to $11 trillion. During these years the rich made out like bandits and what used to be the middle class practically disappeared. It's not rocket science...it's simply a matter of checking the facts:

Total Historical U S Debt(1950-2009)



09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)

09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accomodate Tens of Trillions)

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation To Block Democratic Filibuster)

09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation To Block Democratic Filibuster)

09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)


09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)

09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32

09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38

09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66(Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)

09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00

09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)

09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00
09/30/1980 $907,701,000,000.00


09/30/1979 $826,519,000,000.00
09/30/1978 $771,544,000,000.00
09/30/1977 $698,840,000,000.00
06/30/1976 $620,433,000,000.00
06/30/1975 $533,189,000,000.00
06/30/1974 $475,059,815,731.55
06/30/1973 $458,141,605,312.09
06/30/1972 $427,260,460,940.50
06/30/1971 $398,129,744,455.54
06/30/1970 $370,918,706,949.93
06/30/1969 $353,720,253,841.41
06/30/1968 $347,578,406,425.88
06/30/1967 $326,220,937,794.54
06/30/1966 $319,907,087,795.48
06/30/1965 $317,273,898,983.64
06/30/1964 $311,712,899,257.30
06/30/1963 $305,859,632,996.41
06/30/1962 $298,200,822,720.87
06/30/1961 $288,970,938,610.05
06/30/1960 $286,330,760,848.37
06/30/1959 $284,705,907,078.22
06/30/1958 $276,343,217,745.81
06/30/1957 $270,527,171,896.43
06/30/1956 $272,750,813,649.32
06/30/1955 $274,374,222,802.62
06/30/1954 $271,259,599,108.46
06/30/1953 $266,071,061,638.57
06/30/1952 $259,105,178,785.43
06/29/1951 $255,221,976,814.93
06/30/1950 $257,357,352,351.04
__________________

Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2011, 08:33 AM  
Senior Member

Bristol, Tennessee
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,062 | Kudos: +48
Agree, it is amazing that republican voters don't understand that the republican position is not an economic "idea" that is untried, it is one that has been heavily tried and has failed horribly, if dropping the top tax rate from 60% (in 40's) to 28% now has not brought in incredible growth and prosperity for all why would 28% to 20% do so? It's just a scam to get the middle class paying more (with the republican medicare plan seniors will likely have to pay about $8000 or more on top of the "voucher" for medical needs) while the rich get a significant tax drop and the whole overall plan depends on 3% unemployment (yes somehow taxing the rich less is going to end unemployment(despite this not being true in the past)). statistically the opposite is true, tax the rich more and create more jobs as the money gets reinvested. to avoid taxes.

It's amazing that there is a peasant verse wealthy war going on.... and the rich are trying to take everything away from the poor (which to them includes the middle class) in order to create a class of truly poor people that will then work for nothing and increase profits for the rich.... I don't think many people realize just how many older people are working jobs just to get health insurance, they could retire but can't get health coverage, they are bound to an employer.

Only Little People Pay Taxes | Mother Jones



or give this guy another tax break, I mean he needs most of all, if you don't have $100 million you ain't nothing, maybe after he hits 100 million he will create some jobs with it
Now It's All They Can Talk About-6bbe0476-94c7-4d4d-b34a-9715abe4f528_thumb.jpg 

__________________

Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2011, 08:41 AM  
Senior Member

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,892 | Kudos: +92
Don't stop at 2009, the current debt would require more than 50 years of balanced budgets and half-trillion dollar payments to resolve. Now consider the math, to balance the budget would require a $1.89 trillion cut, to make the $0.5 trillion payment another cut in spending leaving $1.44 to spend (based upon 2011 numbers). As of the end of 2010, the total worth of all American billionaires is $1.3 Trillion. We could take ALL their worth, not just high taxes, but ALL their WORTH; and it wouldn't dent our national debt. It wouldn't even pay this year deficit! And if we did take their money to pay some of this year's deficit, what would we we do next year?

From politifact.com
Quote:
Pants on Fire!
"What I have done -- and this is unprecedented ... is I've said to each agency ... 'look at regulations that are already on the books and if they don't make sense, let's get rid of them.'"

Barack Obama, Wednesday, June 29th, 2011.
Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2011, 10:06 AM  
Senior Member

Bristol, Tennessee
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,062 | Kudos: +48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie_T View Post
Don't stop at 2009, the current debt would require more than 50 years of balanced budgets and half-trillion dollar payments to resolve. Now consider the math, to balance the budget would require a $1.89 trillion cut, to make the $0.5 trillion payment another cut in spending leaving $1.44 to spend (based upon 2011 numbers). As of the end of 2010, the total worth of all American billionaires is $1.3 Trillion. We could take ALL their worth, not just high taxes, but ALL their WORTH; and it wouldn't dent our national debt. It wouldn't even pay this year deficit! And if we did take their money to pay some of this year's deficit, what would we we do next year?

From politifact.com
except your numbers are misleading at best considering you use billionaires which there about 400 of to being with, so yes billionaires alone won't solve the deficit, but your statement is pointless to begin with.

the combined net worth of the 400 wealthiest Americans, as measured by Forbes magazine, was $1.5 trillion , the poorest 50% of americans owns $1.6 trillion, so 400 people have more wealth then 155 million people combined, so you want to raise the taxes on 155 million working class/poor people instead of 400 extremely well off people?
PolitiFact Wisconsin | Michael Moore says 400 Americans have more wealth than half of all Americans combined

again your numbers are misleading:

even when assuming only 1 million for each millionaire they own 3.1 trillion (in reality many own much much more then just 1 million)
U.S. Has Record Number of Millionaires - The Wealth Report - WSJ

now corporations are considered people too in a ways and they own wealth as well but aren't counted here
Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2011, 10:14 AM  
Senior Member

Bristol, Tennessee
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,062 | Kudos: +48
or could have done more rational changes....... look at that large dark orange section.....
Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2011, 10:17 AM  
Senior Member
 
havasu's Avatar

California
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 5,747 | Kudos: +238
Images: 17
Robin Hood has spoken!
Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2011, 10:24 AM  
Senior Member

Bristol, Tennessee
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,062 | Kudos: +48
Quote:
Originally Posted by havasu View Post
Robin Hood has spoken!
the last 50 years the government has been the opposite of robin hood, the little person pays more and the super rich pays less, it's an unsustainable direction both economically and socially (unrest will come) especially since the wealthy have recovered pretty much in full from the recession, the first retail stores to recover were the ones selling expensive high class merchandise, walmart however is still down, you don't see a long term issue here if this trend continues?

It may not be 100% fair in many people's eyes, but if you want a growing stable economy it is the way things must be... a heavily divided populace makes for prime ground for revolutions, or at the very least a difference between a stagnate and a growing economy.
Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2011, 10:32 AM  
Senior Member
 
havasu's Avatar

California
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 5,747 | Kudos: +238
Images: 17
In my opinion, we will never be able to bail out the US economy on the backs of the rich. It is the politicians who got us in this mess, and it must be them to get us out. Is seems like the only thing out of the mouth lately from our Commander in Chief is to raise the ceiling limit, so we can print more useless, non-backed money.

I'm not poor and certainly not rich, but I believe we either do it to everyone across the board equally, or don't do it at all.
Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2011, 10:34 AM  
fustrated genius
 
HiHood's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,054 | Kudos: +100
WOW!!! there's all the proof I need guys, thanks!! I do still have a couple questions . . .

so the policy that Bush should have taken is, "ha ha silly terrorists, that OK, it's only a couple buildings, and a few thousand lives, oh yes, a few silly airplanes too, we'll just sit here and watch you ram more planes up our wazzoos, just spread the other cheek" right? or perhaps tuck tail, fold up and RUN like Clinten had us do out of Samolia when they brought down our bird.

and my other question is . . .
OK, good show, reagicans and bushicans are the bad guys . . . what's the Obamacrats got as far as a PLAN to get us out of this mess? and NO, you do NOT need to tell me that the bushicans don't have a plan because that is already pretty friggin obvious, or should I say a plan FOR the poeple's well being. Now, that the fingers are done being pointed, NOW what?
__________________
Phewy!
Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2011, 10:53 AM  
Senior Member

Bristol, Tennessee
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,062 | Kudos: +48
Quote:
Originally Posted by havasu View Post
In my opinion, we will never be able to bail out the US economy on the backs of the rich. It is the politicians who got us in this mess, and it must be them to get us out. Is seems like the only thing out of the mouth lately from our Commander in Chief is to raise the ceiling limit, so we can print more useless, non-backed money.
we are in this mess primarily because we lightened the load on the rich to almost nothing, a 8% increase over pre bush tax rates and still less then it was for much of the the last 60 years) would not only completely solve the deficit but leave us with a surplus to pay down the debt.
Quote:
I'm not poor and certainly not rich, but I believe we either do it to everyone across the board equally, or don't do it at all.
where has this tax method worked? what country? none?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiHood View Post
WOW!!! there's all the proof I need guys, thanks!! I do still have a couple questions . . .

so the policy that Bush should have taken is, "ha ha silly terrorists, that OK, it's only a couple buildings, and a few thousand lives,
we have lost at least twice that i the following wars directly
Quote:
oh yes, a few silly airplanes too, we'll just sit here and watch you ram more planes up our wazzoos, just spread the other cheek" right? or perhaps tuck tail, fold up and RUN like Clinten had us do out of Samolia when they brought down our bird.
1.)we could secure that from within
2.) our meddling in the middle east is a cause for terrorist actions, don't think if another country intervened with the U.S. in the same way we would not consider it an act of war.
3.) so we are supposed to police the entire middle east forever? who pays for that? even more so who pays for it?
4.) why Iraq, we took over that country not for Osama, so don't bundle it in there
5.) so you are ok with Obama on libya?

Quote:

and my other question is . . .
OK, good show, reagicans and bushicans are the bad guys . . . what's the Obamacrats got as far as a PLAN to get us out of this mess?
they tried to roll back the bush tax cuts but the republicans did not allow it, they did slightly reduce deficit spending through the healthcare act though
Quote:
and NO, you do NOT need to tell me that the bushicans don't have a plan because that is already pretty friggin obvious, or should I say a plan FOR the poeple's well being. Now, that the fingers are done being pointed, NOW what?
we can't cut our way out of this, raising taxes is unavoidable, the question is just "raise who's", it's easy to claim spending cuts will work, but they are politically difficult and thus won't happen, and only gop math can assume lower tax rates equal more income.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > General Discussion > National Politics / Debate
Bookmark this Page!

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes


Suggested Threads

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.