Responses to State of the Union

[HappyChristian]

Exactly, trc!

John, $2.5 trillion is not nothing!!!!! http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/01/house_republicans_unveil_25_tr.html There are several ideas being presented. And no, not everyone will agree. But I'm still hoping for some good financial stuff to come.

[no name joe]

I don't want to get this thread off topic, but Clinton did have a budget surplus thanks to three things: tax increases on the most affluent, a booming economy and working at reducing spending. Look at the numbers produced by the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan entity:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/HistoricalTables.pdf

I'm not being partisan, I'm just stating the facts as I see them. Deficit spending increased under BUsh and Obama. Rep. and Dems are to blame, equally.

I will take a politician seriously when they are truthful and say increased taxes on the wealthy AND drastic spending cuts are needed. R's and D's are partially right. Combine them together, and there is your solution.

[John81]

Exactly, trc!

John, $2.5 trillion is not nothing!!!!! http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/01/house_republicans_unveil_25_tr.html There are several ideas being presented. And no, not everyone will agree. But I'm still hoping for some good financial stuff to come.

I hopeful they may come up with something to, but so far nothing they could even come close to accomplishing would make a dent.

[HappyChristian]

I don't want to get this thread off topic, but Clinton did have a budget surplus thanks to three things: tax increases on the most affluent, a booming economy and working at reducing spending. Look at the numbers produced by the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan entity:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/HistoricalTables.pdf

I'm not being partisan, I'm just stating the facts as I see them. Deficit spending increased under BUsh and Obama. Rep. and Dems are to blame, equally.

I will take a politician seriously when they are truthful and say increased taxes on the wealthy AND drastic spending cuts are needed. R's and D's are partially right. Combine them together, and there is your solution.

Since I started the thread, it's okay to go this way. I don't consider you being partisan, kob, really. I know a lot of people who bought the lie that there was a surplus.

Increases taxes on the wealthy? That would mean the likes of BO would have taxes increased (he's raked in millions from his two books...) and that isn't going to happen (because that isn't the group of wealthy the Dems mean...). The only wealthy that would have any taxes increased are those who are business owners...and every tax increase on them is one or more less employee. Drastic cuts are the answer. Not increased taxes.

John, give 'em time. They've only been in office 7 days.

[no name joe]

You have to really listen to these ex-lawyer political parsers who give this information. There may have been a "budget" surplus for a particular year; but there was a national debt. This is the same kind of word smithing that allowed Clinton to say, "I want you to listen to me, I did not have sexual relations with that woman" and be legally correct; yet make it sound like he did nothing sexual in nature. By the "legal definition" of "sexual relations" he may have been telling the truth; while in fact lying to the American people who thought he was saying something all together different.

There is a huge difference in a national debt and a deficit/surplus.

For example, I have debt. I owe money on my house, and will for 16 more years. However, I have a budget surplus in my personal budget. I spend less than I earn. My spending includes my debt payments on the house. Some people have debt and deficits. They may have a debt on their house, but they may spend more than they take in through consumer debt such as the use of credit cards, or they may invade their savings.

National government is no different, though much more complex. The deficit/surplus is does the government spend more than they take in in tax revenue. If the answer is yes, there is a deficit. If the answer is no, then there is a surplus. The ideal is to have a budget surplus, and use the surplus to pay down the national debt. If you have a surplus, it can either be spend, pay down debt, or returned to taxpayers. Bush decided to return to taxpayers instead of paying down national debt. It is really that simple. To get out of debt, we the taxpayers must pay more. It is our debt, after all. If we add to the debt and keep money in our pockets, we just pass that debt to our children and grandchildren and increase their tax rates.

[trc123]

There is a huge difference in a national debt and a deficit/surplus.

For example, I have debt. I owe money on my house, and will for 16 more years. However, I have a budget surplus in my personal budget. I spend less than I earn. My spending includes my debt payments on the house. Some people have debt and deficits. They may have a debt on their house, but they may spend more than they take in through consumer debt such as the use of credit cards, or they may invade their savings.

National government is no different, though much more complex. The deficit/surplus is does the government spend more than they take in in tax revenue. If the answer is yes, there is a deficit. If the answer is no, then there is a surplus. The ideal is to have a budget surplus, and use the surplus to pay down the national debt. If you have a surplus, it can either be spend, pay down debt, or returned to taxpayers. Bush decided to return to taxpayers instead of paying down national debt. It is really that simple. To get out of debt, we the taxpayers must pay more. It is our debt, after all. If we add to the debt and keep money in our pockets, we just pass that debt to our children and grandchildren and increase their tax rates.

Precisely what I pointed out, there is a difference between a deficit, surplus and the national debt. They tell you they have a surplus for 1999, which means that they did indeed take in more taxes than they spent out under that year's budget; all the while the government still had a large national debt (incurred during prior years).

[Guest]

We need to fix it.

[John81]

We need to fix it.

True, but voters would see the fix as too painful so the politicians won't do it.

The government can't remain as large as it is, provide all the "services/benefits" as it does now (or add even more as many people want), and fix the problem.