Yes. It is out of control. Prior to Bush, the debt was at $4 trillion, with most of it accumulated during the Reagan years. Bush, in less than 6 years, doubled it to the existing amount.
Scary. Especially considering how much of it is held by the Communist Chinese govt.
I think it concerns a lot more citizens than people are willing to admit. I also think the Dem candidates could make hay out of it, if they would bring it up while campaigning (including solutions to reduce it).
Its easy to see why the GOP candidates are avoiding the issue, since most of the $8.6 trillion is accountable to Reagan, Bush Sr. and Dubya.
2007-06-12 06:38:38
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
1⤋
You know, liberals nevered cared about the debt until the war on terror. They spend freely on social programs, they drained the Social Security trust fund during the 40 years they ruled the House and Senate, prior to 1992. Only now has it been made an issue. An issue that republicans touted for almost a century. Way to go Lib's, thanks for finally catching up.
Oh, and about the alleged Clinton surplus. There never was one. The administration spent it like drunk sailors in a bar. But lets say there was one. A big surplus, that means the Government overcharged the citizens of the U.S.. Which stands to reason, the Clinton's passed the largest tax hike in American history! Got an alleged surplus, but spent it too. Humm.
Bush pushed for not only cut taxes, but we got some money back too. No where near what we deserved for being over taxed, but anything helps. No way in hell that would that happen under Dem-o-rats rule. The last Dem to have a tax cut was John F. Kennedy, over sixty years ago, and the rest of the party hated him for supporting it. I wouldn't be surpirsied if the dim-o-wits put Oswald up to it.
By the way Newt Gingrich came up with Contract with America that dealt with the debt. and the Dem's just scoffed. And continued with goofy spending on things like "midnight basketball" which drove up the crime rate in Illionois.
The war is expensive, freedom isn't free. Tax hikes and Income redistribution isn't the answer, less spending is.
2007-06-12 14:10:49
·
answer #2
·
answered by Nacho 2
·
2⤊
1⤋
Because it's not important. Our country has ran a debt almost its entire history.
It's perfectly OK, as long as we keep growing economically, thus generating more tax revenues, to continue paying the interest on it.
Today, interest payments on the national debt run about 10% of taxes received. A decade ago, that was 16%.
A growing economy solves so many ills like poverty, wage growth and federal deficits, that I'm constantly amazed at how often Democrats try and put a damper on the economy by increases taxes and regulations. It's almost as if they don't want to solve those problems.
To Boogityman - What social programs have been cut? Bush has been expanding them, not cutting them.
2007-06-12 13:42:42
·
answer #3
·
answered by Uncle Pennybags 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
The debt issue is avoided in debates because the candidates do not have a solution.
Truman, Ike, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Carter wiped out most of the World War II debt.
The national deficit of the 80's was resolved in the 90's.
One thing we need to do is demand accountability.
Stop pork-spending.
Why should the fed. gov't pay to improve a county fairground?
Sounds silly, doesn't it, but stuff like that happens.
2007-06-12 13:46:49
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes, but as a percentage of GDP the yearly deficit is at historically lower levels when compared to the post-WWII period generally.
Lower taxes have resulted in HIGHER total revenues to the treasury.
But the government spends far too much, and the entitlement programs are an absolute joke in terms of solvency.
2007-06-12 13:53:34
·
answer #5
·
answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
That amount is approximately what I paid in taxes last year. I hope the government isn't going to try to take any more from me...
Bush has declared that the people should not be concerned with the national debt.
He would prefer that the people were not concerned about Afghanistan and Iraq, either.
2007-06-12 13:38:38
·
answer #6
·
answered by MenifeeManiac 7
·
5⤊
1⤋
Yes I am. It is no surprise that so mnay US citizens are in financial trouble, given the fact that our politicians constantly spend more than we take in.
The only thing we can do is to stop voting for either major party candidate until they listen to us, and meanwhile write letters to your representatives, explaining your opposition to current spending practices. Only JOhn McCain seems to get this.
2007-06-12 13:39:11
·
answer #7
·
answered by JeffyB 7
·
0⤊
2⤋
Hell yes. This country will NOT be toppled by an invading army..... but the chances that it will be toppled by our massive debt grows bigger every day.
2007-06-12 13:40:40
·
answer #8
·
answered by truth seeker 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
I don't know why, but it scares me. Well, actually I do know why, which is that I actually had a chance at social security, but now....monkey boy has taken that away from me
2007-06-12 13:58:14
·
answer #9
·
answered by Joey 4
·
2⤊
0⤋
We should be, but apparantly some aren't willing to go without their tax cuts. Social programs have been cut to hell, so you can't blame the deficit on "liberal utopian aspirations" anymore.
2007-06-12 13:37:09
·
answer #10
·
answered by I'll Take That One! 4
·
6⤊
2⤋