CBO and IMF admit US is Bankrupt

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-14-2010
CBO and IMF admit US is Bankrupt
26
Sat, 08-14-2010 - 1:38pm
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-14-2010
Sun, 08-15-2010 - 10:41pm

He increased spending to match the revenues. The democrats had no interest in putting money away for a rainy day. Unless of course you can explain why things like welfare programs needed their budgets doubled when unemployment went down to 3%.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-15-2007
Mon, 08-16-2010 - 9:29am

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-14-2010
Mon, 08-16-2010 - 11:49am

This is what the article stated. It seems pretty clear.


iVillage Member
Registered: 08-14-2010
Mon, 08-16-2010 - 10:44pm

"He increased spending to match the revenues. The democrats had no interest in putting money away for a rainy day. Unless of course you can explain why things like welfare programs needed their budgets doubled when unemployment went down to 3%."

I think you are missing the point. If we have a lot more wealth and the same debt, then our ability as a creditor to pay off the debt goes way up and the significance of the debt goes way down. To give you a very simple example, if you are making a million a year and have two million in debt you are valued as a much worse creditor than if you were making $20 million a year and have two million in debt. This is basic finance. And by the way, President Clinton dramatically lowered the deficit too.

"Reagan ballooned the debt/GDP ratio by 20%. Clinton REDUCED it by 10%. OK, omit the two Bushes, the point is the same: No other President before Reagan increased the debt/GDP ratio. None. Zero. Nada."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/hp_blogger_Paul%20Abrams/reagan-and-2-bushes-the-o_b_632158_52460366.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-abrams/reagan-and-2-bushes-the-o_b_632158.html

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-14-2010
Tue, 08-17-2010 - 2:38am

"I think you are missing the point."


Na, I got the point. There's no need to double budgets for social programs like welfare when everyone's working.


iVillage Member
Registered: 08-14-2010
Tue, 08-17-2010 - 7:15am

Not sure where you are getting your facts. They are not correct.

"Federal social welfare expenditures remained relatively stable from 1980 to 2002, making up between 49 and 60 percent of all federal spending."

http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/72/How-Much-Does-Nation-Spend-on-Welfare.html

A chart of government welfare spending under Clinton (it does not rise any faster than under Republican Presidents - in fact the opposite seems true):

Read more: How Much Does the Nation Spend on Welfare? - Public Aid, State Expenditures For Social Welfare, Private Welfare Expenditures, Welfare-reform Legislation - Programs, Percent, Spending, Federal, Local, and Security http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/72/How-Much-Does-Nation-Spend-on-Welfare.html#ixzz0wrQNEiHQ

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1980_2015&view=1&expand=40&units=b&fy=fy11&chart=40-total&bar=1&stack=1&size=m&title=Welfare%20Spending%20Chart&state=US&color=c&local=s

Monthly welfare benefits under Clinton declined dramatically. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Welfare_Benefits_Payments_Graph.gif

When President Clinton took office the budget deficit was $290 billion. When he left office the budget surplus was $230 billion. http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/

Now that you have the correct facts, this will change your view of which party is more fiscally responsible. Welcome to the Democratic Party friend!

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-16-2008
Tue, 08-17-2010 - 8:20am

"Now that you have the correct facts, this will change your view of which party is more fiscally responsible. Welcome to the Democratic Party friend!"


It has more to do with

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-15-2007
Tue, 08-17-2010 - 9:47am

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-14-2010
Tue, 08-17-2010 - 11:42am

Your links make my point. As unemployment dropped and people were working, Clinton continued to dump more and more money into these programs.


iVillage Member
Registered: 08-14-2010
Tue, 08-17-2010 - 11:44am
The US does not have the wherewithal to pay its current nor future debts. That is called bankrupt.