General Discussion

dkf

(37,305 posts)

6. I used to think so til we kept the vast majority of the Bush cuts.

Reply to samsingh (Reply #4)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 04:34 PM

Jan 2013

Don't see any cleaning up planned.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

51 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

We've just added $3.6 trillion in debt. [View all] dkf Jan 2013 OP

Just throwing this out there Capt. Obvious Jan 2013 #1

Does it do us any good to pretend that debt isn't a long term issue? No. el_bryanto Jan 2013 #2

Misleading frazzled Jan 2013 #3

The baseline assumed the bush cuts would lapse. dkf Jan 2013 #10

But not a single person believed they would permanently lapse frazzled Jan 2013 #14

And the nation elected to increase projected debts by $3.6 trillion dkf Jan 2013 #26

So are you saying the crisis was mythical since it was a non-possibility? NoOneMan Jan 2013 #32

Not so easy an answer frazzled Jan 2013 #34

the debt problem started under Reagan, was solved under Clinton, and really skyrocketed under Bush samsingh Jan 2013 #4

Bingo Liberalynn Jan 2013 #5

I used to think so til we kept the vast majority of the Bush cuts. dkf Jan 2013 #6

only for those earning less than $400k. samsingh Jan 2013 #11

Not really...at least not in the scheme of things. dkf Jan 2013 #27

That's utter bullshit Dreamer Tatum Jan 2013 #8

are we reading the same chart? the diagram shows exactly what i said samsingh Jan 2013 #9

If it was "solved" under Clinton, there'd be no debt. Dreamer Tatum Jan 2013 #13

Simple minded and wrong headed conclusion. phleshdef Jan 2013 #17

thank you. and the poster has the audicity to start calling me names without understanding the math samsingh Jan 2013 #20

He/she also has no clue how to properly interpret the data in their own posted graph. phleshdef Jan 2013 #22

thanks for the thoughtful response samsingh Jan 2013 #24

That wasn't what was said, thanks. Dreamer Tatum Jan 2013 #28

Why do you misrepresent the poster? Viking12 Jan 2013 #35

Sorry, but it's not true Tempest Jan 2013 #37

The poster never claimed that and the value of the debt in 2000 is IRRELEVANT. phleshdef Jan 2013 #40

N seriously, we were projected to have a surplus & zero debt by 2010. JaneyVee Jan 2013 #51

i think you're obtuse for starting to name call. if you can't have a conversation, don't comment samsingh Jan 2013 #19

don't you see the steepness of the curve? samsingh Jan 2013 #12

You are being terribly misleading and you are far from sticking to anything resembling a fact. phleshdef Jan 2013 #15

We had a 5-year recession? Dreamer Tatum Jan 2013 #16

Every credible economist would back up everything I've said. You are just ignorant on this topic. phleshdef Jan 2013 #18

great and thoughtful response samsingh Jan 2013 #21

Why do you continue to be wrong and arrogant? Tempest Jan 2013 #38

There is no need to reduce debt to zero taught_me_patience Jan 2013 #41

Good cthulu2016 Jan 2013 #7

If I get it correctly, that means 3.6 Trillions more in circulation... Amonester Jan 2013 #23

Thats why middle class tax cuts are stimulative, while tax cuts for wealthy folks aren't. phleshdef Jan 2013 #25

So it should be good for the economy. Amonester Jan 2013 #29

It probably will not do too much either way NoOneMan Jan 2013 #31

Its not mythical when you are talking about tax cuts for middle and lower incomes. phleshdef Jan 2013 #39

Its never zero-sum NoOneMan Jan 2013 #42

Your hoarding equals others investing. dkf Jan 2013 #45

Once again I am so not shocked that you would make this kind of rightwing pedantic argument. nt stevenleser Jan 2013 #46

I owe my job to the fact that someone invested capital. dkf Jan 2013 #47

Do you understand the meaning of the word 'pedantic'? You are still doing it. nt stevenleser Jan 2013 #50

Sorry, I don't believe in free market fairies trickling down job creating fairy dust. phleshdef Jan 2013 #48

I'm curious what kind of job you have... dkf Jan 2013 #49

Republicans hate debt but love spending. nt bemildred Jan 2013 #30

They only use the debt to scare their shrinking base into electing them locally. Amonester Jan 2013 #33

Correct. nt bemildred Jan 2013 #36

Okay. Rex Jan 2013 #43

Not concerned. JoePhilly Jan 2013 #44