IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 1 active user | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Probably Not....

The only positive statement that can be said about the Clinton admin re the national debt is that for 2 years of his admin, the rate of increase from the previous year was lower than it had been for a long time. That's it, folks... Nothing to see here. The rate still increased. Or to substitute, Bill Clinton also chose to "pass the bill on to new generations." As did GHWB, as did RR, as did JC, and so on.

Does this statement have any impact on a thinking person?


Probably not.

I don't think some people understand the difference between the Budget and the National Debt. Fewer seem to understand the concept that one must balance the Budget (spend only what one has) before one can even begin to work on the National Debt(*).

Unfortuately, I think some people think that that because the Debt is so large, it has become a meaningless number -- that they can add to this Debt any amount because they don't believe it will affect them one way or another.

Alas, I think that even thinking people will forget that these were the exact same arguments used against Democrats during the Reagan-Bush years. Republicans were argued to be more Fiscally Responsible because they didn't control Congress. Those damned Democrats controlled Congress and were spending money that they didn't have. I believe I remember arguments for a Balanced-Budget admendment, THRO (Throw those Hypocritical Rascals Out) and Term Limits.

Now, I think that some of these people, facing the fact that Republicans are in charge of House, Senate, and White House...and aren't balancing the budget and paying off the national debt are trying to minimalize statements regarding Fiscal Issues by stating that "The Debt will never be paid off" and "It doesn't matter."

Certainly some of them are unhappy - they would like to claim that the Budget could NEVER be balanced - but unfortuately for them, Clinton actually achieved this milestone.

So, when their candidate can't meet even this milestone - they attempt to put Clinton's accomplishments "in the proper light".




* - If one one rates for inflation, one 20th President did lower the National Debt without balancing the Budget.
New Absolutely agreed
The reason this issue becomes such a hot button for me is that the national debt represents the economic collapse (and all the interrelated collapses) of America at some future point. This is the "crazy aunt in the basement" that noone, regardless of idealogy or political affilliation, wants to talk about. The last man who tried, a Republican university professor name Gingrich, had his ass hung out to dry.
[link|http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/CONTRACT.html|http://www.house.gov...act/CONTRACT.html]
I also believe that Al Gore very publicly tried to clean up government waste and those affected cost him the last election.

When politicians try to do the "right thing", it usually means pain and suffering from some group. To really address the national debt would require major pain and suffering for a large group of individuals (ie massive government layoffs, large tax increases, freezing new spending for a great amount of time, etc.). The politicians that do this will be rewarded with not being re-elected. To add further insult, the newly elected group coming in will probably be elected to "fix" the problem that the last group created and "re-fund" the cut programs or entitlements... The passion play continues.

The scary part for me is that we had the opportunity during the nineties to use the "peace dividend" that followed the cold war, the Contract with America, a very reform minded Vice President, a booming economy and... the result for the national debt... The rate of increase lessened. This is a hardly an stellar accomplishment. For a few brief moments in the nineties, our government started to do the right thing, but now we're back to business as usual.

On the Democratic political bright side, there most probably will be a political backlash against the Republicans in the next election. I base this on my own experience. As a lifelong Democrat, my biggest wish was always for the "my party" to hold all three branches of government. I got that wish in '92. By '93 I was extremely dissillusioned and by '94 I voted for the last time - a straight Republican ticket. I thought I was being radical... :-)

The Repubs now have it all and I would assume that thinking Republicans would be getting dissillusioned about now. Who knows what the backlash will be?

I want to see the Democrats take back the House in the next election just as a balance. I think that is more realistic than taking the White House and they should be trying to concentrate their national efforts on that. I watched the first Democratic debate the other night - Bill Patient is right. The Demos don't stand a chance other than with Gebhardt and the cast of characters that are going up against him in the primaries will ensure that he steps all over his dick to get the nod. He will step up to the plate, as did Dole, in an un-winnable election. (We came through 9-11, we fixed the economy, we've made great progress in fighting terrorism, blah, blah, blah).

I guess in a way, the national debt is meaningless, given the system and the "will of the American public", noone wants to be inconvenienced into paying it off.
Just a few thoughts,

Screamer


But take your time, think a lot,
Why, think of everything you've got.
For you will still be here tomorrow, but your dreams may not.


Y. Islam - Father and Son
New It can be done
as a proportion of our GDP, our debt in the early nineties was much greater than yours was. We've payed off (IICC) some 10% of it since then; that is, we've cut the size of our debt by app. 50 billion dollars. That would be somewhat similar to trimming half a trillion from yours.

Sure, at the current rate, it's going to take a century to pay it all down, but you know what? That's not really a long time in the life of nations.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton                            jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca]                   [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada               [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
New Man, if we could only look to the north...
we could see that some things are possible. The problem with this is (although most US'ers feel Canada and the US are really one entity separated by ones propensity to handle cold climate), because of your brethren to the east who refuse to stop talking that crazy surrender monkey language - we can't pay attention to the rest of your country on many issues other than SCTV (the greatest comedy series ever) and other entertainment/entertainers and fishing.

I thank you for trying to give hope. In all seriousness, I have small children who I hope will grow up with a decent standard of living and a peaceful time period in history. I haven't given up all hope, which is why I'm still bitching and pointing out the problem.
Just a few thoughts,

Screamer


But take your time, think a lot,
Why, think of everything you've got.
For you will still be here tomorrow, but your dreams may not.


Y. Islam - Father and Son
New Insouciance about that word "debt" appears now to be
deeply engrained in our ersatz-culture. I suppose I could dig for the usual #s re average CC-holders' running balances {at rates in the %20s}.

I know of university educated folks, some maybe only 5 years younger than I who thus, can add.. behaving no more sententiously about instant gratification than the 13 yo with a stolen CC at the Mall.

Naturally I'm biased, coming from a Gen whose parents lived the depression and survived (well, one of them) WW-II. I've never taken out a car loan, and have paid off CCs sfter using their convenience for the month - except for periodic intentional "min pays" to put a glitch into their stats on my habits.

(Real Estate loans never count - house buying in US has been a subsidized commodity almost forever - though even That is far less certain a tax-break now in '03, if one is anticipating a Reckoning occurring sooner rather than that fantasy of never.)

Hardly anything need be said about the stark hypocrisy of all the pols, and about the resemblance to the Ostrich of most Muricans - as expressed by Jake IIRC, "Tax & spend VS Borrow & spend" pretty well limns the shell game of premeditated langage murder.

Yup... Nobody wants to look at Crazy Aunt Maude.. still. ergo -

Nobody for President!
Nobody Can! bring rationality to a Murican Dreamstate policy.
Nobody Will speak honestly about the idiocy that is now epidemic.
(Nobody saves!) too..


(Nobody for Congress too - She Can Do It All!)


Ashton
     10 reasons why Bush won't get elected. - (Silverlock) - (16)
         You keep telling yourself that. - (bepatient) - (6)
             Right. - (Silverlock) - (2)
                 He might be more correct than you think.... - (Simon_Jester) - (1)
                     Not quite... - (bepatient)
             s/the Dems/the USA/ - (pwhysall) - (2)
                 But our stones will be better than all others! -NT - (jbrabeck)
                 New phrase in Ontario - (jake123)
         Quit it!!!!!!!!!! - (screamer) - (7)
             Of course it increased... - (Simon_Jester) - (6)
                 Yep... But that's why this is so offensive. - (screamer) - (5)
                     Probably Not.... - (Simon_Jester) - (4)
                         Absolutely agreed - (screamer) - (3)
                             It can be done - (jake123) - (2)
                                 Man, if we could only look to the north... - (screamer) - (1)
                                     Insouciance about that word "debt" appears now to be - (Ashton)
         the winnah is? no taxes paid by anyone >$50K - (boxley)

This results in serious pain.
93 ms