Which means our debt just keeps growing, a half trillion bucks or so each year.

When are we going to raise taxes enough on those who are sucking the wealth out of the country to start reducing the DEBT, and not just the deficit?

health insurance profits are through the roof. I remember when democrats used to be known for Medicare and Medicaid and social security, instead of austerity. Thanks Turd Way!

I see you're a member of the "cut off your nose to spite your face" caucus.

or who can't afford the deductibles on their bronze plan, or are sick of their tax dollars going to the Pentagon while their schools are crumbling, are unlikely to care that Clinton is promising to preserve abortion rights, or that she could become the first female president.

OTOH, you insist on voting for democrats who keep passing and supporting laws that favor corporations and billionaires instead of the beleaguered working class. And then lambast the people who refuse. No wonder we don't get voters

withholding their vote is gonna "show them". so then what is a dem politician going to do? they move to the center to get more votes.

you created this

Third way politics came about because the Democratic leadership bought the idea that Democrats could only win if they moved to the right. It also came about as a result of the media giving credit to third way politicians for all Democratic wins.

I think in the last election cycle before Rahm Emmanuel ran for mayor of Chicago the media have him most of the credit for Democratic wins. A number of liberal groups claimed that it was actually the liberal candidates that won the most elections and many, if not all of Rahm's candidates lost their races.

Turd way came about because of Corporate Lobbyists and big money in electoral politics. Democrats moved to the right in order to please corporate masters (bribers) in order to compete with the big money flowing always to Republicans by millions allowing them to have the resources to out maneuver them at elections.

Look at the rational for starting the Democratic Leadership Conference—Lieberman, Clintons, Gore, Rahm. Oh Goodie, they said. We've figured out to get lots of corporate money too. Keep a few of our social policies and sell out on everything else.

The base, over time, saw that the Party had left them.

Don't blame the Democratic base.

At the end of Bill Clinton's presidency we were paying down the national debt so fast that the Congressional Budget Office estimated the entire public debt would be paid off in as little as 10 years, for the first time in American history. George W Bush put a stop to that with two rounds of tax cuts (even he reportedly asked Cheney why they were doing the second one), by exploding spending on two wars, and by introducing a Medicare drug benefit mainly financed by massive borrowing.

Prior to Clinton, the last president to produce a budget that reduced the debt was Lyndon Johnson -- at the height of the War in Vietnam, the War on Poverty, and the Apollo program, not to mention the launch of Medicare and Medicaid.

The most important number is the ratio of debt to the economy. We came out of World War II with a public debt substantially bigger than annual GDP, but that ratio came down under every president from Truman through Carter except Gerald Ford; during his brief term it stayed roughly level. When Reagan took office the public debt been cut to under a third of GDP. But under Reagan and Bush 41 it rose rapidly, declined under Clinton, and then shot up again under Bush 43 and Obama, in the latter case largely as a consequence of Bush's wars and digging out of the Great Recession.

We should reduce our debt-to-GDP ratio, but it's not a crisis and debt in itself isn't inherently bad -- it's not crazy to take out a mortgage, and many well-run, successful businesses issue corporate bonds. Right now the annual deficit relative to the economy is lower than the average for the past 50 years, and with interest rates near zero in real terms we can easily afford to service the debt. Looking at the big picture, we'd actually be better off investing in our infrastructure in the near term, then paying down the debt over a longer time frame.

If we start actually shrinking the debt, it kills off one of the main lines the Republicans use to get elected, disincentivizing their voters from voting. Fewer Republicans means the ability to actually pass other legislation that benefits us.

... I'm not sure it would help very much. After all, few voters remember, or even realized at the time, that Clinton reduced the debt. How many today know that the deficit has fallen rapidly under Obama? Fewer still are aware of the fine details, e.g. that the Affordable Care Act reduces the deficit and puts Medicare's finances on a firmer foundation.

I don't mean to minimize political considerations. They're important in the real world. But I don't think they should induce us to do something that's not in the country's long-run best interest.

Because we can’t help Americans who have been screwed until we cut taxes enough that we can't pay for it.

Got a friend who believes the Reich-wing's 47% crap; that it was shameful that almost 50% of Americans pay no taxes (except, of course, they pay plenty). I flipped it on him and said what was shameful was almost 50% of WORKING Americans are paid so little they still don't earn enough to pay those taxes. That's the real tragedy.

Repukes are willing to do anything in the name of debts and deficits, but raise revenue by cutting loopholes or raising taxes? Why, that's just un-American.

Tea Party politics would have to be balanced with something equally extreme on the left if we were to coexist and keep the country humming along.

transferring vast blocks of America's wealth to their friends, while "breaking" the budget succeeding Democratic administrations inherit so they cannot fulfill their promises to those who elected them.

Obama's is just another in a long string of administrations that clean up the disasters the GOP now routinely and deliberately creates.

And both Republicans and Democrats claim to hate it for opposite reasons. The statement "while at the same time programs like healthcare and education have expanded." is both unsupported and wrong.

Creative, though unsupported (by objective rather than simply validating evidence) allegations on your part.

Republicans don't care about the debt. The care about a black guy holding office.

It's not just the "black guy". They also want to keep collecting their congressional pay and perks while promoting failed trickle down economic policies, destroying Medicare and SS, cessation and state's rights. Very un-American lot without a desire to govern in the best interests of all citizens in the US.

Especially considering how bad it was at the beginning of 2008. I remember it all to well.

Although I applaud his results, imagine where we'd be if only the GOP had played ball with Obama.

They tried, and tried, and tried to destroy him.

Look at him now. I honestly believe he will go down as one of the best presidents ever.

Last edited Mon Oct 19, 2015, 07:38 PM - Edit history (2)

An "entitlement" means something you're entitled to. I paid into Social Security and Medicare all my working life so I'm legally entitled to them. How people ever got the notion that "entitlement" means something like "giveaway" is a mystery.

A few other details worth noting: Social Security and Medicare Part A (hospitalization insurance) are financed by dedicated taxes on earned income and to a smaller extent by interest earned on the the associated trust funds. The systems are pay-as-you-go, which means taxes paid this year cover money paid out this year, with the trust fund accounts acting like reservoirs in a water system, collecting surpluses and covering deficits. Medicare Part B (which mainly pays doctor bills and the like) is financed 1/4 by premiums and 3/4 by general revenues. Medicare Part D is also financed by a mix of premiums and general revenues, but it's more complicated. The "general revenues" part has meant "by borrowing" since it was introduce under George W Bush.

Medicare Part C (Medicare Advantage, private insurance partly or wholly funded by Medicare) is even more complicated.

Medicaid is financed by general revenues. (In typing the original version of this post I managed to attach the bit about the government's share of Part D being financed by borrowing to Medicaid, suggesting that Medicaid had been launched by W! Sorry about that brain phart; I've fixed it now, I hope.)

Why do people think cutting taxes (income for government) = Smaller deficit. Do people take a pay cut and expect their debts vanish? Ugh...the dismal science....trying to make sense of people's actions when they run contrary to logic.

Just saying

so facts like this don't matter. Facts in general are a non-issue.

Because congress has turned over the power to create money to a private bank (the fed) who prints money and loans it back to the feds. And the fed is about as federal as federal express.

In fact the banksters have given the printing of coins back to the feds while they keep the printing of the larger currencies. A tip from the fed to feds telling them to keep the change.

And you know what happened to the 2 presidents who tried to print money by the feds.

Interestingly enough henry ford sr also wondered why we issue bonds whereas the feds could directly issue the currency.

"If only I had won, I could've taken ALL the credit for this"

Facts are not welcome in their narrative of fear, hatred, and lies.

Where were they when Bush was running up the tab with unfunded tax cuts, wars and prescription drug programs. They didn't care. Teabaggers are about racism and hatred, pure and simple. Born of Faux News. Obama gets only blame and never credit from these racist, ignorant morons.