U.S. Debt Actually $200 Trillion?

[Humpy]

Surely Congress has forgotten that they have run the USA into the ground and have not 1 pennyworth of reserves before they embark on a trade war with China.

This is playing out the endgame of US dominance with barely a wimper. One can rely on the politicos to make the wrong decisions yet again. Have they been bought or just plain stupid.
They are compounding the Bush errors and waisting what little is left as if they are still a super power. They can't bomb their way out of this one and completely fail to understand they are hastening the end.

Completely over stretched imho

 

[Mr Pain]

Quote from MKTrader:

Wrong. Bush was bad; Obama is worse by a long shot. He's added more to the debt in under 2 years than any other president. Of course, he's never run a business, never had to make payroll and couldn't run a lemon-ade stand.

But he's happy to have his innumerate supporters join him in blameshifting all his problems away.

see this chart
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
the end was started by Reagan Bush

 

[MohdSalleh]

Quote from Mr Pain:

see this chart
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
the end was started by Reagan Bush

There is no choice. War requires $, meddling in other's affairs requires money.

 

[mtwokay]

Quote from Mr Pain:

see this chart
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
the end was started by Reagan Bush

ONLY Congress has the power to spend.

Dems have owned both houses 48 out of the last 60 years and are now trying to blame all the problems on the GOP. Yea GOP has some blame but nothing like what Dems have done to this country.

Your chart illustrates the snowball effect of unfunded social programs enacted by Dems prior to and after the two GOP presidents you cite.

Please explain how a debt line makes a 90 degree turn up when Regan became POTUS with a Dem Congress. The chart is nothing but a fraud, just like the Dem party.

 

[MKTrader]

Quote from Mr Pain:

see this chart
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
the end was started by Reagan Bush

Perfect example of only showing part of the picture. At least that site admits that Dems deserve some blame for their love of entitlement spending, though.

I agree Reagan spent too much. However, since presidents can now complain ad nauseam on what they "inherited," Reagan inherited an absolute mess from Carter. He should've dismantled the Dept. of Energy and many of Carter's other initiatives that only increased spending and the size of gov't over the years. That's where we went wrong.

 

[Mr Pain]

Quote from MKTrader:

Perfect example of only showing part of the picture. At least that site admits that Dems deserve some blame for their love of entitlement spending, though.

I agree Reagan spent too much. However, since presidents can now complain ad nauseam on what they "inherited," Reagan inherited an absolute mess from Carter. He should've dismantled the Dept. of Energy and many of Carter's other initiatives that only increased spending and the size of gov't over the years. That's where we went wrong.

See Reagan's budget man David Stockman's views

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockman.html?ref=opinion

IF there were such a thing as Chapter 11 for politicians, the Republican push to extend the unaffordable Bush tax cuts would amount to a bankruptcy filing.

From me,

top tax rate under Ike 90%, Nixon 70% The party changed with reagan and America is the worse for it

 

[MKTrader]

Quote from Mr Pain:

See Reagan's budget man David Stockman's views

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockman.html?ref=opinion

IF there were such a thing as Chapter 11 for politicians, the Republican push to extend the unaffordable Bush tax cuts would amount to a bankruptcy filing.

Please tell me that site is a joke. The stuff on Social Security, "global warming," et. al. is horrible. It looks like a parody. Or are Obama cultists really that stupid?

Unaffordable tax cuts? What about unaffordable spendulous from Obama? $111 million to create 55 jobs in CA. And that's just the tip of the iceburg.

Yeah, we can "afford" that, but can't allow the "rich" to keep saving, investing and spending their money. What a joke. Oh, but I forget, that same "anti-debt" site pushes Krugman's awful hyper-Keynesianism and the fallacious multiplier effect.

Again, please tell me that's all a joke and you're not really that brainwashed. And then please leave...remember, this is a trading website. It's for people that actually want to make money in the financial markets and keep most of it. Maybe the creators of that awful site you like can start eliteparasite.com or something.

 

[MKTrader]

Quote from Mr Pain:

See Reagan's budget man David Stockman's views

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockman.html?ref=opinion

IF there were such a thing as Chapter 11 for politicians, the Republican push to extend the unaffordable Bush tax cuts would amount to a bankruptcy filing.

From me,

top tax rate under Ike 90%, Nixon 70% The party changed with reagan and America is the worse for it

And what did that bring us? How did stocks do from 1965-1982 under those wonderful high tax rates?

Oh, and how much were state tax rates, property taxes, taxes on gasoline/tobacco/etc. back then? Or would you rather just ignore all the facts and swallow the propaganda?

 

[Mr Pain]

Quote from MKTrader:

And what did that bring us? How did stocks do from 1965-1982 under those wonderful high tax rates?

Oh, and how much were state tax rates, property taxes, taxes on gasoline/tobacco/etc. back then? Or would you rather just ignore all the facts and swallow the propaganda?

You were willing to sell our countries future for 30 pieces of silver? I guess it comes down to a basic philosophical difference if the government’s primary role is to keep stocks high. I don’t see it that way and resent interference especially when it has led to the beginning of the end. The question is what to do now and I am sick of fools who say they will cut taxes and reduce the deficit. They never say what they will cut of any substance and the history of the US since Reagan shows supply side does not work.

http://www.usdebtclock.org

 

[Ed Breen]

Only ignorance or deception can explain comparing top income tax rates (or any other income tax rates for that matter) that are applied to nominal income on a decade by decade basis without making an adjustment for inflation, without disclosing the change in the number of people who pay these rates and the change in the effect of these rates in real dollars. Anyone with half a brain who looked at the comparison fairly would see what a tremendous tax increase has occurred even though nominal percentage rates were decreased.