4.2 and growing as Obama has asked for permission to spend another 1.2 trillion. What is funny is that after last Summer's mess, we weren't supposed to have to ask for an extension until after the election. WTH?

I can't wait until we elect another Republican president so deficits won't matter anymore. It's why I'm voting Republican in 2012. It's a simple, overnight solution to a serious problem.

I love the Republican talking point that treats decades of future payments made at a predictable rate as a single increase to the debt today that is crippling us.

And by love I mean loathe.

Yet these same people, worrying about these future debts, continue to demand massive tax cuts for the rich that will only widen the deficit and add to the national debt.

It's ridiculous to include Social Security in any sort of overall deficit number. Social Security is a self-financing insurance program funded by payroll taxes, not some sort of handout. Although it no longer has as big a surplus as it used to, it still enjoys a considerable surplus. Even if it were to face a shortage in the future, that can easily be remedied by raising the maximum level of taxable payroll income from the current $106,800 to a slightly higher level.

sigdiamond2000: I can't wait until we elect another Republican president so deficits won't matter anymore. It's why I'm voting Republican in 2012. It's a simple, overnight solution to a serious problem.

Hold on there, sparky, it was Obama that told us we were selling our children's future down the river by raising the debt ceiling when Bushie was potus. Obviously, a political talking point as it was crickets chirping last summer and now.

/gotta love it when politicians lie and get caught

I pay $1100 in rent every month. If I live in this apartment for the next 30 years then I'll spend $396,000! I'm almost $4 hundred thousand dollars in debt! I need to cut the money coming in to fix this!

EnviroDude: sigdiamond2000: I can't wait until we elect another Republican president so deficits won't matter anymore. It's why I'm voting Republican in 2012. It's a simple, overnight solution to a serious problem.

Hold on there, sparky, it was Obama that told us we were selling our children's future down the river by raising the debt ceiling when Bushie was potus. Obviously, a political talking point as it was crickets chirping last summer and now.

/gotta love it when politicians lie and get caught

I just told you I'm voting Republican in 2012. What more do you want from me?

Deficit = revenue - spending

There are three things you can do about it: nothing, increase revenue or reduce spending. In an economic slump spending reductions is pretty stupid so what's left.

sigdiamond2000: EnviroDude: sigdiamond2000: I can't wait until we elect another Republican president so deficits won't matter anymore. It's why I'm voting Republican in 2012. It's a simple, overnight solution to a serious problem.

Hold on there, sparky, it was Obama that told us we were selling our children's future down the river by raising the debt ceiling when Bushie was potus. Obviously, a political talking point as it was crickets chirping last summer and now.

/gotta love it when politicians lie and get caught

I just told you I'm voting Republican in 2012. What more do you want from me?

To rape yourself with a spork for his corporate masters.

EnviroDude: 4.2 and growing as Obama has asked for permission to spend another 1.2 trillion. What is funny is that after last Summer's mess, we weren't supposed to have to ask for an extension until after the election. WTH?

So you're for increasing revenue through raising taxes in addition to cutting spending, right? I mean, that would be the moderate and sane position.

Wait haven't the Republicans been blaming the Democratic congress for the deficit spending during the Bush administration?

Well then, this actually a Republican deficit.

NFA: Wait haven't the Republicans been blaming the Democratic congress for the deficit spending during the Bush administration?

Well then, this actually a Republican deficit.

Nice try libtard. There's a reason that they're called TAX AND SPEND Democrats. Republicans stand for fiscal responsibility. They don't have a veto-proof supermajority that can stand against Taxbongo's socialistic out of control spending so once again, we're at the mercy of his failed Kenyan economic policies.

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Nice try libtard. There's a reason that they're called TAX AND SPEND Democrats. Republicans stand for fiscal responsibility. They don't have a veto-proof supermajority that can stand against Taxbongo's socialistic out of control spending so once again, we're at the mercy of his failed Kenyan economic policies.

Nice try TROLL-boy, go ahead and run from your Republican deficit...

Spewing the term "tax and spend" means democrats acquire revenue from taxation then spend it, which would equal no deficit.

Democrats = Tax and Spend (balanced budget)

Republicans = Cut taxes, Spend, deficit then default

Cataholic: Sybarite: It's ridiculous to include Social Security in any sort of overall deficit number. Social Security is a self-financing insurance program funded by payroll taxes, not some sort of handout. Although it no longer has as big a surplus as it used to, it still enjoys a considerable surplus. Even if it were to face a shortage in the future, that can easily be remedied by raising the maximum level of taxable payroll income from the current $106,800 to a slightly higher level.

Your point would be valid if the "considerable surplus" were in hard assets. As it is, any deficit run by SS results in the Fed Govt. having to borrow money from someone else to pay SS back for the money it borrowed from them over the last 30 years.


Even with the unconscionable raid on Social Security by Greenspan and Stockman it's still in the black until after 2025 or 2035 (under the high cost and intermediate scenarios) at the current payroll tax rate. That is counting ONLY the Social Security Administration's own current savings in Treasury bills. Obviously it would be about $2 trillion more without the borrowing against it, but the SSA is still running a surplus.

Funny, just over 10 years ago we had a surplus. And then that changed.

/Voting for the same party and expecting different results is crazy.

Cataholic: Sybarite: Cataholic: Sybarite: It's ridiculous to include Social Security in any sort of overall deficit number. Social Security is a self-financing insurance program funded by payroll taxes, not some sort of handout. Although it no longer has as big a surplus as it used to, it still enjoys a considerable surplus. Even if it were to face a shortage in the future, that can easily be remedied by raising the maximum level of taxable payroll income from the current $106,800 to a slightly higher level.

Your point would be valid if the "considerable surplus" were in hard assets. As it is, any deficit run by SS results in the Fed Govt. having to borrow money from someone else to pay SS back for the money it borrowed from them over the last 30 years.


Even with the unconscionable raid on Social Security by Greenspan and Stockman it's still in the black until after 2025 or 2035 (under the high cost and intermediate scenarios) at the current payroll tax rate. That is counting ONLY the Social Security Administration's own current savings in Treasury bills. Obviously it would be about $2 trillion more without the borrowing against it, but the SSA is still running a surplus.

If you wish to call a $54 billion deficit in 2011 a "surplus", be my guest.

Link (new window)

You could call $54 billion a rounding error.

jehovahs witness protection: WE CAN SPEND OUR WAY OUT OF THIS!!!11!!

You have before.

NFA: Eddie Adams from Torrance: Nice try libtard. There's a reason that they're called TAX AND SPEND Democrats. Republicans stand for fiscal responsibility. They don't have a veto-proof supermajority that can stand against Taxbongo's socialistic out of control spending so once again, we're at the mercy of his failed Kenyan economic policies.

Nice try TROLL-boy, go ahead and run from your Republican deficit...

Spewing the term "tax and spend" means democrats acquire revenue from taxation then spend it, which would equal no deficit.

Democrats = Tax and Spend (balanced budget)

Republicans = Cut taxes, Spend, deficit then default

Math Arithmetic is hard

jigger: Makh: Funny, just over 10 years ago we had a surplus. And then that changed.

/Voting for the same party and expecting different results is crazy.

Revenue was the same as it is now, but spending went through the roof.

If you'd like to go back to the Clinton era tax rates, maybe we should also go back to the Clinton era spending rates?

remember to adjust revenue for population growth.

i would love to go back to clinton era tax rates, and clinton era spending rates - with the caveat that we might need to do a little temporary spending above those levels to help dig us out of the job hole. 100% stimulus 0% taxes. mostly in infrastructure spending (fix roads and bridges, install new railroad, do improvements to national parks, etc).

then cut the size of our military in manpower and our military budget by 50% and redirect those funds to paying for medical care for every single american and paying down the national debt.