by Outcast_Searcher » Thu 15 Feb 2018, 12:43:32
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', 'G')hung - "The self-proclaimed 'King of Debt" wants to balance the budget?" Does it really matter what the POTUS really wants? Last week the congressional R's and D's shit all over the budget they had been pissing on for the last 9 years. Do we need to remind folks that during President Obama's terms US debt about doubled from $10 trillion to almost $20 trillion. Who considers that running a balanced budget?
I laugh when the pendants say we just saw "bi-partnership". The R's and D's split the f*cking imaginary money pie. Like two bank robes splitting the loot. The only real winners are the "crooks". LOL.
Ding ding ding ding ding!!
Even if we give Obama a pass through, say, 2009, until it was clear the economy was in recovery mode -- it's not like the dems didn't run LARGE budget deficits the remaining 6 years.
With sufficient votes from BOTH SIDES allowing that.
I get so sick and tired of BOTH sides proclaiming to be fiscal heroes and damning the other side as "the problem" re spending, and ESPECIALLY on fiscal prudence (i.e. standing for balanced budgets).
BOTH SIDES, over time, are FLAGRANTLY prone to spend far more than they take in via taxes. Arguing about the details is nonsense, given that reality. Whether it's a tax and spend and big government approach generally favored by the left, or a cut taxes and spend on "stuff we like" and to hell with everybody else approach generally favored by the right -- the result is a fiscal disaster over time.
And to me, the more both sides (and their cheering sections) claim the "other side" is the problem re the budget, the less credible they are.
If we only do one thing, I keep arguing for some kind of Graham-Ruddman style balanced budget amendment with TEETH, that forces at least balanced budgets except in times of "dire emergency" (say the recent financial crisis, a major war, etc). At least that way the deficit would tend to get smaller with inflation except in times of "dire emergency" instead of growing rapidly ALL THE TIME now.
What do we really get? Crickets re meaningful policy of debt control and endless spending. Of course, it's not like this is unique to the US. Look at Europe. Look at Japan with a debt to GDP ratio that makes ours look tame, even as they have a serious demographic problem (sooner than the US).
And all we keep do is electing spenders, because they tell people what they want to hear. I see no serious sense of responsibility re fiscal prudence anywhere when it comes to state or federal government. What could possibly go wrong.

(Sorry for the rant. I've seriously HATED this over-spending since I learned as an eight year old that the SS "Trust Fund" is just an IOU.)
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.