• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Why is the National Debt so bad?

A

asabour

Senior member
I'm always hearing people complaining on how Bush should reduce the national debt instead of cutting taxes (well I used to hear it a lot, but not so much after 9/11). I'm just curious why the national debt is so bad to these people. I remember reading why the national debt was a good thing a while ago, but I forgot why. Please give me the low-down on the National Debt!
 


<< Ronald Reagan and
Trickle Down economics... >>


Oh brother.

The Congressional Democrats who created budgets that increased spending by 8-10% year are more to blame.
 
but by creating a national debt, Reagan saved the economy (especially from that disaster of a president Carter). Clinton just rode Reagans economy and received credit for it.
 
the national debt was down when president clinton was in office. there was a surplus instead!

also, unemployment was down. he raised the taxes on the rich, lowered them on the poor. he did a pretty good job according to my politcal science teacher.
 


<< but by creating a national debt, Reagan saved the economy (especially from that disaster of a president Carter). Clinton just rode Reagans economy and received credit for it. >>



And you can create rainbows with dreams of unicorns and gumdrops.
 


<< he national debt was down when president clinton was in office. there was a surplus instead!

also, unemployment was down. he raised the taxes on the rich, lowered them on the poor. he did a pretty good job according to my politcal science teacher. >>





he was lucky
 


<<

<< but by creating a national debt, Reagan saved the economy (especially from that disaster of a president Carter). Clinton just rode Reagans economy and received credit for it. >>



And you can create rainbows with dreams of unicorns and gumdrops. >>





hahahaha
 


<< but by creating a national debt, Reagan saved the economy (especially from that disaster of a president Carter). Clinton just rode Reagans economy and received credit for it. >>



it's always this w/ republicans, those after reagon are benefiting from reagons policy. in other words there is a policy lag, effects from policies reagon instituted are finally being felt (or in this case during clinton administration).

but somehow during carters administration the effects of carters policy's were IMMEDIATE and Reagonomics turned it around IMMEDIATELY.

at least have a rudimentary understanding about politics and economics before you post.

it is never that black and white as to what and who and where. why don't you post the disaster of nixon and how that impacted carters administration. and no i'm not talking about watergate. i'm talking about nixons freeze on price and wages.

ya. that had no effect during carters administration, it was all carters idiocy. rolls eyes.
 
The debt quadrupled during the Reagan years. The government keeps spending money it doesn't have. When a surplus was projected in the next few years, they started spending even more. If a business or individual handled money like the government, they'd be arrested and thrown in prison. Atlantic Monthly reported that last year, Congress lost track of something like $20 billion - just kind of went away somewhere. There's our tax dollars at...uh, well, not entirely at work...
 
Come on guys, can we get back to the question at hand? I'm curious too on why it's bad/good.
 
?m???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????C???????????????????????????C?????????????????C??????????????????????
 


<< ?m???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????C???????????????????????????C?????????????????C?????????????????????? >>



rofl bomberman, we asked for english, not zimbabaway.
 
financing the debt competes with financing actual capital projects, like machinery, factories, and computers. if there was less to finance then some of that money would be able to make actual goods rather than paper profits. of course, we shouldn't get rid of all of it, and some debt is considered a normal part of being a government. its also damn near impossible to run a surplus for a long period of time.
 
The best thing to do during a recession is raise taxes so that the government doesn't have to go into deficit spending. Just ask Herbert Hoover.
rolleye.gif
rolleye.gif
 
May I ask, whom the national debt is owed to?

Spending by the government as long as they don't go overboard. I don't consider overspending to be a bad thing. Its just means that the government is providing more resources for the tax paying citizens of America. Whether the government is spending the money wisely is another question. For example, staying a hotel room that costs 2000 dollars a night is not considered wise spending.
 


<< The debt quadrupled during the Reagan years. >>





You have no idea what you are talking about and I don't have the time right now to educate you. Do a search in this forum for details on your ignorance...
 


<< Don't forget that a lot of the national debt is money that the government owes to the American people in the form of bonds. >>



Okay, that makes some sense. I was wondering, what countries could we be in debt to that we haven't dumped tons of money into?
 


<< but by creating a national debt, Reagan saved the economy (especially from that disaster of a president Carter). Clinton just rode Reagans economy and received credit for it. >>




EXACTLY
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top