Bob wrote: boards of FL wrote:
That approach is not what got us to $18 trillion in debt. Good god, Bob. Do you watch the news? We had a perennial budget surplus.
Well what actually happened after that has been in the news off and on ever since.
As our country transitioned from a manufacturing economy to a service economy, we experienced a loss in wages and personal wealth. And the diminished wages led to diminished government revenues. And all the while we've been attempting to maintain government spending with less government revenues. So we resorted to increased borrowing.
Yes, the Bush tax cuts did not revive our economy (and government revenues) as was claimed. And the useless wars helped to exacerbate what was already happening.
But the growth in entitlements at a time of diminished revenues also contributed to it.
Your take on this is just like markle's take on what caused the real estate/financial collapse. He puts it all on Barney Frank. When in reality, it's not that simple. Frank's policies did contribute to it but so did the greed of many in the private sector. And so did the greed of many ordinary citizens.
You and markle both have your chosen boogeymen who you always rely on to provide you the explanation for everything and anything.
Our economy has been transitioning away from manufacturing for at least 70 years, so your theory there is hilarious. This isn't rocket science, Bob. We used to have higher tax rates, less military engagement, and perennial surplus. Then we cut taxes three times, increased military engagement, and watched that perennial surplus turn into ballooning deficits - which were further exacerbated by the Great Recession.
Your attempt to paint our woes as a symptom of a transition from a manufacturing economy to a service economy is about a laughable (and useful) as your extreme framing of the discussion of debt in this thread. You don't actually know what you're talking about, and yet you're confidently framing the discussion of debt in the most extreme, useless ways and saying "That is exactly how each side is arguing this". Well, no. It isn't.
This chart indicates manufacturing jobs as a percentage of the entire workforce. Notice how they have been on the decline for the last 70 years.
Being it the case that these jobs have been on the decline - steadily - for 70 years, we can't really say that the relatively recent increase in debt is due to that decline, can we?
If only there were some sort of painfully obvious factors that influence the budget which ultimately influence debt. Alas, If only we knew what elements of the federal budget influence whether or not we have a deficit or surplus, perhaps we could figure this out. Gosh, if only there were a word for the stream of revenue that comes into the government and the stream of spending that goes out, perhaps we could look at that stuff and then really get to the bottom of this. And if only we had a past to look to in order to see how all of these other things influence debt, perhaps we could use that to arrive at sound policy by continuing things that worked and discontinuing things that did not work, perhaps we could pull ourselves out of this mess.
Oh well, I guess we don't have any of that so I suppose the discussion will have to be framed as an argument between an arguing married couple. That how the smart people would figure all of this stuff out, right, Bob?
I mean, simply saying "We should pay our bills" is nothing but out-to-lunch, loony bullshit in the same vein as Markle, right, Bob? The smart people who are fortunate enough to have a supreme vantage point from atop the fence are doing the real work in this area by simulating extreme discussion between man and wife. Good job, Bob.
Your rocking chair is over there next to Markle's.
Home
