Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize

[Radar]

Originally Posted by glatt

That chart doesn't make me feel good at all. It makes me ill just looking at it. Sure, the Republicans are much worse, but the debt is still growing. Look at the debt as a percentage of GDP. We were at 33% at the end of Carter's term, and we are at 83% now? That sucks no matter how you look at it.

If you think that's bad, look at the per-capita numbers.

http://www.presidentialdebt.org

[classicman]

Isn't part of the issue, as per many previous discussions in other threads, that the preceding presidential policies affect the next?
I don't see where this graph really explains shit as far as who "you" want to blame for what. What it shows me or rather confirms for me is that politicians as a whole will spend other people's money with reckless disregard - doesn't matter if they are D's or R's.

[Radar]

What it shows me is that Republicans always claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility and lately the party of "god". They are neither of these things.

While I wouldn't classify either of them as fiscally responsible, it's obvious that Republicans spend more than Democrats. Then if the following administration happens to be a Democratic one, Republicans complain that Democrats raise taxes to pay for the bills they inherited from the previous administration.

Once again, neither Republicans, nor Democrats are libertarians, but Democrats are closer, even if only by a little bit.

[Undertoad]

As a Constitutional Scholar, Radar, whom would you say is in charge of federal spending?

Exactly. So I improved your chart.

[Radar]

Who signs the bills again UT? Oh that's right the President. Even with your attempt to shift the focus to congress, the chart shows that when Carter (A Democrat) had a Democratic Congress, the national debt grew at 10.6% per year. When George W. Bush (A Republican) had a Republican Congress, it grew at 11.1% per year. The difference is Carter vetoed a lot more spending bills even against his own party than George W. Bush did. In fact every president in history has vetoed more spending bills than George W. Bush.

The president proposes a budget. Congress can either go with that one or create their own and vote on that. Either way if the President vetoes it, it won't be passed without 2/3 of both houses voting for it. This is highly unlikely and was not the case during the Reagan years, the Bush years, etc.

Clinton's years were so much better because he FORCED the Republican Congress to balance the budget. He kept using his veto power and the Republicans allowed government to shut down in an effort to get Clinton to bend to their will. It didn't work. Eventually public pressure got to the Republicans and they had to propose the first balanced budget in the last 30 years in order to get Clinton to sign it.

If the President signs it, it is as though he is spending it. So my original statement stands.

[Undertoad]

As a Constitutional Scholar, Radar, whom would you say is in charge of federal spending?

[classicman]

oh fuggit . . .

<crickets chirping>

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

As a Constitutional Scholar, Radar, whom would you say is in charge of federal spending?

As a Constitutional Scholar, I'd say since the President is signing it and allowing it to pass, he's responsible for it unless congress overrides his veto with a 2/3 majority vote and then Congress alone is responsible. If you go to dinner with 4 people and you take the bill from the waitress, hand them a credit card, and sign to pay for the bill it is your responsibility even though everyone else at the table is responsible for increasing the bill, you took responsibility when you signed. If Congress overrides a veto of the President on their spending bills, they have essentially taken the bill away from the president and signed for it themselves.

Congress can put anything they want in spending bills but unless the president signs it, they have nothing. So when the president signs bills for federal spending, the president is responsible for that spending. If he vetoes spending and congress overrides the veto, congress is responsible.

[Undertoad]

Ah - but what if I go to dinner with four people, and agree to pay the bill if they don't order lobster, but then one person orders lobster, but then I realize lobster will improve the person's disposition such that they will sleep with me, so I just settle for a cheap salad... but when the bill comes I point out that lobster was ordered, and get another person to kick in $5 and stiff the waiter on tips. Who's responsible then?

[lookout123]

Oh yeah, well...

[ZenGum]

Almost as scary as Lookout's picture:

[Urbane Guerrilla]

The debtor irresponsibility of both the (R) and the (D) is a big reason I remain an (L) over Radar's objections. He thinks the Libertarian treehouse is only big enough for him. Nowadays, I believe he has climbed out of its window and is now well out on a trembling limb over a deep pit of socialism -- inhabited by its collectivist serpents.

The Libertarian Party has not yet had the learning experience of getting corrupted by necessities. Where they particularly shine is in their habit of reevaluating just what "necessities" are: fundamentally it's the question "Does the State do anything important enough to go into debt over?" When a State goes into debt it drives inflation, as the currency is a monopoly of the State.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

Almost as scary as Lookout's picture:
Attachment 25578

Without a timeline and a inflation index it really means nothing.

[ZenGum]

Half-agree: most of those figures are RFN, so inflation doesn't really matter. The Marshall Aid was apparently adjusted for inflation. The foreign aid since 1970 does need adjusting.

The bailout could have paid off damn near every home loan in the US. I wonder how things would have turned out if they had just done that.

[lookout123]

Insanely high inflation would be my guess. All the dumbshits who had twice the house they could afford would now have a free and clear home and available cash to do whatever they want with. I'm guessing boats and hummers would top the list.