2 ms·

I don't understand your numbers in relation to what Wikipedia has to say on the issue. How does your number relate to these? If at all? http://en.wikipedia.org

by jsz0 17y ago

I don't understand your numbers in relation to what Wikipedia has to say on the issue. How does your number relate to these? If at all? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt 2001 $144.5 billion 1.4% 2002 $409.5 billion 3.9% 2003 $589.0 billion 5.5% 2004 $605.0 billion 5.3% 2005 $523.0 billion 4.3% 2006 $536.5 billion 4.1% 2007 $459.5 billion 3.4% 2008 $1017.0 billion (proj.) 7.4% I think it's a shame we let Pay As You Go expire in 2002. It seemed to be working pretty well to keep spending under control.

cwan 17y ago
I made a mistake. It's an average of 12 years - where Republicans controlled the budget when they controlled the House - data from CBO here: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/Historicaltables2010Jan_forweb.XLS http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/Historicaltables20... That said, the numbers are still gargantuan in terms of the increase. If I'm not mistaken though, the CBO numbers include the war numbers. I think a better compromise would have been to allow for a line item veto which would have also also helped to greatly keep spending under control. For a more explicit graphic have a look here: http://instapundit.com/79840/ http://instapundit.com/79840/ - a comparative of deficits under the Bush administration and what's being currently projected by the CBO/White House.
- jsz0 17y ago
  I agree on the line item veto. Deficit spending is so institutionalized at this point that we need real legislative checks & balances on spending. For the last ~30 years both parties have done it. The only point of contention is which party does it more. As long as it remains a political issue I don't see a good solution. For Pay As You Go I like the idea that you simply cannot spend this money. You can go back to your home district and tell the people you didn't vote for X, Y, Z because it was illegal to overspend. The system we have now makes spending too much of a political tool. We can't trust them to use it wisely.

by jsz0 17y ago

cwan 17y ago

I made a mistake. It's an average of 12 years - where Republicans controlled the budget when they controlled the House - data from CBO here: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/Historicaltables2010Jan_forweb.XLS http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/Historicaltables20... That said, the numbers are still gargantuan in terms of the increase. If I'm not mistaken though, the CBO numbers include the war numbers. I think a better compromise would have been to allow for a line item veto which would have also also helped to greatly keep spending under control. For a more explicit graphic have a look here: http://instapundit.com/79840/ http://instapundit.com/79840/ - a comparative of deficits under the Bush administration and what's being currently projected by the CBO/White House.

jsz0 17y ago
I agree on the line item veto. Deficit spending is so institutionalized at this point that we need real legislative checks & balances on spending. For the last ~30 years both parties have done it. The only point of contention is which party does it more. As long as it remains a political issue I don't see a good solution. For Pay As You Go I like the idea that you simply cannot spend this money. You can go back to your home district and tell the people you didn't vote for X, Y, Z because it was illegal to overspend. The system we have now makes spending too much of a political tool. We can't trust them to use it wisely.