View Full Version : The U.S. Debt Isn't Our Problem, Problem
Bronco_Beerslug
08-02-2006, 08:13 AM
As we continue to spend our childerns futures towards economic chaos, Mexico joins the list of countries we owe money to (43 billion).
Now, republicans are holding the minimum wage bill hostage over eliminating the estate tax which affects .3% of 1% of all taxpayers and would eliminate another trillion dollars of tax revenue over the next 6 years.
It's clear the republican agenda is to spend the country into a economic hole, writing checks that future generations will have to be responsible for.
----------------------------------------------------------
(1938 to Present)
An Analysis of the Presidents Who Are Responsible For Excessive Spending
By Steve McGourty
Updated 25 June 2006
http://www.cedarcomm.com/%7Estevelm1/usdebt_files/image002.gif
http://tinyurl.com/zb3x2
------------------------------------------------------
Debt and the dollar
The United States damages future living standards
by borrowing itself into a deceptively deep hole
By L. Josh Bivens
The United States is currently borrowing $665 billion annually from foreign lenders to finance the gap between payments to and receipts from the rest of the world, an amount equivalent to $5,500 per American household. This borrowing entails serious costs for the U.S. economy. However, these costs have been hidden for the past few years, predominantly by the historically low interest rates, which resulted from the Federal Reserve’s attempts to spur economic recovery after the 2001 recession and from a downturn in domestic investment. This happy scenario will not persist indefinitely, and when interest rates rise, the costs of U.S. borrowing will have serious economic consequences:
• With no improvement in the current account deficit, the external debt of the United States will rise from 24% of total U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) at the end of 2003 to 64% by 2014.
• The cost of servicing just the additional debt incurred from 2004 to 2014 will rise to 1.7% of GDP by 2014, the equivalent of $250 billion in 2004 dollars.
CONT (http://tinyurl.com/69rb9)
-----------------------------------------------------
U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 02 Aug 2006 at 03:12:14 PM GMT is:
$ 8 , 4 4 7 , 7 9 7 , 2 6 4 , 2 5 9 . 9 3
The estimated population of the United States is 299,223,610 so each citizen's share of this debt is $28,232.39.
The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$1.68 billion per day since September 30, 2005!
http://tinyurl.com/ecpx
It's clear the republican agenda is too spend the country into a economic hole, writing checks that future generations will have to be responsible for.
Both parties (yes, the Democrats are into this mess up to their freakin' necks) are rapidly creating debt that will have to be paid by our children and grandchildren.
That the GOP has joined the Dems on this ride to financial crisis just shows that neither party exercises fiscal (and other) restraint when they've got the political power.
Why folks continue to support those puds is an interesting question.
cbs1177
08-02-2006, 09:10 AM
The only problem is the world depends too much on America to buy their goods. We buy like no other nation on earth and most economies are directly linked to us. so for the time being most nations want us to be stabile and in debt. It is an unhealthy relationship but status quo seems to prevail. The USA has survived the oil crises in the seventies, the Asain boom in the eighties, and the dot com burst in the ninities, so I believe we will prevail the 2000 rise of China they have so much to fix I don't think they are a direct threat to our number one status economy in the world.
cbs1177
08-02-2006, 09:14 AM
The only issue that actually alarms me is most of our debt is financed thru foriegn nations yet in their best interest is a stable USA economy. I don't see Japan or China sell our bonds sucidal b/c we buy so much from them and they actually depend on our market for most of their growth. All in All we are secure for now. But we should take some measure to beef up our independence on foriegn capital while we can.
Play2win
08-02-2006, 09:53 AM
Do you see where the first spike in spending was— REAGAN... That BASTARD!!! :cuss:
Do you see the last time it leveled out... CLINTON...
Bronco_Beerslug
08-02-2006, 10:08 AM
Both parties (yes, the Democrats are into this mess up to their freakin' necks) are rapidly creating debt that will have to be paid by our children and grandchildren.
That the GOP has joined the Dems on this ride to financial crisis just shows that neither party exercises fiscal (and other) restraint when they've got the political power.
Why folks continue to support those puds is an interesting question.
Uh, no, the chart clearly shows since Reagan that republicans are unsurpassed in spending.
Uh, no, the chart clearly shows since Reagan that republicans are unsurpassed in spending.
The chart is worthless since debt needs to be measured in constant dollars or percentage of GDP, not just raw unadjusted dollars. The cost of Vietnam, for example, is lowballed using raw dollars.
The second chart is more accurate:
http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt_files/image004.gif
Also, Presidents don't determine spending, the House does, and it was under Democratic control until 1994.
Lastly, the big drivers for spending are Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security, which are more-or-less untouchable and are legacies of Democratic politicians.
Bash Bush and the Republicans for Iraq, the prescription drug benefit, and so on, but be consistent and call out the Dems for their share of this mess.
Atlas
08-02-2006, 10:40 AM
No need to fear. The republicans say that as long as China and Japan will keep loaning us money to pay the interest on the debt we will just be fine....
That's what they say!! Really!!!!
alkemical
08-02-2006, 10:41 AM
See - this is what i mean by the dollar is worthless.
NOLA Bronco
08-02-2006, 10:43 AM
I hate Bush - but spending has also had to increase for national security reasons.
Bronco_Beerslug
08-02-2006, 10:44 AM
The chart is worthless since debt needs to be measured in constant dollars or percentage of GDP, not just raw unadjusted dollars. The cost of Vietnam, for example, is lowballed using raw dollars.
Also, Presidents don't determine spending, the House does, and it was under Democratic control until 1994.
Lastly, the big drivers for spending are Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security, which are more-or-less untouchable and are legacies of Democratic politicians.
Bash Bush and the Republicans for Iraq, the prescription drug benefit, and so on, but be consistent and call out the Dems for their share of this mess.
The "chart" is relevant in it measures spending under each administration (adjusted dollars or not).
There is absolutely no way you can possibly spin what has happened to this country in the last 6 years when it comes to spending.
And presidents do determine spending (see president's budgets). Congress can support (pass) presidential budgets or not.
Atlas
08-02-2006, 10:50 AM
I hate Bush - but spending has also had to increase for national security reasons.
Ok I'll buy that so why did he have to cut taxes??? I would hate to see his credit card bills if this is the way he goes about his finances.
spendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspend spendspend
spendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspend spendspend
spendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspend spendspend
spendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspend spendspend
spendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspend spendspend
spendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspend spendspend
spendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspend spendspend
spendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspend spendspend
spendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspend spendspend
spendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspend spendspend
spendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspend spendspend
spendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspend spendspend
spendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspend spendspend
spendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspend spendspend
spendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspend spendspend
spendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspend spendspend
spendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspend spendspend
spendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspend spendspend
spendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspend spendspend
spendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspend spendspend
spendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspend spendspend
spendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspend spendspend
spendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspend spendspend
spendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspend spendspend
spendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspend spendspend
spendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspend spendspend
spendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspend spendspend
spendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspend spendspend
spendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspend spendspend
spendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspend spendspend
spendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspend spendspend
spendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspend spendspend
spendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspend spendspend
spendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspend spendspend
spendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspend spendspend
spendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspendspend spendspend
The "chart" is relevant in it measures spending under each administration (adjusted dollars or not).
Raw dollars are worthless for comparing spending over time. Either adjusted dollars or as percentage of GDP. Period.
There is absolutely no way you can possibly spin what has happened to this country in the last 6 years when it comes to spending.
You can't spin the spending of every single penny as being Bush's fault. You are aware that a big chunk of the budget is taken by "programmatic" spending, which is allegedly more-or-less untouchable.
And presidents do determine spending (see president's budgets). Congress can support (pass) presidential budgets or not.
:bs:
The House writes all legislation regarding budgets. The President and Senate can offer their own suggestions and recommendations, but it's hardly the case that the President writes the budget and the House merely rubber-stamps it.
Try all you like, but the Democrats bear some of the burden for the mess. It's not strictly a GOP-only problem.
Bronco_Beerslug
08-02-2006, 11:40 AM
:bs:
The House writes all legislation regarding budgets. The President and Senate can offer their own suggestions and recommendations, but it's hardly the case that the President writes the budget and the House merely rubber-stamps it.
Try all you like, but the Democrats bear some of the burden for the mess. It's not strictly a GOP-only problem. Really?
------------------------------------------------
After Bush Leaves Office, His Budget's Costs Balloon
By Jonathan Weisman and Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, February 14, 2005; Page A01
For President Bush, the budget sent to Congress last week outlines a painful path to meeting his promise to bring down the federal budget deficit by the time he leaves office in 2009. But for the senators and governors already jockeying to succeed him, the numbers released in recent days add up to a budgetary landmine that could blow up just as the next president moves into the Oval Office.
Congress and the White House have become adept at passing legislation with hidden long-term price tags, but those huge costs began coming into view in Bush's latest spending plan. Even if Bush succeeds in slashing the deficit in half in four years, as he has pledged, his major policy prescriptions would leave his successor with massive financial commitments that begin rising dramatically the year he relinquishes the White House, according to an analysis of new budget figures.
-------------------------------------------------------
Bush budget a tough row
His plan to trim Medicare and other programs may hit an election-year wall.
By Peter Grier | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON – The coming debate over the 2007 budget may be the most difficult fiscal discussion President Bush has yet faced.
Mr. Bush's proposed $2.77 trillion spending plan, released Monday, contains some controversial provisions - notably, a $35.9 billion reduction in Medicare spending over five years.
http://tinyurl.com/omsel
----------------------------------------------------
Bush budget scraps 9,790 border patrol agents
President uses law's escape clause to drop funding for new homeland security force
Michael Hedges, Houston Chronicle
Wednesday, February 9, 2005
http://tinyurl.com/5jd26
-----------------------------------------------------
The Bush Budget Deficit Death Spiral
by Robert Freeman
Lenders talk about a “debtor’s death spiral.” It occurs when borrowers get so far in over their heads they begin borrowing money just to cover the interest payments on past borrowings. The borrowers have to do this to keep the lending flowing but they can no longer plausibly pay down the principal. As new debt compounds on old, bankruptcy becomes imminent. Further lending is foolhardy. Foreclosure is only a matter of time.
The U.S. is starting to look like it is entering just such a death spiral. It is foretold not simply by the large and growing deficits, nor by the fact that their carrying costs will rise quickly as interest rates rise. Rather, it is the fact that these trends are becoming irreversible, a structural part of the U.S. economy.
When the ultimate collapse will occur, whether it comes with a bang or a whimper, how it will be triggered, and how severe it will be are as yet unknown. But as Herbert Stein, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under Richard Nixon was fond of saying, “Things that can’t go on forever, don’t.”
The first signs of impending trouble are the exploding budget deficits themselves. They began, of course, under the parlous economic stewardship of Ronald Reagan. Reagan cut the marginal tax rate on the wealthiest of Americans from 70% to 38%. He promised it would spur an orgy of investment and rocket the economy to new levels of production and prosperity. Instead, his “supply side economics” did the exact opposite. It produced the deepest recession since the Great Depression.
Output fell 2.2% in 1982 while budget deficits soared. When Reagan took office in 1981, the national debt stood at $995 billion. Twelve years later, by the end of George H.W. Bush’s presidency, it had exploded to $4 trillion. Reagan was a “B” grade movie actor and a doddering, probably clinically senile president, but he was a sheer genius at rewarding his friends by saddling other people with debts.
Bill Clinton reversed Reagan’s course, raising taxes on the wealthy, and lowering them for the working and middle classes. This produced the longest sustained economic expansion in American history. Importantly, it also produced budgetary surpluses allowing the government to begin paying down the crippling debt begun under Reagan. In 2000, Clinton’s last year, the surplus amounted to $236 billion. The forecast ten year surplus stood at $5.6 trillion. It was the last black ink America would see for decades, perhaps forever.
George W. Bush immediately reversed Clinton’s policy in order to revive Reagan’s, once again showering an embarrassment of riches on the already most embarrassingly rich, his “base” as he calls them. He ladled out some $630 billion in tax cuts to the top 1% of income earners. In true Republican fashion, they returned the favor by investing over $200 million to ensure Bush’s re-election. Do the math. A $630 billion return on a $200 million investment: $3,160 for $1. I’ll give you $3,160. All I ask is that you give me $1 back so I can keep the goodness flowing. Do we have a deal? Republicans know return on investment.
http://tinyurl.com/8vuu6
Rohirrim
08-02-2006, 11:46 AM
We didn't come into this world to be consumers.
NOLA Bronco
08-02-2006, 11:47 AM
Ok I'll buy that so why did he have to cut taxes??? I would hate to see his credit card bills if this is the way he goes about his finances.
I dont think he should have, especially because it made no real impact on the people who need the help the most.
bronclvr
08-02-2006, 12:51 PM
The Democrats are coming! The Democrats are coming! (I can't wait until Hillary gets into Office and we can turn this argument around)-
alkemical
08-02-2006, 12:54 PM
I hate Bush - but spending has also had to increase for national security reasons.
Do you feel safer? Do you feel more free?
alkemical
08-02-2006, 12:55 PM
Question:
What is the US Dollar based on/backed by?
Bronco_Beerslug
08-02-2006, 02:20 PM
Really.
You really have a problem if you don't understand each president sets his own budget.
You really have a problem if you don't understand each president sets his own budget.
Which Congress is free to ignore.
Remember the whole Gingrich/Clinton imbroglio?
alkemical
08-02-2006, 02:25 PM
Which Congress is free to ignore.
Remember the whole Gingrich/Clinton imbroglio?
had the same effect as a paris hilton video.
Crushaholic
08-02-2006, 02:32 PM
"Socking it to the rich" isn't the answer to our debt problem. A reduction of spending IS the correct answer...
BTW, spending started to rise after the Great Society era...
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-02-2006, 02:41 PM
I hate Bush - but spending has also had to increase for national security reasons.
The lion's share of the spending has been on Bush's illegal Iraq invasion/occupation - not on "national security."
And this is the first time a *president has cut taxes on the wealthiest Americans while the country was at war.
Bronco_Beerslug
08-02-2006, 02:44 PM
Which Congress is free to ignore.
Remember the whole Gingrich/Clinton imbroglio?
I remember it. Want to explain how Clinton balanced the budget under the same republican Congress that Bush has set all-time spending records under?
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-02-2006, 02:46 PM
"Socking it to the rich" isn't the answer to our debt problem.
Doing away with huge tax cuts for those Americans who need them least isn't "socking it to the rich" - it's just tax fairness and common sense.
People who have used the system to create enormous fortunes for themselves have an obligation to give something back to the system that made their successes possible.
alkemical
08-02-2006, 02:49 PM
Why will there never be a fair flat tax?
Because as the system is now - the rich keep more of their money. There aren't the loopholes to get around when you don't have the cash.
Want to explain how Clinton balanced the budget under the same republican Congress that Bush has set all-time spending records under?
Clinton didn't balance the budget all by his lonesome, and, the "balance" was due more to rising revenue than cuts in spending.
Recent spending by the GOP-controlled Congress shows that the myth of Republican fiscal restraint is just that. If you believe either party can keep themselves from making a hash of the national finances when given power, you're deluded.
The lion's share of the spending has been on Bush's illegal Iraq invasion/occupation - not on "national security."
Where's your data to support this assertion?
alkemical
08-02-2006, 03:08 PM
Where's your data to support this assertion?
Not often to i get into it between the two of you.
But how many emergency expenditures has bush asked for and the approx 400B+ or what not it costs a month for the war - i'm pretty sure it's up there.
Bronco_Beerslug
08-02-2006, 03:11 PM
Clinton didn't balance the budget all by his lonesome, and, the "balance" was due more to rising revenue than cuts in spending.
Recent spending by the GOP-controlled Congress shows that the myth of Republican fiscal restraint is just that. If you believe either party can keep themselves from making a hash of the national finances when given power, you're deluded.
I'm arguing not that "either" party spends money but that republicans are and have been throwing it away faster and in larger amounts than any other time in history. Eliminating taxes on the wealthy, starting two wars and the Medicare Fraud Program is part of it.
Clinton had the benefit of record revenues but didn't spend us into economic black holes either.
But how many emergency expenditures has bush asked for and the approx 400B+ or what not it costs a month for the war - i'm pretty sure it's up there.
The Iraq war isn't costing $400 billion a month.
The lion's share of the spending has been on Bush's illegal Iraq invasion/occupation - not on "national security."
Wrong.
http://nationalpriorities.org/images/stories/chartspage/totaloutlaysfy07prop.gif
Adding Social Security, "health", "income security" and Medicare together gets you 58% of the total.
I'm arguing not that "either" party spends money but that republicans are and have been throwing it away faster and in larger amounts than any other time in history. Eliminating taxes on the wealthy, starting two wars and the Medicare Fraud Program is part of it.
Roughly 1/3rd of it.
If you're arguing that the other 2/3rds of spending, the so-called "mandatory" spending (Medicare, Medicaid, interest, Social Security) is also being thrown away, you won't get an argument from me.
Clinton had the benefit of record revenues but didn't spend us into economic black holes either.
Neither did the GOP-controlled Congress of 1994-2000, either.
Bronco_Beerslug
08-02-2006, 03:27 PM
Wrong.
http://nationalpriorities.org/images/stories/chartspage/totaloutlaysfy07prop.gif
Adding Social Security, "health", "income security" and Medicare together gets you 58% of the total.
Iraq and Afghanistan are not included in budget totals.
alkemical
08-02-2006, 03:28 PM
The Iraq war isn't costing $400 billion a month.
You are right - but you did omit something
the placeholders bush gets congress to authorize, don't count against/towards the budget:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf#search='how%20much%20does%20the%20war% 20on%20terror%20cost%20per%20month'
alkemical
08-02-2006, 03:28 PM
The Iraq war isn't costing $400 billion a month.
You are right - but you did omit something
the placeholders bush gets congress to authorize, don't count against/towards the budget:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf#search='how%20much%20does%20the%20war% 20on%20terror%20cost%20per%20month'
Clinton didn't balance the budget all by his lonesome, and, the "balance" was due more to rising revenue than cuts in spending.
Proof:
http://nationalpriorities.org/images/stories/chartspage/recout2006.gif
Notice the unabashed rise in revenue from 1994-2000, and that the outlay curve doesn't drop - it merely rises less quickly.
Bronco_Beerslug
08-02-2006, 03:37 PM
Proof:
http://nationalpriorities.org/images/stories/chartspage/recout2006.gif
Notice the unabashed rise in revenue from 1994-2000, and that the outlay curve doesn't drop - it merely rises less quickly.
Notice also how spending is moderated on a gradual rise during Clinton years and almost straight up during Bush years. And you're attempting to explain this huge difference as due to social program spending?
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-02-2006, 03:43 PM
Notice also how spending is moderated on a gradual rise during Clinton years and almost straight up during Bush years. And you're attempting to explain this huge difference as due to social program spending?
:laugh:
But he's not a republican, mind you - he just employs the same arguments as the republicans.
Play2win
08-02-2006, 03:53 PM
We need Fiscal Responsible Defense Spending. We still need to spend on defense, We just need to get what we pay for. This means putting a stop to NO-BID CONTRACTS...
Be Fiscally responsible not only for HOW MUCH you spend and WHAT YOU SPEND it on, but also for WHAT YOU GET back for your spending. It needs to be a competitive and attractive Deal/Purchase/Spending...
Play2win
08-02-2006, 04:05 PM
Entitlement spending is not the most critical variable on the budget, mismanagement and misappropriation of defense and defense contract spending is... This includes the attack and occupation of IRAQ (not really a war)...
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-02-2006, 04:19 PM
This means putting a stop to NO-BID CONTRACTS...
You mean this sort of thing?
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=44642
Play2win
08-02-2006, 05:01 PM
You mean this sort of thing?
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=44642
Oy, Vey... :oyvey:
I am shocked that it is somehow connected to Faux News...
Atlas
08-02-2006, 05:21 PM
great thread guys. Keep it up.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-02-2006, 05:24 PM
Oy, Vey... :oyvey:
I am shocked that it is somehow connected to Faux News...
:D
And shocked even further, I'd wager, that not a single right-winger has uttered a peep of protest about this egregious misuse of his tax dollars.
Oh well - at least the money wasn't spent on some "wasteful social program" or "entitlement," right? ;)
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-02-2006, 05:33 PM
Remember the whole Gingrich/Clinton imbroglio?
A.k.a. the good old days when the most important issue facing America (according to the repugs and the "liberal media") was a stained dress.
That bygone era when, under the leadership of the GOP-controlled Congress, the whereabouts and activities of Clinton's schwantz were deemed more critical (and deserving of >$60 million taxpayer-funded investigations) than the whereabouts and activities of Osama Bin Laden and al Qaeda?
Those were the days.
gunns
08-02-2006, 06:01 PM
Notice also how spending is moderated on a gradual rise during Clinton years and almost straight up during Bush years. And you're attempting to explain this huge difference as due to social program spending?
Well I don't always understand the intricacies of the economy but it would seem to me that the Reagan era wasn't that great either as someone stated earlier. So tell me, did WIGS prove the others right with his chart?
Spider
08-02-2006, 06:22 PM
W*GS and his charts .......... got his ass kicked last time he pulled charts to explain the oil problem .........
Bronco_Beerslug
08-02-2006, 06:41 PM
Well I don't always understand the intricacies of the economy but it would seem to me that the Reagan era wasn't that great either as someone stated earlier. So tell me, did WIGS prove the others right with his chart? He actually confirmed what I was saying about spending under republican presidents. This country's spending spree started with the Reagan era and has basically gone out of control under the Bush administration.
Notice also how spending is moderated on a gradual rise during Clinton years and almost straight up during Bush years. And you're attempting to explain this huge difference as due to social program spending?
Some of it is - remember, 2/3rds of the federal budget is for "mandatory" programs, the costs of which (with no help from the Bush prescription drug plan) are really starting to hit the fan. Katrina and Rita, and 9/11, didn't help either.
Some of the acceleration in spending under Bush is due to Iraq, certainly - but hardly all of it.
A.k.a. the good old days when the most important issue facing America (according to the repugs and the "liberal media") was a stained dress.
There you go bringing up Clinton's penis again, when that wasn't at all what I was talking about. As always, your first thoughts turn to it - why? It's quite obvious that your recollections of 1992-2000 begin with Clinton's genitals.
That aside, I was referring to the face-off between the House and Clinton over the budget - remember the federal government was shut down for a short time? If Congress does nothing more than rubberstamp the President's budget (which is what some folks here believe) how did that happen?
This country's spending spree started with the Reagan era and has basically gone out of control under the Bush administration.
The primary problem is that military spending shot up but entitlement spending increased as well. What we're seeing now is the creeping insidiousness of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. As the boomers retire and start receiving those benefits, the increase in their costs will only accelerate. Since neither the Dems (of course not!) nor the GOP has the political will to eliminate (or at least, seriously reform) those drivers of federal spending, things will only get worse. Wait 'til the surplus from SS goes away...
W*GS and his charts .......... got his ass kicked last time he pulled charts to explain the oil problem .........
You misremember.