How does the existence of a large national debt limit the options that are available for our federal government to respond to demands for policy action?

If democrats are in charge, it doesn't limit it at all.

__________________
Blade: "more educated and literate people than Justabubba"

Justabubba: "that would include everyone"

http://politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=27847

This seems obvious.
It also seems like you want me to do your homework.

And yet, it is Reagan and Bush Jr. who are the 2 biggest culprits in creating our national debt.

How much money have Reagan and Bush Jr. stole from Social Security to mask our true national debt??? (Hint: Its in the trillions)

Ixtellor

P.S. Oh and thanks to the Republican Congress for their history setting earmarks and pork barrel spending.

__________________
_______________________________________
George W. Bush "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building"

Blasphemy is a victimless crime.

They were/are wartime presidents, war is expensive --> the comparison is bogus.

The democrats now are right in there with the same thing, a lack of liberal media interest notwithstanding. To portray democrats as the party of thrift, from a historical standpoint, is just silly.

__________________
Blade: "more educated and literate people than Justabubba"

Justabubba: "that would include everyone"

http://politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=27847

LBJ - Vietnam - did not increase spending as much as Reagan/ W.
Carter Cold War - not as much
Bush Senior - Fought cold war and Gulf war, not even close to Reagan and W.

(Iraq War was a war of choice BTW - W "decideded" to go)

The democrats did use less earmarks and less pork barrel spending. But yes they are pretty awful.

From A historical Standpoint, no Republican since Nixon has been fiscally conservative. And that is giving him some wiggle room due to cold war and vietnam.
So about 40 years + ago, yes Republicans were not deficit spenders. But that no longer holds any truth what so ever.
We had a Republican President and Congress and they went BERZERK on spending and increasing the debt.

Ixtellor

P.S. I assume you are busy looking up how much Reagan stole from Social Security.

__________________
_______________________________________
George W. Bush "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building"

Blasphemy is a victimless crime.

Citations from a credible source?

ALL wars are "decided" to go. Congress passed the war resolution.

Nixon was the last one who didn't have to fight a war, just wrap up an existing one. Comparison ---> bogus.

Democrats have ALWAYS been deficit spenders - and skip the crapola, they went along with all the regrettable republican spending under Bush, except for their recent attempts to pull the rug out from under a commander in chief for the costs of our military in the middle of a war, something that is unprecedented in american history.

__________________
Blade: "more educated and literate people than Justabubba"

Justabubba: "that would include everyone"

http://politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=27847

Hints:

1. Costs increase the more debt issued, repaying becomes more difficult

2. Makes it difficult to promote changes in countries that own or debt due to negative consequences of them selling off our debt (see CHINA)

3. "Crowding out" of investment





Now go do your own homework

Because Vietnam wasn't as big or as important as the Cold War. No Carter didn't spend as much, in the meantime his administration was being pushed around like a trollop by the Soviets and contributed to the "malaise" he spoke about.

Actually not true, take away cold war spending and Reagan was fiscally conservative. However he was limited, his veto was overridden by the spendthrift democrat congress for items like the multi billion dollar Big Dig boondoggle.

Actually about 10 years ago, the Republican congress can be thanked for controlling spending while Clinton was in office as well.

Agreed...they also had some help from the Democrats who had their own pork projects, helped with passage of spending bills, and have thus far shown no intent whatsoever in ending that spending. They're just replacing it with things they like.

__________________
JMS gets another English lesson:

Quote:

there is no "mostly unique;" thats like saying "sometimes always," its an oxymoron - its either one or the other.

The result:

Quote:

By the mid-19th century unique had developed a wider meaning, “not typical, unusual,” and it is in this wider sense that it is compared. The comparison of so-called absolutes in senses that are not absolute is standard in all varieties of speech and writing.

Actually the soviet union didn't attack us once during the Carter administration.
The soviet union was doomed to failure regardless of what we did. Unless you want to defend communism as a viable form of economics.

1) But Reagan did spend money on the military. If you take away from any Presidents budget one of the largest outputs, they all appear fiscially conservative.
2) Reagan issued 78 Vetos. 9 Were overridden by Congress.
3) The Democratic Congress trimmed the fat from Reagans bloated budget twice, and increased it by miniscule amounts 6 times. (Less than 4%) We have already been down this road.

You will have to compare OMB requests to actual budgets passed to prove that one. Are you sure that is how it really played out?
(warning: On clinton's last budget proposal, he was the most fiscally conservative President in the last 27 years)

The Republican Dogma does not match the reality.

Ixtellor

__________________
_______________________________________
George W. Bush "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building"

Blasphemy is a victimless crime.

The mere fact that both parties spend at unbelievable rates makes both democrat and republican finger pointers look rather ignorant.

And "wartime spending" isn't an excuse. If you want to follow the neocon/democrat foriegn policy of "nation-building", you have to spend. There's no way around it, and we can't afford it. Period. So "wartime spending" means nothing, and is a sad, lame excuse for national debt.