View Full Version : Where do you stand? Increase Debt Ceiling or Not?
variablebinary
07-29-11, 01:29
Simple question: Are you for or against increasing the debt ceiling and why?
JeepDriver
07-29-11, 08:07
I voted no.
I'm not as educated as I should be on the possible problems that not increasing it may cause. It's going to take drastic cuts and I'm sure there will be serious problem as a result.
But the spending has to stop.
crusader377
07-29-11, 08:15
I'm writing this as a conservative but also a realist. I'm for increasing the debt ceiling in the short term to avoid default and avoid a further economic downturn caused by the increase in interest rates etc... That said, I only support the increase if lawmakers get serious about solving the budget deficit issue and that needs that accomplished within the next 2 or 3 years maximum.
I think these budget crisis is America's real challenge of the first quarter of the 21st century and everyone will have to make some sacrifices in order to provide a strong vibrant America for our children. To fix this problem, as a nation we need to take a hard honest look at ourselves and determine what is really important as a society and try to defeat this entitlement mentality that has infected all aspects of society for the super wealthy down to the poor. To fix this problem everyone will have to give alittle but it is better to feel some pain now rather than leave are children with a nation that is declining with fewer opportunities. We have to do systemic reforms across the board and everything needs to be on the table in order to fix this problem.
Both parties are equally to blame for this situation. Both Bush and Obama administrations have been completely inept in terms of budgets and the economy. Both parties need to work together and work for the good of the nation and for future generations. This is a generalisation but the Democrats have to stop their obsession with growning government and on the same token the Republicans need to stop with their love of corporate handouts, tax loopholes, and foreign adventures.
Even prior to the recession which I would argue has been a depression or pretty close to it, we were running deficits of 400-500 billion per year. Now, we are running deficits of above a $1 trillion per year and these are projected to run for the next decade or more.
This is how I think the problem needs to be fixed. I'll start with the easy steps first:
1) No more frebees for illegal immigration. (Between local, state, and federal governments we spend anywhere from $100-$200 billion per year on services for people who aren't supposed to be here)
2) Pull out of Afghanistan. (I served here, bottom line its a shithole and I think it is silly spending $100 billion a year on a country that will always be a shithole)
3) Consolidate federal agencies. For example, do we really need over a half a dozen federal law enforcement agencies. Could we not consolidate organizations like the the ATF and DEA into the FBI or U.S. Marshalls? (Maybe we could save $25-$50 billion here)
4) Reduce foreign aid by 75% from $40 billion to $10 billion yielding $30 billion in savings.
5) Severely cut or Eliminate less useful government organizations. Here are three examples, Department of Energy, Department of Education, National Science Foundation. These three alone would yield $100 billion in savings.
6) End corporate subsitities and close corporate tax loopholes while reducing corporate tax by 20% from 35% to 28% with a long term goal of reducing it to 20-25% once the budget problems are solved. Even though we are reducing tax rates and helping economic growth, we would still save $100 billion from ending corporate handouts and could easily generate $50-$100 billion from companies like GE having to actually pay their fair share. Plus this would be very helpful for small and medium size businesses which would have to pay less tax.
7) Raise taxes on the ultra wealthy, those making more than $1 million per year by 3% points. Bottom line is the ultra wealthy benefited the most from TARP and the bank bailouts and they can afford to pay their fair share. This would be a short term tax increase and would eventually go down once our fiscal house is in order.
The hard steps:
1) Raise social security age from 65 to 67 immediately and eventually raise it to 68. Could probably save $100 billion on this along with various other smaller reforms.
2) Cut defense spending by 15-20%: Defense budget is approx $550 billion per year, I think if we do smart budget cuts we can maintain our military capabilities on $450-$475 Billion per year.
3) Reform medicare, medicaid, and the healthcare system in general. America spends twice as the other industrialize nations on healthcare and yet our results aren't better.
4) End wealth transfer programs like the earned income tax credit. I have no problem with not taxing poor people but I don't think you should get a check from the government because you are poor.
5) Reform Welfare.
6) Reform unemployment programs, I don't think people should get a check from the government for 99 weeks because they were laid off. I think our government could learn from countries like Germany which worked with businesses during their recession and instead of laying off employees, had employees reduce hours while the government helped making up with some lost wages.
7) Simplify and reform the tax system.
I could go on and sorry for my long response, I actually have been working on a letter to my congressmen and senators discussing similiar things.
If we enacted these steps, the government could balance its budget while strengthing America in the long term.
Belmont31R
07-29-11, 08:40
Our progressive tax code is already the biggest wealth transfer program out there. Much bigger than EITC and subsidies to businesses.
AND the percentage of tax revenue they pay has been going up while the bottom 50% has been going down to around 2-3% of revenues.
They are making tons of money. They take in more than they need. Just 5 years ago the expenditures were way less than they are now.
Here is a cool little interactive graph: http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/top10-percent-income-earners
crusader377
07-29-11, 08:50
This is an interesting editorial from the Washington Post about Social Security which is one of the biggest challenges we need to overcome as a nation in order to fix the debt crisis.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-are-we-in-this-debt-fix-its-the-elderly-stupid/2011/07/28/gIQA08LtfI_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions
montanadave
07-29-11, 09:02
Anybody putting in their two cents on the current debt ceiling debate and the larger federal debt issue should read a new article in BusinessWeek by Peter Coy entitled "Why the Debt Crisis Is Even Worse Than You Think."
Here's the link: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/why-the-debt-crisis-is-even-worse-than-you-think-07272011.html
Excerpted from the article cited above:
If America’s long-term budget problems were small, they could be fixed entirely by the Republicans’ preferred method, which is spending cuts, or entirely by the Democrats’ favored fix, tax increases. The challenge is not small, however. That’s why nearly every bipartisan group that’s looked at the problem—including the Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin commissions—has concluded that some mix of the two will be required. The precise mixture is a political matter, but one would have to place an exceptionally high priority on the well-being of upper-income taxpayers to conclude that none of the adjustment burden should fall on them.
Republicans in Congress, not wanting to appear to defend the rich, have attempted to block any deal that includes higher taxes on the grounds that tax hikes are “job-killing.” But experience shows that in a period of slack demand like the present, tax hikes are no more job-killing than spending cuts, and probably less so. Cutting spending—say, by firing federal employees or canceling procurement—removes demand from the economy dollar-for-dollar. A dollar tax hike, on the other hand, especially one aimed at upper incomes, cuts demand by less than a dollar. Those who pay the tax cover part of it from their savings and only part by reducing their spending. If lawmakers insist on using the phrase “job-killing,” Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution-Urban Institute Tax Policy Center, wrote in a recent blog post, “they should apply it equally to both tax increases and spending cuts.”
Anybody putting in their two cents on the current debt ceiling debate and the larger federal debt issue should read a new article in BusinessWeek by Peter Coy entitled "Why the Debt Crisis Is Even Worse Than You Think."
Here's the link: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/why-the-debt-crisis-is-even-worse-than-you-think-07272011.html
Excerpted from the article cited above:
If America’s long-term budget problems were small, they could be fixed entirely by the Republicans’ preferred method, which is spending cuts, or entirely by the Democrats’ favored fix, tax increases. The challenge is not small, however. That’s why nearly every bipartisan group that’s looked at the problem—including the Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin commissions—has concluded that some mix of the two will be required. The precise mixture is a political matter, but one would have to place an exceptionally high priority on the well-being of upper-income taxpayers to conclude that none of the adjustment burden should fall on them.
Republicans in Congress, not wanting to appear to defend the rich, have attempted to block any deal that includes higher taxes on the grounds that tax hikes are “job-killing.” But experience shows that in a period of slack demand like the present, tax hikes are no more job-killing than spending cuts, and probably less so. Cutting spending—say, by firing federal employees or canceling procurement—removes demand from the economy dollar-for-dollar. A dollar tax hike, on the other hand, especially one aimed at upper incomes, cuts demand by less than a dollar. Those who pay the tax cover part of it from their savings and only part by reducing their spending. If lawmakers insist on using the phrase “job-killing,” Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution-Urban Institute Tax Policy Center, wrote in a recent blog post, “they should apply it equally to both tax increases and spending cuts.”
If both are truly required (spending cuts and tax increases), the only possible way that the latter will ever be acceptable is if (and that's a big if) the former comes first and in a big freakin' way.
I think history has shown decisively that government spending will balloon to cancel out (and surpass) any increase in revenues. And because of that, they can go **** themselves if they want more money from me to spend on metaphorical (and in some cases literal) hookers and blow.
Gutshot John
07-29-11, 09:25
Ugh depressing. No one doubts that spending has to be drastically decreased, but the money has already been spent. Virtually all conservatives would agree that we can't tax our way out of this problem but that's a wholly separate issue from increasing the debt ceiling. Denying that a real problem exists is misinformed and dangerous. You can't wish the issue away by refusing to increase the ceiling.
If you don't think there are real and painful ramifications to not increasing the debt ceiling you shouldn't even proffer an opinion. Failure to do so will only substantially INCREASE the level of debt as interests rates will almost certainly rise.
The ignorance that abounds on this issue, on both sides of the aisle makes me weep for this country...I guess it is true what they say...ignorance is bliss. :help:
montanadave
07-29-11, 09:37
Ugh depressing. No one doubts that spending has to be drastically decreased, but the money has already been spent. Virtually all conservatives would agree that we can't tax our way out of this problem but that's a wholly separate issue from increasing the debt ceiling. Denying that a real problem exists is misinformed and dangerous. You can't wish the issue away by refusing to increase the ceiling.
If you don't think there are real and painful ramifications to not increasing the debt ceiling you shouldn't even proffer an opinion. Failure to do so will only substantially INCREASE the level of debt as interests rates will almost certainly rise.
The ignorance that abounds on this issue, on both sides of the aisle makes me weep for this country...I guess it is true what they say...ignorance is bliss. :help:
While our political views may differ, I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments expressed in your post.
Listening to the politicians regurgitate simplistic (and inaccurate) talking points ad nauseam and look pole-axed if pressed to provide a more substantive response is absolutely horrifying. If anyone doubts the Peter Principle ("in any hierarchical system, employees rise to the level of their incompetence"), you need look no further than Congress.
crusader377
07-29-11, 09:40
It is going to be very painful to get America's fiscal house in order, we are going to have to make hard choices that will entain major cuts in spending including cuts in popular programs like social security as well as tax increases on some upper income groups and closing some popular programs in the tax system like the mortgage deductions. It must be done however.
I think a very simple way of summarizing it is would you rather take some pain now like a physical beating which is painful yet recoverable or a gunshot wound or knife wound 10 years from now where you bleed out and die.
If America doesn't get a handle on this problem now and make the hard choices and fix the problem, we are going be done as a nation. Our children and grandchildren are going to have far fewer opportunities if we don't fix this fiscal crisis.
Gutshot John
07-29-11, 09:50
There is almost $70Trillion in unfunded liabilities over the next 30 years.
This isn't a problem you can tax your way out of.
More significantly increasing taxes will only worsen the situation as it will only drive the wealthy into tax shelters and otherwise shift that money overseas (see Greece).
The President's own debt commission argued that you increase revenues by closing tax loopholes and decreasing marginal and capital gains tax rates. Too bad he threw them under the bus.
The debt limit needs to be raised, but you also need to slash govt far beyond a measly $4T over 10 years.
Belmont31R
07-29-11, 10:14
Ugh depressing. No one doubts that spending has to be drastically decreased, but the money has already been spent. Virtually all conservatives would agree that we can't tax our way out of this problem but that's a wholly separate issue from increasing the debt ceiling. Denying that a real problem exists is misinformed and dangerous. You can't wish the issue away by refusing to increase the ceiling.
If you don't think there are real and painful ramifications to not increasing the debt ceiling you shouldn't even proffer an opinion. Failure to do so will only substantially INCREASE the level of debt as interests rates will almost certainly rise.
The ignorance that abounds on this issue, on both sides of the aisle makes me weep for this country...I guess it is true what they say...ignorance is bliss. :help:
If you increase the thing then we will just keep having this fight again and again. Like raising taxes. In a few years they will have to be raised again otherwise the world is going to end. We already have way too much taxation in this country as it is.
At some point it has to be stopped. The dems want to go right into the deep end of massive spending and taxes. Thats what they do.
Governments all over the country are hurting for money because they don't know how to cut the damn spending and stop with the stupid projects all over the place. They all get tons of money but now its 'lets raises taxes'. We need to put an end to this....
Social Security is contractually obligated entitlement spending. The .gov took that money from taxpayers with the promise that they would give it back. Retirees who have met the age requirement ARE ENTITLED to get their money back from the .gov. Medicare, unemployment, welfare, etc. ARE NOT entitlements. they are socialized handouts at the expense of others. I get really peeved when they try to use "entitlement" as a dirty word. It's not. Lumping SS in with other programs like Medicare, Medicade, etc. really ticks me off.
As for the rest of it, I think we're missing a golden opportunity here. I think we should be pressuring our "leaders" in DC to NOT pass a budget or increase the debt ceiling. I think it would be perfectly acceptable to lose our AAA credit rating, because we haven't earned it and don't deserve it. I think we need to send a clear message to Congress and the Obama administration that the party's over. They can either stop spending like drunken sailors on shore leave or face the consequences. :mad:
The amount of 'no' votes scares me. All of you who voted no do realize it doesn't mean more spending but covering what we've already spent, right? Defaulting on our existing debts would be VERY bad long term and will cost more in the long run that another increase now. We've had about 127 increases so it's not like this is the first one. It would be the first time we defaulted on our debts though and that would likely start a bad precedent our nation can't withstand right now as fragile as the economy already is.
While I agree we need to curtail government spending.... this is NOT how you go about doing that despite the name.
montanadave
07-29-11, 11:00
This debate has engendered a "cut your nose off to spite your face" mentality run amok that is needlessly injurious to our nation and offers little or no relief in addressing the substantive issues.
To quote an oldie but a goodie, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."
Gutshot John
07-29-11, 11:03
If you increase the thing then we will just keep having this fight again and again. Like raising taxes. In a few years they will have to be raised again otherwise the world is going to end. We already have way too much taxation in this country as it is.
You're missing the point.
1. The money is already spent.
2. Inflation coupled with economic growth means that occasional increases in the debt ceiling are inevitable. As the pie gets bigger, as the tide gets higher, the debt will also get larger...tax revenue will also increase. This however is an entirely different concept than marginal tax rates.
3. Debt in and of itself isn't bad, debt that exceeds your capacity to pay it back is...when the growth of debt dramatically outpaces the growth of the economy is when you have problems and insolvency. When the growth of the economy outpaces the growth of debt is when you have surpluses.
4. Spending needs to be cut dramatically...and nothing on the table comes close to getting us anywhere near where we need to be but those cuts are going to be painful for an awful lot of people. Let's not pretend otherwise so accept the realities of the political considerations, just as politicians need to start preparing people for the necessary sacrifices.
5. There is a significant cost to whatever option is chosen. TANSTAAFL, but by all means ignore the problem, pretend it doesn't exist, and see how far that goes to resolving the issues. Precipitating an actual debt crisis will do NOTHING to solve the problem and indeed will make the problem much worse. Do I agree that politicians are being dishonest about the scale of the problem? Sure do, but then those that don't believe the debt limit should be raised are either equally dishonest...or completely misinformed.
Why is it an all or nothing proposition with people? You need roads, you need power grids, you need clean water, you need infrastructure, you need an army/navy, you need law and order. Government does some things well, it does other things poorly but you don't cut off your nose to spite your face. You can increase tax revenue while lowering tax rates but people still have to pay taxes and government still needs those taxes to function so they have to be collected.
Deal with realities as they are, not as you wish them to be in some idyllic parallel universe created in the image of Ayn Rand. Real life doesn't work that way.
Social Security is contractually obligated entitlement spending. The .gov took that money from taxpayers with the promise that they would give it back. Retirees who have met the age requirement ARE ENTITLED to get their money back from the .gov. Medicare, unemployment, welfare, etc. ARE NOT entitlements. they are socialized handouts at the expense of others. I get really peeved when they try to use "entitlement" as a dirty word. It's not. Lumping SS in with other programs like Medicare, Medicade, etc. really ticks me off.
You also pay into medicare all your life with the promise of receiving it later, when you need it. However, I don't think you have to pay into either program to qualify for them.
The bigger problem is that there is no Social Security Trust Fund or anything. Excesses from SS taxes have been reinvested in government debt, and were then spent. The money people paid in is gone. Someone is going to invest in social security their whole lives and receive no benefit. What difference does it make if it is my generation or the current generation of seniors? Practically, my generation has time to make other plans. On the other hand, SS wasn't passed on my watch.
Once social security starts paying out more than it brings in (just a couple of years from now), the shortfall will have to come from the general budget. Things then go downhill fast.
I do think this problem (debt and deficit) can be fixed with changes to government spending. I also think that people such as the Tea Party, that would happily take us towards default, don't really understand what that will do to the country.
The amount of 'no' votes scares me. All of you who voted no do realize it doesn't mean more spending but covering what we've already spent, right? Defaulting on our existing debts would be VERY bad long term and will cost more in the long run that another increase now. We've had about 127 increases so it's not like this is the first one. It would be the first time we defaulted on our debts though and that would likely start a bad precedent our nation can't withstand right now as fragile as the economy already is.
While I agree we need to curtail government spending.... this is NOT how you go about doing that despite the name.
Ok,
I'd be in for a pound with one caveat. They need to implement and enforce a law that states the debt ceiling can only be raised every 12 years from this day forward.
I really don't care if it hurts the country or the economy or the re-election chances of our favorite dumbasses in Congress. The problem MUST be addressed and the problem has and always will be, CONGRESS! Raise it now with no concessions from them and you might as well be handing the keys for a Bugatti to a 16 year old! :mad:
Increase it temporarily, but only if every dollar of the increase is matched or exceeded by a round of cuts which must be implemented over the next 2 fiscal years (starting immediately to include this year). This is to avoid the scenario where politicians "pass" a bunch of cuts, but they don't have to deal with them because they occur years later after they are out of office. Also, immediately after passage of this deal, they should move to reduce and reform entitlements spending (particularly SS and Medicare), simplify the tax code by moving away from socialistic progressive taxation to a flat tax, cut taxes (which will increase revenue), and begin the process of amending the Constitution to adopt a balanced budget requirement.
Belmont31R
07-29-11, 11:28
You're missing the point.
1. The money is already spent.
2. Inflation coupled with economic growth means that occasional increases in the debt ceiling are inevitable. As the pie gets bigger, as the tide gets higher, the debt will also get larger...tax revenue will also increase. This however is an entirely different concept than marginal tax rates.
3. Debt in and of itself isn't bad, debt that exceeds your capacity to pay it back is...when the growth of debt dramatically outpaces the growth of the economy is when you have problems and insolvency. When the growth of the economy outpaces the growth of debt is when you have surpluses.
4. Spending needs to be cut dramatically...and nothing on the table comes close to getting us anywhere near where we need to be but those cuts are going to be painful for an awful lot of people. Let's not pretend otherwise so accept the realities of the political considerations, just as politicians need to start preparing people for the necessary sacrifices.
5. There is a significant cost to whatever option is chosen. TANSTAAFL, but by all means ignore the problem, pretend it doesn't exist, and see how far that goes to resolving the issues. Precipitating an actual debt crisis will do NOTHING to solve the problem and indeed will make the problem much worse. Do I agree that politicians are being dishonest about the scale of the problem? Sure do, but then those that don't believe the debt limit should be raised are either equally dishonest...or completely misinformed.
Why is it an all or nothing proposition with people? You need roads, you need power grids, you need clean water, you need infrastructure, you need an army/navy, you need law and order. Government does some things well, it does other things poorly but you don't cut off your nose to spite your face. You can increase tax revenue while lowering tax rates but people still have to pay taxes and government still needs those taxes to function so they have to be collected.
Deal with realities as they are, not as you wish them to be in some idyllic parallel universe created in the image of Ayn Rand. Real life doesn't work that way.
The point is we still have enough money coming to pay the debt obligation. There would not have to be a default on the debt. Raising the debt limit means we get to take on more debt. Not raising it does not mean we no longer pay our current debt.
I mean we raise it now, and in 6 months to a year it has to be raised again. We are just going to go through this cycle until its finally stopped one way or another.
And yes people are going to get hurt....but its what has to be done. If it was easy we would have already done it. No one wants to be that guy who stopped grannie's check or tell that farmer no more free money.
Belmont31R
07-29-11, 11:40
Social Security is contractually obligated entitlement spending. The .gov took that money from taxpayers with the promise that they would give it back. Retirees who have met the age requirement ARE ENTITLED to get their money back from the .gov. Medicare, unemployment, welfare, etc. ARE NOT entitlements. they are socialized handouts at the expense of others. I get really peeved when they try to use "entitlement" as a dirty word. It's not. Lumping SS in with other programs like Medicare, Medicade, etc. really ticks me off.
As for the rest of it, I think we're missing a golden opportunity here. I think we should be pressuring our "leaders" in DC to NOT pass a budget or increase the debt ceiling. I think it would be perfectly acceptable to lose our AAA credit rating, because we haven't earned it and don't deserve it. I think we need to send a clear message to Congress and the Obama administration that the party's over. They can either stop spending like drunken sailors on shore leave or face the consequences. :mad:
No, they are not. The money you pay in these taxes goes to fund people getting benefits today. Its not a savings account where the money sits there for 10-40 years earning interest. There is no money to give back. If you want the benefits later down the road that means your kids have to pay it. The government doesn't have the money you've been paying.
Belmont31R
07-29-11, 11:45
I do think this problem (debt and deficit) can be fixed with changes to government spending. I also think that people such as the Tea Party, that would happily take us towards default, don't really understand what that will do to the country.
The government still brings in around 200 billion a month. Enough to pay the debt obligation + a ton of other things. I think, off the top of my head, the debt payment is around 600 billion a year. Divide that in 12 and its around 50 billion a month. If they are taking in 200B a month, and the debt is averaged out to 50B a month that leaves them 150B to spend on other things, too.
We can't go on forever borrowing 1.6T a year. Someone has to get the cheese cut off, and soon.
crusader377
07-29-11, 11:52
As for the rest of it, I think we're missing a golden opportunity here. I think we should be pressuring our "leaders" in DC to NOT pass a budget or increase the debt ceiling. I think it would be perfectly acceptable to lose our AAA credit rating, because we haven't earned it and don't deserve it. I think we need to send a clear message to Congress and the Obama administration that the party's over. They can either stop spending like drunken sailors on shore leave or face the consequences. :mad:
The problem with losing our AAA credit rating is that interest rates will increase for everyone further straining a very weak economy. Also, we would have to spend more money servicing our debt due to higher interest rates.
We need to raise the debt ceiling for the short term to buy us time to make the cuts needed to bring us to a balanced budget within the next 2-3 years.
I voted yes, but only because of the current position in which we need to borrow enough to keep functioning in the short term. I would not vote yes to increase it without significant concessions including entitlement reform.
If I had to vote on the "Beohner" Bill I would vote against it--not enough cutting to justify an increase.
I would have voted against cut-cap and trade as I believe a balanced budget amendment is to restrictive.
So for me to increase a debt limit it would have to come with serious concessions on our budget spending.
VooDoo6Actual
07-29-11, 11:56
If you increase the thing then we will just keep having this fight again and again. Like raising taxes. In a few years they will have to be raised again otherwise the world is going to end. We already have way too much taxation in this country as it is.
At some point it has to be stopped. The dems want to go right into the deep end of massive spending and taxes. Thats what they do.
Governments all over the country are hurting for money because they don't know how to cut the damn spending and stop with the stupid projects all over the place. They all get tons of money but now its 'lets raises taxes'. We need to put an end to this....
This is the CORRECT answer.... http://usdebt.kleptocracy.us/
All carefully orchestrated DRAMA by our leaders as they preform amazing acts of Politcal Prestigitation behind our backs....
While we argue amongst ourselves and they already know the outcome. But this way they tried to do something right...
Belmont31R
07-29-11, 11:58
The problem with losing our AAA credit rating is that interest rates will increase for everyone further straining a very weak economy. Also, we would have to spend more money servicing our debt due to higher interest rates.
We need to raise the debt ceiling for the short term to buy us time to make the cuts needed to bring us to a balanced budget within the next 2-3 years.
Our credit rating is going down because Reid and Obama will either veto or not allow a vote on a bill that would keep the rating AAA. Those two want to continue the massive 1.6T a year deficit.
And until Obama is out of office and R's take the senate we will never see anything close to a balanced budget. They took the debt from averaging 200-500B a year to 1.5T a year, and the big deal breaker is 2 trillion over 10 years with the biggest cuts in the last 5 years. So for the foreseeable future we are going to keep incurring over a trillion a year in new debt. The democrat controlled senate has not even passed a budget in over 800 days....a balanced budget in two years has no chance of happening with this current crew.
Gutshot John
07-29-11, 11:59
The point is we still have enough money coming to pay the debt obligation. There would not have to be a default on the debt. Raising the debt limit means we get to take on more debt. Not raising it does not mean we no longer pay our current debt.
I mean we raise it now, and in 6 months to a year it has to be raised again. We are just going to go through this cycle until its finally stopped one way or another.
And yes people are going to get hurt....but its what has to be done. If it was easy we would have already done it. No one wants to be that guy who stopped grannie's check or tell that farmer no more free money.
So simple, so easy. I'm glad you have all the answers. What would we do without such clarity? :rolleyes:
1. Your solution might work if you pretend there is no such thing as interest on the debt...i.e. 40% of every Federal dollar spent services EXISTING debt. If you don't increase the deficit, eventually you lower the bond rating and interests rates will rise...dramatically increasing the cost to service that debt over and above the financial disaster that would accompany a default.
2. Free money? IIRC these people paid into a system. There is nothing free about it. I've paid into it my whole life and I'll be damned if the government is just going to rip me off.
3. It's very easy to say but those "freeloaders" that paid into the system might not agree with your perspective. Accordingly they might put people into office that continue to lie to them about the real problems facing the issue...guess what your solution is irrelevant if there is no one in power to implement it. Just a thought that telling those people to pound sand might not be the best way to get what the country needs.
I understand that you've bought into the easy lie that there is no need to raise the debt ceiling, and once you're emotionally invested in such a lie that it's hard to step back, apply a little critical thought and say "well maybe the solution isn't that simple."
The problem is that failure to do so doesn't negate the fact that it is still a lie.
I really don't care if we default as long as massive spending cuts are made to just about everything and a balanced budget is mandatory.
crusader377
07-29-11, 12:14
Our credit rating is going down because Reid and Obama will either veto or not allow a vote on a bill that would keep the rating AAA. Those two want to continue the massive 1.6T a year deficit.
And until Obama is out of office and R's take the senate we will never see anything close to a balanced budget. They took the debt from averaging 200-500B a year to 1.5T a year, and the big deal breaker is 2 trillion over 10 years with the biggest cuts in the last 5 years. So for the foreseeable future we are going to keep incurring over a trillion a year in new debt. The democrat controlled senate has not even passed a budget in over 800 days....a balanced budget in two years has no chance of happening with this current crew.
Let's not rewrite history. Although you have some good points, the Bush administration was not fiscally responsible and the Republicans were in power in congress in 6 out of his 8 years and lead us in the direction we are in. The Obama administration made the situation worse but both parties are to blame for the situation that we are in.
Let's not rewrite history. Although you have some good points, the Bush administration was not fiscally responsible and the Republicans were in power in congress in 6 out of his 8 years and lead us in the direction we are in. The Obama administration made the situation worse but both parties are to blame for the situation that we are in.
Both parties have been bad, but the Democrats have been worse. The biggest "Bush" deficits came with a Democrat House if I recall correctly.
Belmont31R
07-29-11, 12:26
So simple, so easy. I'm glad you have all the answers. What would we do without such clarity? :rolleyes:
1. Your solution might work if you pretend there is no such thing as interest on the debt...i.e. 40% of every Federal dollar spent services EXISTING debt. If you don't increase the deficit, eventually you lower the bond rating and interests rates will rise...dramatically increasing the cost to service that debt over and above the financial disaster that would accompany a default.
2. Free money? IIRC these people paid into a system. There is nothing free about it. I've paid into it my whole life and I'll be damned if the government is just going to rip me off.
3. It's very easy to say but those "freeloaders" that paid into the system might not agree with your perspective. Accordingly they might put people into office that continue to lie to them about the real problems facing the issue...guess what your solution is irrelevant if there is no one in power to implement it. Just a thought that telling those people to pound sand might not be the best way to get what the country needs.
I understand that you've bought into the easy lie that there is no need to raise the debt ceiling, and once you're emotionally invested in such a lie that it's hard to step back, apply a little critical thought and say "well maybe the solution isn't that simple."
The problem is that failure to do so doesn't negate the fact that it is still a lie.
I didn't say never raise it again. I get why its there. Its not supposed to be a credit card but as a tool. If it was used like it should be we wouldn't be losing our credit rating now would we? Since they want to abuse the tools they've been given its time to restrict their use.
Lots of people get tax money they never paid in. Farmers get paid money all the time that they never paid in. Most people are getting more out of SS and Medicare than they paid in. Those programs are ponzi schemes which need more people at the bottom than the top to work. However with the baby boomers about to retire or starting to retire this ponzi scheme needs some serious reductions and changes.
If people wanted to keep that money, and get it back they never should have kept voting people into office for decades who were the ones taking it from them. Ill vote for people who don't want to take it in the first place, and if that means you lose out too bad. Your generations were the ones who voted for it to be taken your whole life. I don't have any financial obligation to you when you retire.
2. Free money? IIRC these people paid into a system. There is nothing free about it. I've paid into it my whole life and I'll be damned if the government is just going to rip me off.
You have heard of Flemming v Nestor (SCOTUS 1960), haven't you?
Not saying that it's a perfect match to your situation given the specifics of the case but the implications that the court made do apply.
Belmont31R
07-29-11, 12:28
Let's not rewrite history. Although you have some good points, the Bush administration was not fiscally responsible and the Republicans were in power in congress in 6 out of his 8 years and lead us in the direction we are in. The Obama administration made the situation worse but both parties are to blame for the situation that we are in.
The average deficit Bush had is about 1/5th of Obama's. Yes I think Bush spent too much, too, but theres no comparison when you go from 200-500b a year to 1.6T a year, and refuse to even go below 1 trillion a year.
Gutshot John
07-29-11, 12:31
I really don't care if we default as long as massive spending cuts are made to just about everything and a balanced budget is mandatory.
And goofball statements like that is why we have such a mess. That you're so sanguine about it proves my point that People don't have a clue what the issues are.
You should care. You stand to lose a lot of money over and above having to deal with a financial disaster.
crusader377
07-29-11, 12:43
The average deficit Bush had is about 1/5th of Obama's. Yes I think Bush spent too much, too, but theres no comparison when you go from 200-500b a year to 1.6T a year, and refuse to even go below 1 trillion a year.
Much of that is due to Bush inheriting a much stronger economy from Clinton that saw significantly higher revenue. Bush also, inherited a surplus of over $100 billion dollars. The economy didn't collapse until October of 2008 which was into the 2009 fiscal year which Obama inherited.
In the 2008 which was the last fiscal year before the recession, government revenue was $2.5 trillion while 2009 had a government revenue of 2.1trillion.
Bush's 2008 budget deficit was around $450 billion so even if government spending would stay the same the FY 2009 would have been $850 billion if keeping Bush's policies with no changes. That is not including any cost for TARP which was enacted under Bush.
Obama definitely accerated the growth of the debt but we would have been facing the same problems if we would have continued Bush's policies as well.
Belmont31R
07-29-11, 12:45
And goofball statements like that is why we have such a mess. That you're so sanguine about it proves my point that People don't have a clue what the issues are.
You should care. You stand to lose a lot of money over and above having to deal with a financial disaster.
Theres no reason to default since the government still takes in considerably more money than the debt obligation. It means they have to lower spending to match revenue. So yes somethings will not get paid but the debt should not be one of them.
Defaulting on the debt is far different than not paying other things they do or shutting down government offices that are deemed non essential.
And goofball statements like that is why we have such a mess. That you're so sanguine about it proves my point that People don't have a clue what the issues are.
You should care. You stand to lose a lot of money over and above having to deal with a financial disaster.
That this came to ahead at the 11th hour is on Obama and the Dems. No one wants to see us lose a AAA rating but I believe there is more at stake. The left want to turn us into slaves and unless massive cuts are made, they'll succeed. So in conclusion, take your goofballs and shove them in your ass.:)
Reid Moves Forward With Debt-Reduction Plan as Boehner Sweetens Deal for GOP
Published July 29, 2011
| FoxNews.com
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/29/reid-prepares-alternative-proposal-to-raise-debt-ceiling/#ixzz1TW9gKlJ1
Much of that is due to Bush inheriting a much stronger economy from Clinton that saw significantly higher revenue. Bush also, inherited a surplus of over $100 billion dollars. The economy didn't collapse until October of 2008 which was into the 2009 fiscal year which Obama inherited.
Shouldn't you include the dot-com/tech bubble that happened in the late 90s, and the burst right around 2000 if you're going to talk about the financial recession in 2008?
Belmont31R
07-29-11, 12:53
Much of that is due to Bush inheriting a much stronger economy from Clinton that saw significantly higher revenue. Bush also, inherited a surplus of over $100 billion dollars. The economy didn't collapse until October of 2008 which was into the 2009 fiscal year which Obama inherited.
In the 2008 which was the last fiscal year before the recession, government revenue was $2.5 trillion while 2009 had a government revenue of 2.1trillion.
Bush's 2008 budget deficit was around $450 billion so even if government spending would stay the same the FY 2009 would have been $850 billion if keeping Bush's policies with no changes. That is not including any cost for TARP which was enacted under Bush.
Obama definitely accerated the growth of the debt but we would have been facing the same problems if we would have continued Bush's policies as well.
I agree...just saying there is a considerable difference between the two. Over a trillon a year difference.
TARP was supposed to use the money they got back to pay down the debt incurred for the program in the first place...plus we got interest off it. Instead Obama/Reid/Pelosi spent it again instead of paying down the debt.
Belmont31R
07-29-11, 12:57
Shouldn't you include the dot-com/tech bubble that happened in the late 90s, and the burst right around 2000 if you're going to talk about the financial recession in 2008?
Bush came into office with a recession and then later that year 9/11 happened.
I don't like the spending Bush did but thats happens when you elect a compassionate conservative or whatever he called himself. Right off the bat it was 50 billion for aids in Africa and expanding medicare. Never met a spending program he didn't like.
This is why we need to get the spending under control, and get our finances in order. Not just keep borrowing and borrow more because they borrowed too much in the past. They have the money to pay the debt + many other programs. They are expected to get 203 billion in August alone from tax payments.
crusader377
07-29-11, 13:00
Lots of people get tax money they never paid in. Farmers get paid money all the time that they never paid in. Most people are getting more out of SS and Medicare than they paid in. Those programs are ponzi schemes which need more people at the bottom than the top to work. However with the baby boomers about to retire or starting to retire this ponzi scheme needs some serious reductions and changes.
.
Great point, SS and Medicare have truly evolved into a sacred cow which no politician which are largely baby boomers are willing to touch in order not to offend the largest voting block which are baby boomers and seniors. They are more than content to screw over my generation (I'm 33) and much more importantly my daughter and son's generation who will have to pay their whole lives in debt in order to pay for the boomer SS payments.
The other thing that really disturbs me is that for the most part my peers in their 30s and 20s are clueless to the problems facing this country and the effects on our future and more importantly our kids future. Sadly most people in my age group would rather watch reality TV, talk about stupid celebrities, our play with various electronic devices rather than try to make a difference.
I also heard Bush with the second gunman on the grassy knoll. This current situation is entirely The result of the current administration and current Congress. At least now we have some tea party people in there to put some brakes on this monstrosity of a government. Yes we may go in the ditch but it's better than where we're heading right now
Gutshot John
07-29-11, 13:04
That this came to ahead at the 11th hour is on Obama and the Dems. No one wants to see us lose a AAA rating but I believe there is more at stake. The left want to turn us into slaves and unless massive cuts are made, they'll succeed. So in conclusion, take your goofballs and shove them in your ass.:)
Jane you ignorant slut. ;)
If you really believe that the left wants to turn you into a slave than you're off your nut and really out of your depth. You might not agree with their policies, Lord knows I don't, but it's a paranoid, delusional fantasy. I'd recommend lithium.
Massive cuts do need to be made but you better explain to me, in clear, logical and a well thought out progression, that doesn't take fantasy-land figures, and simplistically say you can just not raise the debt limit without showing how you get there from here.
The politicians that claim we don't have to raise the debt ceiling as we have plenty of money to avoid default, are not only engaging in the most cynical political grandstanding, but they're OVERTLY LYING TO YOU!
A lie is a lie...it may be easier to swallow coming from Michele Bachman than Nancy Pelosi, but it doesn't change what it is.
Wake up and smell what you're stepping in.
Gutshot John
07-29-11, 13:10
Theres no reason to default since the government still takes in considerably more money than the debt obligation. It means they have to lower spending to match revenue. So yes somethings will not get paid but the debt should not be one of them.
For now they can service the debt...without an increase in the debt ceiling eventually they go into default. This of course ignores the salient fact that we don't have to overtly default in order to see interest rates rise and the debt load increase.
Defaulting on the debt is far different than not paying other things they do or shutting down government offices that are deemed non essential.
Tell me...how long can they do this?
crusader377
07-29-11, 13:12
Shouldn't you include the dot-com/tech bubble that happened in the late 90s, and the burst right around 2000 if you're going to talk about the financial recession in 2008?
The tech bubble was a much smaller recession than the financial recession of 2008.
Really the recession of 2008, was much more like a depression than recession. Real unemployment rates are still hovering in the 14-16% rates 3 years after it started. More concerning is the rate of long term unemployed and the far lower rate of work force participation.
A more telling indication is government revenue derived from income taxes. In 2007 the federal government colllected 1.5 trillion in income taxes while in 2011 the federal government collected 1.15 trillion. Fundamentally they were very few changes in tax rates during that time and I think that stat shows how deep this recession was.
This is a good site to get data about spending and revenues.
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/revenue.php?span=usgs302&year=2011&view=1&expand=&expandC=&units=b&fy=fy12&state=US&local=s&pie=#usgs302
Much of that is due to Bush inheriting a much stronger economy from Clinton that saw significantly higher revenue. Bush also, inherited a surplus of over $100 billion dollars. The economy didn't collapse until October of 2008 which was into the 2009 fiscal year which Obama inherited.
As has been mentioned, Bush inherited a Recession from Clinton and a burst bubble -- dot com bubble, and then had 09/11, which had a huge economic impact and caused a big downturn. Don't you remember all the news articles about how it was our patriotic duty to go buy things?
The so-called Bush Tax cuts put energy back into the economy and led to federal tax receipts rising to their highest level ever. And the CBO I believe had forecasted that Bush's budgets would lead to a balanced budget and surpluses by 2012. Hardly failed policies.
Then came the housing problems which led to a general collapse. Both parties played roles in the housing problems and collapse. But the Democratic policies that punished banks who did not make risky loans to minorities who could not qualify otherwise played a big role in the housing collapse. Faced with the political pressures on their business, they found a way to "profit" from it. Clinton was a big part of that Democratic fueled policy on housing.
Bush spent too much money. He was a big spender. But to try and blame him for the 2008 downturn and housing crisis is really disingenuous. When ever I hear the term "failed bush policies" or "failed Republican policies" with regards the downturn, I ask specifically, which policies they are talking about. No one can answer. They try and sometimes blame the tax cuts. I politely explain that that makes no sense, that the tax cuts lead to the highest tax receipts ever and lead down a path to a projected surplus. No one can answer which "failed policies" of Bush got us in this mess.
In the 2008 which was the last fiscal year before the recession, government revenue was $2.5 trillion while 2009 had a government revenue of 2.1trillion.
Bush's 2008 budget deficit was around $450 billion so even if government spending would stay the same the FY 2009 would have been $850 billion if keeping Bush's policies with no changes. That is not including any cost for TARP which was enacted under Bush.
Obama definitely accerated the growth of the debt but we would have been facing the same problems if we would have continued Bush's policies as well.
Exactly which policies of Bush would have lead to these policies? You did know that budget forecasts, before the housing collapse, which has its roots in Democratic policy, lead to a budget surplus by 2012?
Please explain exactly which policies of Bush would have lead to the same problem. Yes, Bush was spending too much. As belmont said -- Africa aid, medicare etc, were all things Bush was wasting money on. But his wasting money pales in comparison to Obama. I disagree with TARP, but as Belmont said, that money was supposed to be paid back and put against the debt and not spent like Obama did.
Belmont31R
07-29-11, 13:13
The politicians that claim we don't have to raise the debt ceiling as we have plenty of money to avoid default, are not only engaging in the most cynical political grandstanding, but they're OVERTLY LYING TO YOU!
So why don't you explain how the government getting over 200b a month in tax payments means we default on the debt? The debt does not cost anywhere close to 200B a month.
Where does the 200B go if not at least partially to the debt they are legally obligated to pay?
In order to default on the debt they would have to intentionally not pay it. All not raising the debt limit does is mean no more borrowing...doesn't mean not paying our bills with what money we do have. Saying we would default because we cant borrow is the same as saying we have to borrow money to pay back borrowed money from before.
The tech bubble was a much smaller recession than the financial recession of 2008.
Really the recession of 2008, was much more like a depression than recession. Real unemployment rates are still hovering in the 14-16% rates 3 years after it started. More concerning is the rate of long term unemployed and the far lower rate of work force participation.
A more telling indication is government revenue derived from income taxes. In 2007 the federal government colllected 1.5 trillion in income taxes while in 2011 the federal government collected 1.15 trillion. Fundamentally they were very few changes in tax rates during that time and I think that stat shows how deep this recession was.
This is a good site to get data about spending and revenues.
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/revenue.php?span=usgs302&year=2011&view=1&expand=&expandC=&units=b&fy=fy12&state=US&local=s&pie=#usgs302
And what is your point? The fact remains that the recession he inherited and which was made much worse by 09/11 he successfully pulled us out of.
Bush's policies did not create the 2008 collapse. Obama has made things an order of magnitude worse.
Bush was no saint. He spent to much.
But blaming him and his policies is a bit much unless you can point to exactly which policies and how they caused problems.
crusader377
07-29-11, 13:16
This current situation is entirely The result of the current administration and current Congress.
Have to disagree with you. Bottom line Bush sucked and Obama sucks more than any one else has sucked before. Both parties got us into this mess.
Gutshot John
07-29-11, 13:19
So why don't you explain how the government getting over 200b a month in tax payments means we default on the debt? The debt does not cost anywhere close to 200B a month.
You do realize that government does other things besides service debt?
These other things don't just disappear because you want them to. Even if they did they would impose significant other costs on society. There is no free ride, no matter what the politicians have told you.
You do realize that even if they did disappear and we $200B/month flowing to fund the debt until doomsday that this doesn't do a lick of good to paying it down, paying for other necessary services and similarly maintaining the same interest rates we now pay to service the debt?
Of course this all presumes that they will keep collecting $200B/month, without interruption, barring any economic catastrophes, wars etc.
Jane you ignorant slut. ;)
If you really believe that the left wants to turn you into a slave than you're off your nut and really out of your depth. You might not agree with their policies, Lord knows I don't, but it's a paranoid, delusional fantasy. I'd recommend lithium.
Massive cuts do need to be made but you better explain to me, in clear, logical and a well thought out progression, that doesn't take fantasy-land figures, and simplistically say you can just not raise the debt limit without showing how you get there from here.
The politicians that claim we don't have to raise the debt ceiling as we have plenty of money to avoid default, are not only engaging in the most cynical political grandstanding, but they're OVERTLY LYING TO YOU!
A lie is a lie...it may be easier to swallow coming from Michele Bachman than Nancy Pelosi, but it doesn't change what it is.
Wake up and smell what you're stepping in.
Not raising the debt limit forces the politicians to make hard choices and start cutting things. Better take the hit now than later when it will be much harder and have even worse consequences.
We are going to have to suffer to get through this. I'd rather suffer now than later when the suffering will be much worse.
There is no way the politicians will stop the spending and make the cuts and sacrifices necessary unless their credit cards are taken away and they HAVE to do it. They will keep punting the hard part to the future and keep piling on the debt and making it worse.
crusader377
07-29-11, 13:20
And what is your point? The fact remains that the recession he inherited and which was made much worse by 09/11 he successfully pulled us out of.
Bush's policies did not create the 2008 collapse. Obama has made things an order of magnitude worse.
Bush was no saint. He spent to much.
But blaming him and his policies is a bit much unless you can point to exactly which policies and how they caused problems.
My point is the 2008 collapse was much more severe than the recession Bush inherited.
The main policy that caused problems was fighting two wars and not paying for them. Bush wanted both guns and butter and bottom line is you can't have both. We should have learned that during Vietnam but we did not.
Have to disagree with you. Bottom line Bush sucked and Obama sucks more than any one else has sucked before. Both parties got us into this mess.
Exactly which policies of Bush sucked and how did he get us into this mess?
I am not trying to stick up for Bush and absolve him. I just want to know how he is responsible for this mess. Details please. (And there are things that you can bring out -- Bush did spend)
My point is the 2008 collapse was much more severe than the recession Bush inherited.
The main policy that caused problems was fighting two wars and not paying for them. Bush wanted both guns and butter and bottom line is you can't have both. We should have learned that during Vietnam but we did not.
bzzzt. Wrong answer. Show me the numbers please. The "2 wars" did not cause the housing collapse which lead to the financial collapse. While the wars cost money, a lot of money, the costs of the wars over the last 10 years is not that great compared to the overall budget and certainly did not lead to the housing collapse and the financial collapse.
Over the last 10 years, the approximate cost has been about $1.3T
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0933935.html
That is peanuts in a budget of trillions a year.
Gutshot John
07-29-11, 13:26
Not raising the debt limit forces the politicians to make hard choices and start cutting things. Better take the hit now than later when it will be much harder and have even worse consequences.
Sure...that's a valid choice...but there's a limit to what can be done and any choice requires pain and sacrifice. It's not just the politicians that will have to make hard choices. It's all of us and politicians that make it sound so easy that we can just stop paying our bills and cut services doesn't have very real consequences are LYING.
I'd feel more comfortable if the people saying "nah we shouldn't increase the debt ceiling" were also saying "yeah both sides of the issue are ****ing liars." Sadly there seems to be a dearth of critical thought.
If you make those choices fully understanding the implications of the choices, fair enough. What I resent is people that delude themselves into thinking that there won't be significant costs to any decision we make. Similarly politicians that tell the truth don't last long in office and so again the onus is on us...not them. We got ourselves into this mess, blaming the politician is like blaming the gun and not the criminal.
The American people got the government they deserved. Sadly the apparent ignorance of the issues means that any solution isn't forthcoming anytime soon so long as people drink whatever kool-aid is offered to them.
Belmont31R
07-29-11, 13:28
You do realize that government does other things besides service debt?
These other things don't just disappear because you want them to. Even if they did they would impose significant other costs on society. There is no free ride, no matter what the politicians have told you.
You do realize that even if they did disappear and we $200B/month flowing to fund the debt until doomsday that this doesn't do a lick of good to paying it down, paying for other necessary services and similarly maintaining the same interest rates we now pay to service the debt?
Yes it would force the government to cut down on all the stupid shit they spend money on. Instant balanced budget.
We can maintain the debt burden. Never said anything about paying it off.
Then after paying the debt burden each month they still have around 150 billion to spend money on. We cannot keep borrowing 1.5T a year, and yes I realize not doing so will impact people. So what? The government is not there to borrow 1.5T a year to give to people, and its a false economy anyways. At some point that money has to be paid back, and taken out of the economy in the future. So while some people are benefiting today we all have to keep paying taxes into the future for it. Id rather them get cut off than have to keep tax rates high well into the future to pay for today.
They have even said even if the debt limit is raised our credit rating will be lowered because there has to be massive spending cuts. Our rating will tank because of our borrowing problem, and ability to pay it back. Obama is not going to sign a bill lowering the spending enough to avoid a credit rating loss so that is on him.
That means if we don't raise the debt limit we are forced into about a 40-45% spending cut.
My point is the 2008 collapse was much more severe than the recession Bush inherited.
The main policy that caused problems was fighting two wars and not paying for them. Bush wanted both guns and butter and bottom line is you can't have both. We should have learned that during Vietnam but we did not.
One more thing. Bush's policies led to the highest tax receipts ever that the IRS had recorded. Sounds like he was paying for them to me.
Belmont31R
07-29-11, 13:30
Sure...that's a valid choice...but there's a limit to what can be done and any choice requires pain and sacrifice. It's not just the politicians that will have to make hard choices. It's all of us and politicians that make it sound so easy that we can just stop paying our bills and cut services doesn't have very real consequences are LYING.
I'd feel more comfortable if the people saying "nah we shouldn't increase the debt ceiling" were also saying "yeah both sides of the issue are ****ing liars." Sadly there seems to be a dearth of critical thought.
If you make those choices fully understanding the implications of the choices, fair enough. What I resent is people that delude themselves into thinking that there won't be significant costs to any decision we make.
The consequences of not shutting off the huge yearly deficit is losing our credit rating. Sure some will suffer but we shouldn't have made obligations and huge spending increases the last 3 years in the first place. Too bad for them got attached to the tit. The milk is about to run dry and they need to go find a new place to mooch off of.
Sure...that's a valid choice...but there's a limit to what can be done and any choice requires pain and sacrifice. It's not just the politicians that will have to make hard choices.
Sure. Hard choices are coming no matter what. You cannot indefinitely live off of credit cards. The sooner you stop, the less the pain will be. It will not eliminate the pain but it will make it less than it would be in the future when you have even more debt, more things you have to pay on, and more constituents you have to pay off.
It's all of us and politicians that make it sound so easy that we can just stop paying our bills and cut services doesn't have very real consequences are LYING.
I'll admit to having not read the details of what anyone is saying. It all makes me sick so I ignore it. From both sides. But from the headlines, I have not seen anyone claiming that there will be no pain.
I'd feel more comfortable if the people saying "nah we shouldn't increase the debt ceiling" were also saying "yeah both sides of the issue are ****ing liars." Sadly there seems to be a dearth of critical thought.
If you make those choices fully understanding the implications of the choices, fair enough. What I resent is people that delude themselves into thinking that there won't be significant costs to any decision we make.
crusader377
07-29-11, 13:33
Exactly which policies of Bush sucked and how did he get us into this mess?
I am not trying to stick up for Bush and absolve him. I just want to know how he is responsible for this mess. Details please. (And there are things that you can bring out -- Bush did spend)
Here is a quick summary:
1) Fighting two wars and not paying for them
2) Expansion of Medicare and expensive perscription drug benefit
3) Creating new expensive bureaucracies such as homeland security
4) Increasing corporate welfare and subsidies
5) Not reacting to the upcoming subprime mortgage crisis.
6) Increasing discretionary spending by over 90%
crusader377
07-29-11, 13:46
bzzzt. Wrong answer. Show me the numbers please. The "2 wars" did not cause the housing collapse which lead to the financial collapse. While the wars cost money, a lot of money, the costs of the wars over the last 10 years is not that great compared to the overall budget and certainly did not lead to the housing collapse and the financial collapse.
Sub-prime mortgages didn't happen overnight and their numbers drastically increased under Bush's watch leading to the financial collapse.
Also, Bush inherited a public debt of $5 trillion dollars and left office with a debt of nearly $10 trillion.
Also the wars costs alot more than $1.3 trillion. The actual total costs are anywhere from $3-$4 trillion dollars.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702846.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/29/us-usa-war-idUSTRE75S25320110629
Here is a quick summary:
1) Fighting two wars and not paying for them
2) Expansion of Medicare and expensive perscription drug benefit
3) Creating new expensive bureaucracies such as homeland security
4) Increasing corporate welfare and subsidies
5) Not reacting to the upcoming subprime mortgage crisis.
6) Increasing discretionary spending by over 90%
I agree that these things were bad. But how did they lead to the 2008 financial collapse? You do realize, even with all these things, before the housing and financial collapse, Bush's budgets lead to a balanced budget and start of surplus by 2012? So he was paying for this (admittedly bad) stuff. Hardly the cause of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.
Sub-prime mortgages didn't happen overnight and their numbers drastically increased under Bush's watch leading to the financial collapse.
This is rather disingenuous. Bush did not push sub prime mortgages, and in fact you can find broadcasts of hearings on YouTube where the Bush administration tried in vain to get Congress to change the laws that encouraged such behavior. The Bush administration knew such stuff was dangerous and tried to get it changed. The Democrat opposition lead them to give up. You can see for yourself. Search youtube.
Also, Bush inherited a public debt of $5 trillion dollars and left office with a debt of nearly $10 trillion.
Yes, after the financial collapse and spending spree of stimulus (TARP etc) to try and stem it. Money that was supposed to come back (be repaid by recipients) and then used to PAY OFF THAT DEBT.
And that includes the financial collapse. You cannot count spending done to counteract the financial collapse as helping to cause it.
Remember: I am not saying Bush was a Saint. I am asking for details on exactly what policies of Bush "failed" and which of those "failed" policies lead to the 2008 collapse.
Also the wars costs alot more than $1.3 trillion. The actual total costs are anywhere from $3-$4 trillion dollars.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702846.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/29/us-usa-war-idUSTRE75S25320110629
Those articles are not talking about budgetary costs. The WP one for example gives an estimate of around $1.5T for budgetary costs.
Your numbers are off base and do not reflect in the budget or deficit. Those costs, justified or not, are "societal" and not governmental budget costs.
crusader377
07-29-11, 14:00
I agree that these things were bad. But how did they lead to the 2008 financial collapse? You do realize, even with all these things, before the housing and financial collapse, Bush's budgets lead to a balanced budget and start of surplus by 2012? So he was paying for this (admittedly bad) stuff. Hardly the cause of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.
He may have wanted a balanced budget by 2012 but as of 2008 they were not trending in that direction. Also, why could he have not had a balanced budget by 2003-05 timeframe since he did inherit a balanced budget?
He may have wanted a balanced budget by 2012 but as of 2008 they were not trending in that direction.
Until the collapse they basically were.
Also, why could he have not had a balanced budget by 2003-05 timeframe since he did inherit a balanced budget?
Oh, maybe the recession he inherited, and then 09/11, depressing the economy which took a while to get back into gear.
I agree that he spent too much and could have had it done faster (though probably not 2003-2005). But how did his yearly declining deficits lead to the collapse in 2008?
crusader377
07-29-11, 14:40
Actually, although Bush's spending was high, I think the number one reason for the financial crisis was the repeal of the Glass-Steagal act in 1999 by a Republican house and senate and a Democratic President. Basically, it allowed banks to underwrite and trade mortgage back securities and collaterialized debt obligations.
Actually, although Bush's spending was high, I think the number one reason for the financial crisis was the repeal of the Glass-Steagal act in 1999 by a Republican house and senate and a Democratic President. Basically, it allowed banks to underwrite and trade mortgage back securities and collaterialized debt obligations.
Maybe or maybe not. If underwriting standards are kept high so that the loans made are of high quality, is there a problem with mortgage backed securities? and CDOs? (I don't know, I am not an economic guru).
When you combine this with the disastrous politicalization of the mortgage industry by the Democrats and RINOs (which Bush tried to start to fix but was rebuffed) through their community lending laws that penalized banks for not loaning enough to minorities, whether or not they qualified, then you are correct and that spells doom.
However, this is not a failed Bush policy as it was during Clinton's watch that this repeal happened.
crusader377
07-29-11, 15:05
When you combine this with the disastrous politicalization of the mortgage industry.
I'm glad you hit on this. IMO the cronyism of mortgage industry in the past along with current corporate cronyism in industries such as banking, green energy, etc...has been an important factor in many of the economic issues that we face.
Also, have really enjoyed this debate and I think all of the posters have engaged in more thoughtful debate than most of the talking heads in the media.:)
Have to disagree with you. Bottom line Bush sucked and Obama sucks more than any one else has sucked before. Both parties got us into this mess.
if this is Bush's fault than exactly, what did the current congress and administration do, to reverse course? If its been a problem for 2+ years and someone else has been in charge, your claim's that this is the "fault" of the predecessor holds no water. Save the Bush Bashing for history. Blaming someone else is only politics and means you fail to address the problem.
Lets try this with my father:
"Robert trashed my car"
"Robert has been away at college for 2 years, how did he trash the car"
"Well it was in bad shape when he gave it to me"
"Did you do anything to try and fix the problem?"
"No, but it was his car first"
"And did Robert forget to change the oil for 2 years"
"No but he drove on bald tires and ran out of gas a lot"
"Did Robert wrap it around a fire hydrant?"
"No but he did do donuts in the parking lot"
Man up and own the problem. Blame is for weaklings. Do you want to govern or not. This was not some secret. These guys wanted the job now stop whinning and fix the problem.
crusader377
07-29-11, 15:33
if this is Bush's fault than exactly, what did the current congress and administration do, to reverse course? If its been a problem for 2+ years and someone else has been in charge, your claim's that this is the "fault" of the predecessor holds no water. Save the Bush Bashing for history. Blaming someone else is only politics and means you fail to address the problem.
Lets try this with my father:
"Robert trashed my car"
"Robert has been away at college for 2 years, how did he trash the car"
"Well it was in bad shape when he gave it to me"
"Did you do anything to try and fix the problem?"
"No, but it was his car first"
"And did Robert forget to change the oil for 2 years"
"No but he drove on bald tires and ran out of gas a lot"
"Did Robert wrap it around a fire hydrant?"
"No but he did do donuts in the parking lot"
Man up and own the problem. Blame is for weaklings. Do you want to govern or not. This was not some secret. These guys wanted the job now stop whinning and fix the problem.
If you bothered to read my posts, I consistantly placed most of the blame on Obama. That said, I'm honest with the assessment that budget problems didn't start with Obama. They were with us for a long time. Obama definately made the problem worse but we had budget issues prior to Obama and Bush did increase the national debt by nearly 5 trillion dollars. To put it in perspective, Bush added to the debt more than the first 40 presidents or roughly 200 years of this nation's history. Obama ran up more debt in his first 2 years than Bush did in 8. Both are bad and Obama is clearly worse but to say the debt is all Obama's fault is a dishonest statement as well.
If you bothered to read my posts, I consistantly placed most of the blame on Obama. That said, I'm honest with the assessment that budget problems didn't start with Obama. They were with us for a long time. Obama definately made the problem worse but we had budget issues prior to Obama and Bush did increase the national debt by nearly 5 trillion dollars. To put it in perspective, Bush added to the debt more than the first 40 presidents or roughly 200 years of this nation's history. Obama ran up more debt in his first 2 years than Bush did in 8. Both are bad and Obama is clearly worse but to say the debt is all Obama's fault is a dishonest statement as well.
The dollar is worth less now than in the past so you cannot do a straight comparison.
Look at the debt and deficits of past presidents with a normalized dollar.
I don't know how that looks and am not trying to excuse Bush or Obama. But straight comparisons don't work due to changes in the value of the dollar
crusader377
07-29-11, 15:43
True, but I was just making an illustration on the massive spending in the last decade.
Gutshot John
07-29-11, 15:46
You're still not getting it.
I've not advocated, nor has anyone else other than lying politico scum, that you raise the debt ceiling without slashing spending.
You have to eventually raise it in the short-term, maybe not today, maybe not on August 2nd, maybe not next month, but ultimately you have to raise it just to deal with the current debt.
If you still want to risk default, that's on you but you better show me how you're going to deal with the very real financial consequences (never mind anticipating what they'll actually be) many of which will make the long-term debt crisis that much worse, of such a choice. If you want me to take you seriously, because your numbers don't add up.
If you dont have those answers and you're glibly talking about no increase in the debt ceiling as if there are no consequences than you're talking out of your ass.
Youd have to essentially eliminate all government spending for the next 10 years to cover the current debt and a fraction of the unfunded liabilities. If you think that's a realistic option than I weep for our future.
If you bothered to read my posts, I consistantly placed most of the blame on Obama. That said, I'm honest with the assessment that budget problems didn't start with Obama. They were with us for a long time. Obama definately made the problem worse but we had budget issues prior to Obama and Bush did increase the national debt by nearly 5 trillion dollars. To put it in perspective, Bush added to the debt more than the first 40 presidents or roughly 200 years of this nation's history. Obama ran up more debt in his first 2 years than Bush did in 8. Both are bad and Obama is clearly worse but to say the debt is all Obama's fault is a dishonest statement as well.
The debt is not _all_ his fault, but the current situation IS. Your posts are full of Obama apologetics. "Well you know we need to be fair, Bush wracked up debt too..."
So did every President except Andrew Jackson. Stop living in the past, making excuses and playing misdirection. If the current group had wanted a solution they'd of had one when the controlled both houses and the presidency. Instead for 2 years we have no budget and NOW we seem to find blame that the "tea party is tying things up with extremism" That means none of this falls to bush or what anyone did from 1492 until 2009. What exactly have they been doing since Bush left office? Government moves slow, but not that slow. If they had wanted a fix, they'd have gotten a fix. Every president has had budget issues and yet they found a way to make it work. The crises is squarely on THIS Congress and THIS president.
You will notice i say CONGRESS and not DEMOCRATS. But I've personally had enough of dragging up past presidents and congress to last a lifetime. STFU and fix the problem or GTFO(not to you personally but to our govt).
Gutshot John
07-29-11, 15:55
Every president has had budget issues and yet they found a way to make it work.
The $10 trillion in debt that existed before this president took office seemingly discredits this statement.
Assuming your definition of 'making it work' is the same as mine.
Obama certainly deserves his share of the blame but the problem has been decades in the making.
Youd have to essentially eliminate all government spending for the next 10 years to cover the current debt and a fraction of the unfunded liabilities. If you think that's a realistic option than I weep for our future.
So borrowing more to pay for past debts is a better option? Keep piling new debt on?
Realistically there is going to be no serious spending cuts without external pressures like an empty wallet and no more credit card.
No, they are not. The money you pay in these taxes goes to fund people getting benefits today. Its not a savings account where the money sits there for 10-40 years earning interest. There is no money to give back. If you want the benefits later down the road that means your kids have to pay it. The government doesn't have the money you've been paying.
That's not my problem. The premise of SS is you pay into the system for a secure retirement (at least the portion SS will cover). It was never intended for us to pay for someone else's retirement and no one pay for ours. If the wonks in DC spent our money elsewhere, then they need to fix the problem THEY created. THEY need to cut spending elsewhere to offset the losses. Otherwise, their credibility in all things financial are is better than Bernie Madhoff's! :mad:
For now they can service the debt...without an increase in the debt ceiling eventually they go into default. This of course ignores the salient fact that we don't have to overtly default in order to see interest rates rise and the debt load increase.
Tell me...how long can they do this?
Umm....forever? That is of course if they'll stop spending money they don't have and PAY OFF some of the debt! No need to raise the debt ceiling if they simply reduce the debt! Of course I guess I'm just a simpleton because that only seems to work for citizens, not the .gov.
Not paying off excessive debt results in a downgraded credit rating, regardless of whether it's Joe Blow or the .gov. That's a fact of life. Something has to give. I'd rather it be discretionary spending. So we have to pull out of some of the 3rd world shitholes we're busy propping up. So we have to call in some markers and favors. So we have to piss off some farmers and corporations and industries and students and patients and poor citizens, etc., etc. ad-nauseum. The eventual alternative is the complete socio-economic collapse of the good ole U.S. of A.!Currently, the autopilot is still engaged and the fuel reading is bingo!
We either deal with a harsh reality now, or a complete disaster later. The choice lies with 535 people who all seem to have their heads stuck in the sand. I weep for our future right now! :(
The_War_Wagon
07-29-11, 16:31
Freeze spending NOW, and start cutting off some of those slabs of flab masquerading as, "gummint"
Departments of Ejumakayshun, Energy, HUD, Labor, Commerce, HHS, Homeland Insecurity, & merge Interior & Agiculture. And RE-name the State Dept. the WAR Department! :mad:
And I'd parcel post every damn Tsar back to Russia, with love. Postage DUE. :mad:
crusader377
07-29-11, 16:48
The $10 trillion in debt that existed before this president took office seemingly discredits this statement.
Assuming your definition of 'making it work' is the same as mine.
Obama certainly deserves his share of the blame but the problem has been decades in the making.
Agree 100%, the main problem and the 800lb gorilla in the room that congress has to solve are the entitlement programs particularly social security. Unfortunately, we have been kicking the can down the road for decades and haven't done anything about it. Our current entitlement spending is unsustainable. The financial crisis of 2008 certainly hastened our budget crisis but it would have happened eventually. I hate to say it but large segments of the American people are also to blame because in the past any politician that even mentioned SS reform or medicare got voted out of office or wasn't even elected in the first place. Everyone has to make sacrifices now in order to bring the United States back to a position of fiscal strength. If we don't do it the country that we will be leaving our children will be a much worse place with far fewer opportunities.
I would vote not to raise the debt ceiling. We need to cull the herd.
If you're gonna talk money then why not look at this (http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=9e2a4ea8-6e73-4be2-a753-62060dcbb3c3).
The first top-to-bottom audit of the Federal Reserve uncovered eye-popping new details about how the U.S. provided a whopping $16 trillion in secret loans to bail out American and foreign banks and businesses during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
The $10 trillion in debt that existed before this president took office seemingly discredits this statement.
Assuming your definition of 'making it work' is the same as mine.
Obama certainly deserves his share of the blame but the problem has been decades in the making.
It sounds like we do have different definitions. Making it work means we keep the government running. We have a new group of people in Congress to want to cut that's good but what we have is a couple of old people in congress who won't cut anything and that's the problem they're the uncompromising people not making it work and they all have Da by the name.
The dbt has been a long time in making the problem but this current crisis is entirely on the shoulders of the Congress and Pres. since 2009 I will not back away from that statement
My apologies for lack of punctuation--I'm using talk to text on my phone
Belmont31R
07-29-11, 18:03
That's not my problem. The premise of SS is you pay into the system for a secure retirement (at least the portion SS will cover). It was never intended for us to pay for someone else's retirement and no one pay for ours. If the wonks in DC spent our money elsewhere, then they need to fix the problem THEY created. THEY need to cut spending elsewhere to offset the losses. Otherwise, their credibility in all things financial are is better than Bernie Madhoff's! :mad:
A premise, and that doesn't mean its going to be around forever. The only reason Bernie Madoff is in jail is because he isn't a government employee. The gov has been running a FAR larger ponzi scheme for decades.
Thats exactly how it works. You pay for grandpas retirement today, and then your kids pay for yours. Theres no fund the money you pay into goes. It goes from your check, through the pipe, and plops out into someones mail box as a check.
All the money you have ever paid is GONE. Don't ask me to replace it for you. If you didn't want to pay it, along with a majority of the voting block, then you should have elected people who weren't going to get their mitts into your paycheck all this time.
Belmont31R
07-29-11, 18:05
It sounds like we do have different definitions. Making it work means we keep the government running. We have a new group of people in Congress to want to cut that's good but what we have is a couple of old people in congress who won't cut anything and that's the problem they're the uncompromising people not making it work and they all have Da by the name.
The dbt has been a long time in making the problem but this current crisis is entirely on the shoulders of the Congress and Pres. since 2009 I will not back away from that statement
No its a mixture of both. Both parties are complicit in setting up these welfare programs that cost us trillions.
Back in 2002 I think it was...Medicare Part D and the research ive done it since but the 10 year cost at around 750 billion. ObamaCare is around a trillion. So the health care plan the republican congress and republican president signed into law was only 75% as costly as Obamas.
Yeah we have some fresh republicans who are doing ok but all the old school ones, save for a few, are neck deep in the entitlements, too.
VooDoo6Actual
07-29-11, 18:48
Have to disagree with you. Bottom line Bush sucked and Obama sucks more than any one else has sucked before. Both parties got us into this mess.
This is unequivocally 100% correct.
Granted Bush inheirited an austere & extremely difficult set of circumstances / situations. He did an extrodinary job at keeping GWOT quelled & contained. Unfortunately the financial costs associated w/ those Patriotic efforts coupled w/ the ongoing corruption, collusion, flat out exploiting & "robbing the till" of the taxpayers, deregulation, unlimited campaign contributions, no term limits, Congresses' own agendas regarding their glutonus entitlements & general ravenous GREED (i.e. pensions, salaries, annuities etc that were unregulated w/ zero accountability etc) deteriorating job growth, infrastructure outsourced w/o prudently & vigilanty infusing new job growth for long term sustainability would prove to be too much to fiscally recover. Bush's NAFTA ratification & failure to lobby $ to complete Border Fence (which clearly would have separated our soverignty literally & metaphorically) were some of the more recent first ballons that went up as a signal where it may go & the the US Gov. had a an addiction to $. Some paid attention some did not. I did. At that point I felt & believed there were parallel agendas & ideologies being conversely implemented.
As this continues to unfold and exponentially get worse we needed real leadership to get us on track & that did not, has not or will it under the current admins watch. In fact current trends, stats, facts, data, projections etc indicate
it's worsening. If you pay close attention to the political prestigitation going on you can see the parallel agendas. The US has an exit strategy in place to extricate ourselves but Republicans, Libtertarians, Constutionalists, Independants etc are not going to like it.
Meanwhile Russia, China, N. Korea et alia kick back eating popcorn, smiling watching America errode & implode. They have their own issues & problems no doubt BUT, nothing that is as significant as the crisis we are processing now. By that I mean our Constitutional Republic.
Our current path & trajectory will entail home grown terrorism from all extremists on both sides of the bubble, migrated terrorism (Muslims) who have exploited our system using taxpayer monies from entitlement programs using the Taqqiya/Kitman in their hearts as a Trojan Horse against our own citizens under the guise of cultural diversity / global unification.
All this as society at street levels has to deal w/ the opportunistic societal parasites, slackers, entitlement addicts,
irresponsible media w/ their corporate paid & bought agenda at the american people's expense.
Obama's "here I come to save the day" approach is not the answer people aligned to our beliefs had hoped for. In fact as time goes on it becomes increasingly apparant it's actually contrarian to & poses as a threat to people's livestyle & beliefs who believe in liberty, free markets, capitalistic ideologies, our constitution etc.
Good times ahead, bank on it.
Oh, BTW UN wants to change it's Blue helmuts to Green under the guise of peacekeeping for Climate Change. Right.....sounds to me like someone tipped them off that Blue was more of a target indicator color than Green to me...
http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/the-green-police-are-no-longer-a-joke-the-un-may-create-an-army-of-green-helmets-to-fight-climate-change
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/20/un-climate-change-peacekeeping
http://evilofindifference.wordpress.com/2011/07/21/un-may-switch-blue-helmets-to-green-then-launch-climate-change-peacekeeping-wars/
Here's a jewel of a OP ED about coming food shortages, UN troops on US soil under Climate Change etc..This is no joke...
http://dprogram.net/2011/07/21/un-may-switch-blue-helmets-to-green-then-launch-climate-change-peacekeeping-wars-mike-adams/
Here's another new development that the press has not covered: I would think it is significant to many people.
Supreme Court: Generic drug makers cannot be sued in state court for permanent damage caused by bad labeling
http://www.naturalnews.com/033074_Supreme_Court_generic_drugs.html
posted from a Droid X
That's not my problem. The premise of SS is you pay into the system for a secure retirement (at least the portion SS will cover). It was never intended for us to pay for someone else's retirement and no one pay for ours. If the wonks in DC spent our money elsewhere, then they need to fix the problem THEY created. THEY need to cut spending elsewhere to offset the losses. Otherwise, their credibility in all things financial are is better than Bernie Madhoff's! :mad:
Dude, it already is.
I voted yes, and made this comment before reading any others.
I believe that the need to raise the debt ceiling is not the problem, it is the symptom of the real problem.
I hear the gov will come to a halt and we will immediately suffer severe consequences if the ceiling is not raised, ie. it is a hard stop. The real issue is WHY we have to raise the debt ceiling. Our over spending, over borrowing, living outside of our means, political games, wasteful government, inefficient use of resources, ****ed up tax code, entitlement programs that don't give it's users incentive to better themselves, lack of understanding the difference between needs and wants, ect ect. Fix those problems, and we won't have to raise the ceiling again. That is the real fix for our problem IMO. living in debt is not living at all, it is borrowing a meek existence on a downward spiral.
I voted no.
I WANT the government to go bankrupt. I WANT all the tit suckers to suffer. I WANT pain and suffering.
And then I want to see this country get out of debt. And the only apparent way I see to do this is to trash usable credit.
I hate the fact that pain is the only way to do this.
It's too bad the voting public has caused this; not the politicians. The politicians are only doing EXACTLY what their voters tell them to do, which is to run a ****ing mess.
I'm only for the temporary raising if we see real defecit AND debt reduction. Currently we have a revenue stream of 2.2 trillion and spending of 3.5 trillion. To reduce the deficit we would need 12 trillion over 10 years to reduce the deficit. More to reduce our debt. And changes to Medicare, Medicaid and SS to stay afloat. The more they kick the can and distract the public with American Idol, the longer I can prep before TSHTF economically.
Belmont31R
07-29-11, 23:29
I'm only for the temporary raising if we see real defecit AND debt reduction. Currently we have a revenue stream of 2.2 trillion and spending of 3.5 trillion. To reduce the deficit we would need 12 trillion over 10 years to reduce the deficit. More to reduce our debt. And changes to Medicare, Medicaid and SS to stay afloat. The more they kick the can and distract the public with American Idol, the longer I can prep before TSHTF economically.
Yeah but the "trick" here is they are all the sudden introducing 10 year plans when its supposed to be a yearly budget. So if the R's agreed, today, to approve the D's proposals (very few) the taxes would be enacted this year yet the debt reductions are "promises" 5+ years from now. The congress next year, or the years after that...can change anything. So we get stuck with higher taxes, and another tax debate with ZERO near term debt reduction.
Fortunately for the dems most are too stupid to realize any of this, and this game will continue until one part has complete control of congress. Ive commented for years the R's are to frail of people to combat the dems, and can't play the game near as well. Any negative impact on this will be placed all on the R's due to complicit media and the game the D's have down pat.
variablebinary
07-30-11, 01:13
I am not for the debt ceiling increase.
Very simply, the fastest way to curb the debt is to stop borrowing. We are already past the point of repaying the debt as it stands. We cannot cut, tax or borrow our way out of a $14 trillion debt.
Meaning what? The only way to really pay down the debt is to print more money and inflate the currency. The more we borrow, the more we need to print, the more we need to destroy the value of the dollar.
The issue now is how much we will need to inflate the currency. Borrowing more now means hurt more later.
I'd rather hurt more now before we really go past the point of no return.
I am not for the debt ceiling increase.
Very simply, the fastest way to curb the debt is to stop borrowing. We are already past the point of repaying the debt as it stands. We cannot cut, tax or borrow our way out of a $14 trillion debt.
Meaning what? The only way to really pay down the debt is to print more money and inflate the currency. The more we borrow, the more we need to print, the more we need to destroy the value of the dollar.
The issue now is how much we will need to inflate the currency. Borrowing more now means hurt more later.
I'd rather hurt more now before we really go past the point of no return.
Umm, they already did that. Unfortunately, instead of using it to pay off the debt, they gave it away to the banks:
The first top-to-bottom audit of the Federal Reserve uncovered eye-popping new details about how the U.S. provided a whopping $16 trillion in secret loans to bail out American and foreign banks and businesses during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
montanadave
07-30-11, 08:26
We are already past the point of repaying the debt as it stands. We cannot cut, tax or borrow our way out of a $14 trillion debt.
The GDP of the United States in 2010 is an estimated $14.7 trillion, roughly a quarter of the global GDP.
By your economic reasoning, virtually anyone who has a mortgage on their home is insolvent and should just throw in the towel. If you earn $75K/yr and have a $200K mortgage, well, shit, game over.
This is the kind of nonsensical reasoning which allows the politicians to stampede an ignorant public right over the cliff. :rolleyes:
variablebinary
07-30-11, 11:47
The GDP of the United States in 2010 is an estimated $14.7 trillion, roughly a quarter of the global GDP.
By your economic reasoning, virtually anyone who has a mortgage on their home is insolvent and should just throw in the towel. If you earn $75K/yr and have a $200K mortgage, well, shit, game over.
This is the kind of nonsensical reasoning which allows the politicians to stampede an ignorant public right over the cliff. :rolleyes:
Someone is forgetting our unfunded liabilities in excess of $60 trillion.
Belmont31R
07-30-11, 15:15
The GDP of the United States in 2010 is an estimated $14.7 trillion, roughly a quarter of the global GDP.
By your economic reasoning, virtually anyone who has a mortgage on their home is insolvent and should just throw in the towel. If you earn $75K/yr and have a $200K mortgage, well, shit, game over.
This is the kind of nonsensical reasoning which allows the politicians to stampede an ignorant public right over the cliff. :rolleyes:
You can borrow that much for a house because its a physical object the bank then owns until you pay it off. If you don't pay it they take the house back, and sell it.
Government borrowing is based on faith because theres nothing for the creditors to come take.
The msm media hasn't been spoonfeeding the budget issue like they have the last 2 years. Somehow they adn most of America forget they have to pass a budget every year.
I think we are well past the point of no return. See HOPLOETHOS for a whole host of issues plus more not mentioned.
crusader377
07-31-11, 21:17
Looks like congress is just came to an agreement to cut between $1-$2 trillion in spending over ten years.:( Remember we are currently running an annual deficit of nearly 1.5 trillion per year. Even if the economy improves drastically we will easily add between 8-10 trillion to the debt over the next 10 years. So like always, instead of doing the hard work and making real changes to entitlements particularly Social Security and Medicare, Congress and the President opted to take the easy road and kicked the deficit can down the road thus making the problem worse in the future.
montanadave
07-31-11, 21:41
The proceedings of the United States Congress have morphed into some bizarre East-West theatrical fusion.
Kabuki theatre best described by Macbeth, "A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
A real life tragedy performed on the world stage.
What a joke... http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DEBT_SHOWDOWN?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-07-31-21-05-43
variablebinary
07-31-11, 21:43
Looks like congress is just came to an agreement to cut between $1-$2 trillion in spending over ten years.:( Remember we are currently running an annual deficit of nearly 1.5 trillion per year. Even if the economy improves drastically we will easily add between 8-10 trillion to the debt over the next 10 years. So like always, instead of doing the hard work and making real changes to entitlements particularly Social Security and Medicare, Congress and the President opted to take the easy road and kicked the deficit can down the road thus making the problem worse in the future.
I'm willing to bet those cuts are rooted in draw downs in AFG, not actually cuts to our nanny state, which will bankrupt us long before any war.
crusader377
07-31-11, 21:48
I'm willing to bet those cuts are rooted in draw downs in AFG, not actually cuts to our nanny state, which will bankrupt us long before any war.
You are probably right. Operations in Afghanistan cost roughly $100 billion a year which is added up over 10 years amounts to more than half of the spending cuts that Congress agreed upon.
variablebinary
07-31-11, 21:58
You are probably right. Operations in Afghanistan cost roughly $100 billion a year which is added up over 10 years amounts to more than half of the spending cuts that Congress agreed upon.
And here is a problem with that kind of thinking/planning: It's success is rooted upon the notion that there will be no need for military action over the next ten years.
Making hard cuts to the nanny state and shrinking government can be maintained even if the nation needs to send troops to nation X for whatever reason.
The world is not a peaceful place, so we should not assume it will be for the sake of our budgetary needs.
Belmont31R
07-31-11, 22:09
What a joke... http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DEBT_SHOWDOWN?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-07-31-21-05-43
There was no risk of default in the first place since we take in around 4X the debt payment per month.
This has all been so weird. People throwing around default all the sudden. So they are saying we have to borrow more to pay what we already borrowed. If that was the case...what would that tell us? The government has been in this situation in the past, many times, and there was no mass stock implosion or default.
I think this whole thing has been rigged. I never had any hope the republicans would ever stay the line they have been touting for weeks. Maybe one day people will actually wake up, and see what is going on.
Here is Gary Bauer's take on this.
---
The Drama & The Deal
Friday evening the House of Representatives passed Speaker Boehner's bill to increase the debt limit. Two hours later the Democrat Senate killed it. Saturday afternoon the House rejected Senate Democrat Leader Harry Reid's bill to raise the debt limit, and on Sunday Reid's bill was filibustered in the Senate.
While that drama was playing out, congressional leaders began negotiating a last-minute deal with the White House. Here's the basic outline of what was announced Sunday afternoon:
The deal provides for an initial increase in the debt limit of $900 billion in exchange for $917 billion in spending cuts over ten years. These cuts would be enforced by spending caps on discretionary programs. There would be no immediate tax increases.
President Obama would be allowed to request a second increase, up to $1.5 trillion, in the debt limit if a new joint congressional committee came up with spending cuts equal to the amount of the debt limit increase. If Congress failed to approve the committee's recommendations, then mandatory spending cuts would take effect.
Unfortunately, entitlement programs (the main drivers of our debt) appear largely shielded from the cuts, while a significant portion of future spending cuts would come from the Defense budget.
The deal calls for a congressional vote on a balanced budget amendment before the end of the year.
The Reaction
As is often the case with such deals, no one is happy. Last night one conservative freshman senator called the deal "disgusting." This morning, one liberal House Democrat labeled it "a sugar-coated Satan sandwich."
In an op-ed entitled "A Tea Party Triumph," the Wall Street Journal writes:
"The big picture is that the deal is a victory for the cause of smaller government, arguably the biggest since welfare reform in 1996. Most bipartisan budget deals trade tax increases that are immediate for spending cuts that turn out to be fictional. This one includes no immediate tax increases… The immediate spending cuts are real, if smaller than we'd prefer, and the longer-term cuts could be real if Republicans hold Congress and continue to enforce the deal's spending caps. …
"This is no small achievement considering that Republicans control neither the Senate nor the White House, and it underscores how much the GOP victory in November has reshaped the U.S. fiscal debate."
There is not unanimity on the right. The Heritage Foundation called it a "sour deal" that pits our economic security against our national security. Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann are against it. But while there is some division on the right, there is universal outrage on the left and real anger at Obama.
The New York Times labeled the compromise a "terrible deal." The Times editorial bemoans the spending cuts with no tax increases as "a nearly complete capitulation to the hostage-taking demands of Republican extremists." The left-wing group MoveOn.org is against it, saying that the "debt deal has gone from bad to worse." Arianna Huffington said, "this is a terrible moment for Democrats."
Vermont's socialist senator, Bernie Sanders, called the deal "a huge victory for Republicans." The leaders of the House Congressional Black Caucus and the Progressive Caucus have condemned the deal. The Hill reports that more House liberals are now calling on Obama to unilaterally raise the debt limit under the theory that the 14th Amendment gives him the authority to do so.
My Take
This deal will win no "gold medals." Parts of it make me livid as a conservative. It does nothing to reform entitlement spending and potentially puts Pentagon spending on the chopping block. On the other hand, it prevents immediate tax increases that Obama and his Democrat allies demanded, and calls for at least $2 trillion in spending cuts over the next ten years. That is a small victory, but a victory nonetheless. And the debate has hurt Obama, and shifted the whole playing field in our direction.
Here's my bottom line: Conservatives who argue that this deal does not solve our fiscal problems are correct. But it is not realistic to think we can get serious entitlement reform and spending restraint out of Harry Reid's Senate or from Obama's White House!
The national debt will not be brought under control until conservatives control the Senate, the House of Representatives and the White House. The 2012 elections are even more important to solving our fiscal crisis than this current debate on the debt limit. If we win back the Senate and also send Obama back to Chicago in November 2012, the new Congress and new president should immediately renegotiate the deal to make larger spending cuts AND TAX CUTS.
The Tea Party conservatives who were elected to rein in spending have gotten a good down payment on that promise. God bless them! Now we have to take the fight to the American people. Later this year we will have a vote on a balanced budget amendment. That will be another great teachable moment for the voters, who will have the final say next November.
Here is Gary Bauer's take on this.
---
The Drama & The Deal
Friday evening the House of Representatives passed Speaker Boehner's bill to increase the debt limit. Two hours later the Democrat Senate killed it. Saturday afternoon the House rejected Senate Democrat Leader Harry Reid's bill to raise the debt limit, and on Sunday Reid's bill was filibustered in the Senate.
While that drama was playing out, congressional leaders began negotiating a last-minute deal with the White House. Here's the basic outline of what was announced Sunday afternoon:
The deal provides for an initial increase in the debt limit of $900 billion in exchange for $917 billion in spending cuts over ten years. These cuts would be enforced by spending caps on discretionary programs. There would be no immediate tax increases.
President Obama would be allowed to request a second increase, up to $1.5 trillion, in the debt limit if a new joint congressional committee came up with spending cuts equal to the amount of the debt limit increase. If Congress failed to approve the committee's recommendations, then mandatory spending cuts would take effect.
Unfortunately, entitlement programs (the main drivers of our debt) appear largely shielded from the cuts, while a significant portion of future spending cuts would come from the Defense budget.
The deal calls for a congressional vote on a balanced budget amendment before the end of the year.
The Reaction
As is often the case with such deals, no one is happy. Last night one conservative freshman senator called the deal "disgusting." This morning, one liberal House Democrat labeled it "a sugar-coated Satan sandwich."
In an op-ed entitled "A Tea Party Triumph," the Wall Street Journal writes:
"The big picture is that the deal is a victory for the cause of smaller government, arguably the biggest since welfare reform in 1996. Most bipartisan budget deals trade tax increases that are immediate for spending cuts that turn out to be fictional. This one includes no immediate tax increases… The immediate spending cuts are real, if smaller than we'd prefer, and the longer-term cuts could be real if Republicans hold Congress and continue to enforce the deal's spending caps. …
"This is no small achievement considering that Republicans control neither the Senate nor the White House, and it underscores how much the GOP victory in November has reshaped the U.S. fiscal debate."
There is not unanimity on the right. The Heritage Foundation called it a "sour deal" that pits our economic security against our national security. Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann are against it. But while there is some division on the right, there is universal outrage on the left and real anger at Obama.
The New York Times labeled the compromise a "terrible deal." The Times editorial bemoans the spending cuts with no tax increases as "a nearly complete capitulation to the hostage-taking demands of Republican extremists." The left-wing group MoveOn.org is against it, saying that the "debt deal has gone from bad to worse." Arianna Huffington said, "this is a terrible moment for Democrats."
Vermont's socialist senator, Bernie Sanders, called the deal "a huge victory for Republicans." The leaders of the House Congressional Black Caucus and the Progressive Caucus have condemned the deal. The Hill reports that more House liberals are now calling on Obama to unilaterally raise the debt limit under the theory that the 14th Amendment gives him the authority to do so.
My Take
This deal will win no "gold medals." Parts of it make me livid as a conservative. It does nothing to reform entitlement spending and potentially puts Pentagon spending on the chopping block. On the other hand, it prevents immediate tax increases that Obama and his Democrat allies demanded, and calls for at least $2 trillion in spending cuts over the next ten years. That is a small victory, but a victory nonetheless. And the debate has hurt Obama, and shifted the whole playing field in our direction.
Here's my bottom line: Conservatives who argue that this deal does not solve our fiscal problems are correct. But it is not realistic to think we can get serious entitlement reform and spending restraint out of Harry Reid's Senate or from Obama's White House!
The national debt will not be brought under control until conservatives control the Senate, the House of Representatives and the White House. The 2012 elections are even more important to solving our fiscal crisis than this current debate on the debt limit. If we win back the Senate and also send Obama back to Chicago in November 2012, the new Congress and new president should immediately renegotiate the deal to make larger spending cuts AND TAX CUTS.
The Tea Party conservatives who were elected to rein in spending have gotten a good down payment on that promise. God bless them! Now we have to take the fight to the American people. Later this year we will have a vote on a balanced budget amendment. That will be another great teachable moment for the voters, who will have the final say next November.
I take it Gary Bauer is a partisan politico? The real truth is, the national debt will not be brought under control by the Democrats or the faux conservatives wrapping themselves in the veneer of the republican party. Quite frankly, there's Tom Coburn and then there's the rest of the Republicans in some form or another pretending to want spending cuts (and even Coburn was stupid enough to buy the bailout crap!).
I would argue that we're so deep down the rabbit hole that merely waking up isn't going to cut it. We need MASSIVE spending cuts AND tax increases to get this beast brought to heel. IF, we could get out in front and have no debt, coupled with a healthy reserve, then we could reduce taxes back to pre-Reagan levels.
The key is neither branch of the federal government, but the press. We need protests in front of every major "news" outlet, every day. We need to send them a message that they've abandoned their sacred duty and failed the country. They drink whatever flavor of kool-aid the .gov serves them on a daily basis.
We need daily headlines proclaiming the ineptitude of Congress and the Oval Office in their handling of the budget and debt crisis. We need detailed expose' reporting on the back room deals that line the pockets of a few at the cost of the country. We need names, dates, amounts and all the seedy details. If that's what they print and broadcast, that's what the population will listen to.
We need the media equivalent of rotten eggs and tomatoes thrown at Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and every legislator who would make a deal with them daily. I would argue that politics has been entirely too civil for the past decade. We need some down and dirty fighters to get in there and deliver a KO punch to these asshats that allegedly run our country. They only place they've been running it is into the ground! :mad:
This "theory" (I place this in quotations because I do not believe that anyone honestly believes it) that the President has the authority to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling under the 14th Amendment is dangerous and the adherents to this idea seem to be getting louder as the debate drags on.
That would seem to add a constitutional crisis on top of the ongoing economic/fiscal one.
I take it Gary Bauer is a partisan politico? The real truth is, the national debt will not be brought under control by the Democrats or the faux conservatives wrapping themselves in the veneer of the republican party. Quite frankly, there's Tom Coburn and then there's the rest of the Republicans in some form or another pretending to want spending cuts (and even Coburn was stupid enough to buy the bailout crap!).
I would argue that we're so deep down the rabbit hole that merely waking up isn't going to cut it. We need MASSIVE spending cuts AND tax increases to get this beast brought to heel. IF, we could get out in front and have no debt, coupled with a healthy reserve, then we could reduce taxes back to pre-Reagan levels.
I agree that over the long term revenue will need to be increased and spending massively cut. However, a massive cut in spending, coupled with income tax hikes during a period of 1.4% economic growth and 9% reported / 18% effective unemployment would be disasterous. The best bet to get out of this mess is to gradually reduce spending once we have 6 months of at least 4-5% growth. An immediate and focused tax cut for small business would help get the economic train moving. Keep in mind that the real economic crisis is Medicare and SS entitlements that need to be addressed within the next 5-10 years.
Once we have unemployment under 6% and at least 4% growth, then we can focus on an overhaul of the tax code and entitlements. The tax code is probably best addressed with a fair tax system that does not punish achievement like our current income tax scheme. This would need to be coupled with serious Medicare reform that gradually phases out government sponsored health care in favor of expanded flex spending accounts (similar to a 401K plans with pretax dollars and employer contributions) and catastrophic only insurance coverage. Social Security will also need to be addressed in a similar manner with gradual privatization. This means that the average American (i.e. the 47% that pay no income tax) will contribute more revenue thru a fair tax and be more responsible for their healthcare dollars. Finally, each state should take an axe to Medicaid with mandatory drug testing, tightening of eligibility criteria, etc.
Overall, the average Americans will experience a small decline in their standard of living compared to the current system of unsustainable government entitlements. However, this decline will be far less painful than a sudden collapse in the economy and entitlement structure if we do not walk this tightrope over the next 5-10 years.
variablebinary
08-02-11, 00:02
Damn short sighted fools.
This complete lack of effort to maintain the value of the dollar makes more sense daily.
The apparent goal here is to turn the USA into Zimbabwe, where it takes a wheelbarrow worth of money just to get a glass of milk.
That is the only way we can ever hope to deal with this debt.
Monetize the debt with monopoly money...There is a reason commodities are on the rise.
variablebinary
08-02-11, 03:23
And as I knew it would be, a huge amount of the cuts are defense related
Yay?
I agree that over the long term revenue will need to be increased and spending massively cut. However, a massive cut in spending, coupled with income tax hikes during a period of 1.4% economic growth and 9% reported / 18% effective unemployment would be disasterous. The best bet to get out of this mess is to gradually reduce spending once we have 6 months of at least 4-5% growth. An immediate and focused tax cut for small business would help get the economic train moving. Keep in mind that the real economic crisis is Medicare and SS entitlements that need to be addressed within the next 5-10 years.
Once we have unemployment under 6% and at least 4% growth, then we can focus on an overhaul of the tax code and entitlements. The tax code is probably best addressed with a fair tax system that does not punish achievement like our current income tax scheme. This would need to be coupled with serious Medicare reform that gradually phases out government sponsored health care in favor of expanded flex spending accounts (similar to a 401K plans with pretax dollars and employer contributions) and catastrophic only insurance coverage. Social Security will also need to be addressed in a similar manner with gradual privatization. This means that the average American (i.e. the 47% that pay no income tax) will contribute more revenue thru a fair tax and be more responsible for their healthcare dollars. Finally, each state should take an axe to Medicaid with mandatory drug testing, tightening of eligibility criteria, etc.
Overall, the average Americans will experience a small decline in their standard of living compared to the current system of unsustainable government entitlements. However, this decline will be far less painful than a sudden collapse in the economy and entitlement structure if we do not walk this tightrope over the next 5-10 years.
Perhaps I'm a pessimist, but I fear we may not see those conditions for many years, longer if we don't do something now. :(
Belmont31R
08-02-11, 17:41
I agree that over the long term revenue will need to be increased and spending massively cut. However, a massive cut in spending, coupled with income tax hikes during a period of 1.4% economic growth and 9% reported / 18% effective unemployment would be disasterous. The best bet to get out of this mess is to gradually reduce spending once we have 6 months of at least 4-5% growth. An immediate and focused tax cut for small business would help get the economic train moving. Keep in mind that the real economic crisis is Medicare and SS entitlements that need to be addressed within the next 5-10 years.
Once we have unemployment under 6% and at least 4% growth, then we can focus on an overhaul of the tax code and entitlements. The tax code is probably best addressed with a fair tax system that does not punish achievement like our current income tax scheme. This would need to be coupled with serious Medicare reform that gradually phases out government sponsored health care in favor of expanded flex spending accounts (similar to a 401K plans with pretax dollars and employer contributions) and catastrophic only insurance coverage. Social Security will also need to be addressed in a similar manner with gradual privatization. This means that the average American (i.e. the 47% that pay no income tax) will contribute more revenue thru a fair tax and be more responsible for their healthcare dollars. Finally, each state should take an axe to Medicaid with mandatory drug testing, tightening of eligibility criteria, etc.
Overall, the average Americans will experience a small decline in their standard of living compared to the current system of unsustainable government entitlements. However, this decline will be far less painful than a sudden collapse in the economy and entitlement structure if we do not walk this tightrope over the next 5-10 years.
The Bush tax cuts proved that you can increase income by lowering taxes because people have more money with to hire and grow the economy. Yes there is an initial decrease in revenue because its takes small business and others a few years to put that money to use.
Raising taxes has an immediate income growth but long term decrease as over time when people have less and less money they stop hiring and such.
Comparing historical rates is near meaningless at this time because taxes elsewhere have popped up, and grown. Look at your utility bills and there are taxes for everything that never used to exist which effect all of us. Sales taxes, which effect all of us, have continually grown. Property taxes have grown. Even things like traffic tickets have grown.
Also remember things have become much more technological, and its much harder to get away with skipping taxes today than it is now. Do you think people were as afraid today as they were in years past at not paying taxes? Before it was just a ledger with hand written receipts. No credit cards, no debit cards, cash went in walls and hidey holes. A hand shake was a contract. People used to have "credit" or "tabs" with their local business. Now there is a debit/credit machine attached to every register recording every transaction forever.
So, basically, its not a revenue problem. The problem is the government has promised too much, and offered too many services. Ive mentioned this a few times...but go sit in a social security office for an hour...go sit in your county health building for an hour...go out and see where all this money is being spent. My state is regarded as being conservative, and our biggest budget is health and human services. Next is education. Its not roads, its not law enforcement, ect. Those are all small beans to the entitlement spending and freebies. States have to let prisoners out of jail because its too expensive yet those are some of the smallest segments of the budget in most states. Like 5% range.
Not only is it a spending problem but its a priority problem. The things that hold us together are becoming 2nd to keeping the welfare crew happy and things like spending massive amounts of money on education. Check out my thread on what my district has done. Lay off teachers while they are building these 20 million + stadiums all over the place. Never had a football player come to my door asking for donations...never seen a football team doing car washes for money..my entire life Ive never seen a football team have to beg for money. Our priorities are so screwed.
If I could go back in time..come back...but first place a bet on how the founders would react...I would bet 1. they would shocked our country lasted this long & 2. not be surprised we have become slaves to a debt this large and a lack of freedoms along with the growth of government powers. They knew it would come to this, and that is why we started out with as little government power as possible without being anarchy. That way it would give us more time as a nation. By restricting the government as much as they did it bought us time, and why we have lasted this long.
The Bush tax cuts proved that you can increase income by lowering taxes because people have more money with to hire and grow the economy. Yes there is an initial decrease in revenue because its takes small business and others a few years to put that money to use...
I think that you and I are in agreement as I'm in favor of an immediate tax cut directed at small business to get better control of the unemployment situation. A modest tax cut, coupled with repeal of Obamacare (PPACA), would stimulate employment at traditional recovery rates.
I'm also in favor of gradual privatization of most entitlements including Medicare and Social Security. I'd also significantly cut Medicaid which is the single largest budget item for most states (15% in NC now; 25% in 2014 when PPACA is fully enacted).
Where we probably differ a little is in the need for more revenue. While we can balance the budget with spending cuts and entitlement reform, I do not think that we will cut into the $14T debt with the necessary haste without increasing revenue. However, I would not raise income taxes to get this done. I am in favor of replacing the income tax with a fair tax system (or flat tax) that raises revenue through increased economic production.
montanadave
08-03-11, 06:48
So, basically, its not a revenue problem.
Well, actually, it IS a revenue problem. And a spending problem. It's two, two, two problems in one. Chew on that.
http://www.slideshare.net/rattnerfamily/morning-joe-charts-revenue-vs-spending-and-taxes-72511
Belmont31R
08-03-11, 11:08
Well, actually, it IS a revenue problem. And a spending problem. It's two, two, two problems in one. Chew on that.
http://www.slideshare.net/rattnerfamily/morning-joe-charts-revenue-vs-spending-and-taxes-72511
2.1 trillion a year is over double what they need to fulfill their constitutional responsibilities.
Damed if you do and damned if you don't. Each option is just a matter of time. Pick one option and you slow the schedule to total collapse down. Choose the other and it happens in a matter of days.
The debt ceiling is not the issue. The spending is. Cut the spending and you negate the debt ceiling issue (eventually). The ceiling is only a symptom of the problem... spending more than we have and borrowing to pay the interest on what we just borrowed.
Just bend over and kiss your arse goodbye as no one in office has the balls to cut social spending budgets deeply to save us from total doom. Doom those on SS & MC or doom us all? The politicians will choose doom us all especially since they keep getting re-elected.
montanadave
08-03-11, 11:54
Truth be told, relatively modest adjustments to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid could allow those programs to function effectively and remain fiscally solvent in perpetuity. Raise the eligibility ages to reflect the changing demographics and actuarial data, implement means testing for both, ferret out waste and duplication of services, greater emphasis on preventative care, competitive bidding for prescription drugs, these are just a few changes that would dramatically alter the cost projections for these programs without kicking anybody to the curb.
Unfortunately, both sides want to demagogue the issues and vilify the opposition while the special interests and lobbyists are fighting tooth and nail to insure that nobody breaks their rice bowl. Witness the spate of TV ads with Paul Ryan pushing granny off the cliff in her wheelchair, the whole "death panels" bullshit, and AARP's group of seniors straight out of central casting asking Congress "What were you thinking?" in response to any mention of entitlement reforms.
That's the problem. Seniors vote. Reliably and predictably. The pols know it and they don't dare incur the wrath of the grey haired. Sure, you can say the same for low income groups and their entitlement programs but, realistically, what are they gonna do if the Democrats agreed to scale back those programs, start voting Libertarian? Not likely.
Belmont31R
08-03-11, 14:16
Truth be told, relatively modest adjustments to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid could allow those programs to function effectively and remain fiscally solvent in perpetuity. Raise the eligibility ages to reflect the changing demographics and actuarial data, implement means testing for both, ferret out waste and duplication of services, greater emphasis on preventative care, competitive bidding for prescription drugs, these are just a few changes that would dramatically alter the cost projections for these programs without kicking anybody to the curb.
Unfortunately, both sides want to demagogue the issues and vilify the opposition while the special interests and lobbyists are fighting tooth and nail to insure that nobody breaks their rice bowl. Witness the spate of TV ads with Paul Ryan pushing granny off the cliff in her wheelchair, the whole "death panels" bullshit, and AARP's group of seniors straight out of central casting asking Congress "What were you thinking?" in response to any mention of entitlement reforms.
That's the problem. Seniors vote. Reliably and predictably. The pols know it and they don't dare incur the wrath of the grey haired. Sure, you can say the same for low income groups and their entitlement programs but, realistically, what are they gonna do if the Democrats agreed to scale back those programs, start voting Libertarian? Not likely.
They had their whole lives to save. Then the kids today are the entitlement generation....:rolleyes: Id love to see all those programs ended today.
“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”
Belmont31R
08-03-11, 15:29
Here is a notion to look at.
1920/21 depression with about a 50% drop in stocks, above 10% unemployment... Harding, and then Coolidge cut spending by almost 50%, and cut taxes to where very few people even paid taxes. Led to roaring 20's which had some of the greatest leaps in the standard of living ever.
1929 stock crash was proceeded by Hoover raising taxes and spending. Stock crash wasn't even as big of a percent as the 1920 crash. Government response to 1929 crash was taxes and spending. Even 10 years later unemployment was still at 15% despite a huge expansion by FDR of spending and government programs. Some of these programs we still have today. There was also two more recessions in 1930's. Unemployment only goes back to normal once we enter WW2.
Late 70's we have the carter in there, high unemployment, oil prices, interest rates, ect. Reagan comes in, reforms tax code and lowers taxes. He did raise spending (a lot of it military based not so much social programs). Gets us out of mess pretty quick.
2000 recession and 9/11 led to downed economy. Bush cuts taxes, and leads to low unemployment numbers for most of his two terms, some of the longest straight gains in GDP, ect. Highest tax revenues ever by the IRS.
2008 crash is followed by massive government spending, calls for higher taxes, increase in government and regulation. Kerry says we need new deal 2. 1 trillion stimulus, 650 billion TARP, billions on unemployment, programs to aide farmers home owners keep their home, and unemployment (effective) of almost 20% with many more underemployed, loss of benefits, pay raises, and bonuses.
This economy is going to stay stagnant because we are doing the exact opposite of what has been effective before, and doing exactly what has not worked in the past. Big government, spending, and taxes have proven themselves many times in the past to not work...and actually make things worse. Every time we have followed a crash or downturn with lower taxes and spending the economy has bounced back quickly, and led to a decade of prosperity. Harding did it, and you never hear about the 1920 crash because it doesn't fit into the liberal/big government mold. All you hear about is FDR and the great depression. As I mentioned the crash of 1920 was actually worse, as far as a percent of loss, than the 1929 crash. Cutting spending in half in the early 20's, and lowering taxes to where few paid them led to the Roaring 20's. Nothing was special about the 30's except that FDR ushered in the era of big government and control. Look at the GDP's pre, during, and post FDR. In the 20's the spending as a percent of GDP was about 3-5%. Thats right. During FDR's time it was more than quadroopled, and all he managed to do was lower the unemployment rate about 1-2% a year down to 15% at the start of World War 2.
So its really no surprise why we are so stagnant now, and are not going to recover anytime soon. With the entitlements we have today its impossible to cut the spending like Harding and Coolidge did because the people who would cut the spending are not electable. We've basically paralyzed ourselves out of being able to take the correct approach to dealing with economic downturns. If you look at what we were spending money on in the past vs. today the entitlements take up a much bigger chunk of the pie than they did previously. For instance in 1985 social security cost 188 billion. Converted to todays dollars that is 384 billion. Today we are spending around 750 billion a year in social security.
Belmont31R
08-04-11, 09:24
Treasury department officially announced we have reached a debt 100% of GDP.
GermanSynergy
08-04-11, 09:57
Treasury department officially announced we have reached a debt 100% of GDP.
We obviously haven't spent enough money, or taxed rich folks enough.
Treasury department officially announced we have reached a debt 100% of GDP.
The answer is live within our means. (http://youtu.be/ajBJ6hip51g)
It's a race to the bottom for the Yen, Euro and USD. :bad:
Belmont31R
08-04-11, 16:31
Attributing that to the debt ceiling may be premature...it might have something to do with a little thing called the economy...just a thought
Which is tied to bonds, treasures, natl debt, unemployment, and such.
Belmont31R
08-04-11, 16:37
Dow down over 500 points today....great work in DC there guys! :rolleyes:
Gutshot John
08-04-11, 16:41
Dow down over 500 points today....great work in DC there guys! :rolleyes:
Attributing that to the debt ceiling may be premature...it might have something to do with a little thing called the economy...just a thought
Attributing that to the debt ceiling may be premature...it might have something to do with a little thing called the economy...just a thought
Along with the unemployment report that came out yesterday.
VooDoo6Actual
08-04-11, 17:10
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e225/teehee321/WhiteHousesraises.jpg
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e225/teehee321/ObamaMoney.jpg
VooDoo6Actual
08-05-11, 18:45
Montanadave writes:
"Thanks for nothing, you Congressional ****s!"
I'm glad they pulled the trigger, did the ethical & correct action.
BY the downgrade maybe it will curb the propensity and appetite of the US GOV. not living within their means.
They need to feel some pain & take a haircut in a big way. Double standards w/ no accountability is not a good thing or financial paradigm for success. They need to be embarrassed
I know wishful thinking at best.
Belmont31R
08-05-11, 18:48
And despite all the pathetic bullshit, Standard and Poor's just downgraded the U.S credit rating.
Thanks for nothing, you Congressional ****s!
http://news.yahoo.com/p-reconsidering-u-downgrade-cnbc-001207261.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14428930
Truth be told, relatively modest adjustments to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid could allow those programs to function effectively and remain fiscally solvent in perpetuity.
Good luck to you...fine sir.
Belmont31R
08-05-11, 19:10
S&P downgraded us today to AA rating.
montanadave
08-05-11, 19:37
And despite all the pathetic bullshit, Standard and Poor's just downgraded the U.S credit rating.
Thanks for nothing, you Congressional ****s!
http://news.yahoo.com/p-reconsidering-u-downgrade-cnbc-001207261.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14428930
Just in case anyone is casting about for a little cheery bedtime story, here's the link to the Standard and Poor's research report detailing their rationale for the credit downgrade:
http://www.standardandpoors.com/servlet/BlobServer?blobheadername3=MDT-Type&blobcol=urldata&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobheadervalue2=inline%3B+filename%3DUS_Downgraded_AA%2B.pdf&blobheadername2=Content-Disposition&blobheadervalue1=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobheadername1=content-type&blobwhere=1243942957443&blobheadervalue3=UTF-8
Well that was certainly uplifting
Eurodriver
08-05-11, 20:12
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4949612#4949614
The nuts over on DU are going...well...nuts!
To them, its all because we didn't raise taxes! I like the sneaky little comment in the middle about "Well why didn't we raise taxes when we controlled both houses?" :jester:
Don't worry this doesn't affect Jersey Shore, American Idol or Dancing with teh Stars.
montanadave
08-05-11, 20:42
Just in case anyone is casting about for a little cheery bedtime story, here's the link to the Standard and Poor's research report detailing their rationale for the credit downgrade:
http://www.standardandpoors.com/servlet/BlobServer?blobheadername3=MDT-Type&blobcol=urldata&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobheadervalue2=inline%3B+filename%3DUS_Downgraded_AA%2B.pdf&blobheadername2=Content-Disposition&blobheadervalue1=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobheadername1=content-type&blobwhere=1243942957443&blobheadervalue3=UTF-8
ForTehNguyen
08-05-11, 20:45
now what do these policitians think now. Over and over, raise the debt ceiling so our credit rating doesnt get downgraded. Then we raise the debt ceiling and it gets downgraded. Complete egg on their face. S&P is finally growing a spine. The Keynesians and big govt politicians must look completely stunned and utter fools now.
Belmont31R
08-05-11, 21:15
The US Postal Service warned on Friday that it could default on payments it owes the federal government, just days after the US government itself narrowly averted a default.
yahoo
Belmont31R
08-06-11, 10:21
China bluntly criticized the United States on Saturday one day after the superpower's credit rating was downgraded, saying the "good old days" of borrowing were over.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/06/us-eurozone-idUSTRE7712HB20110806
woodandsteel
08-06-11, 10:36
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/06/us-eurozone-idUSTRE7712HB20110806
Kind of funny when the communists tells you to cut back on social welfare;
It urged the United States to cut military and social welfare expenditure.
Belmont31R
08-06-11, 10:50
Kind of funny when the communists tells you to cut back on social welfare;
That kind of communism means NOT getting top quality care as a sacrifice to the party and people. Its just mass slavery to the government, and the government tells you they represent the people. Nifty little word tricks. Of course the leaders all mostly live in luxury and go to western nations for health care.
Their social program is a 5 cent bullet to the back of the head.
Under the NRCMCS, the annual cost of medical coverage is 50 yuan (US$7) per person .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_health-care_in_China
woodandsteel
08-06-11, 10:56
I realize that.
My earlier post was just another failed attempt by me at humor.
Even though there isn't anything funny at all about this situation we are in.
now what do these policitians think now. Over and over, raise the debt ceiling so our credit rating doesnt get downgraded. Then we raise the debt ceiling and it gets downgraded. Complete egg on their face. S&P is finally growing a spine. The Keynesians and big govt politicians must look completely stunned and utter fools now.
The whole notion that the debt ceiling had to be raised to prevent a downgrade was somewhat of a red herring. The ratings agencies have said for awhile that the issue is the amount of debt.
They don't think they look like fools, by the way...they will just blame conservatives and it will work for the most part.
Sent from my Evo using Tapatalk
Belmont31R
08-06-11, 12:56
Geithner says no risk of credit rating downgrade and says S&P is absolutely wrong.
http://youtu.be/0HDCvqgxrrE
VooDoo6Actual
08-06-11, 16:04
"If the US Government was a family, they would be making $58,000 a year, they spend $75,000 a year, and are $327,000 in credit card debt. They are currently proposing BIG spending cuts to reduce their spending to $72,000 a year. These are the actual proportions of the federal budget and debt, reduced to a level that we can understand."
—
Dave Ramsey
Their social program is a 5 cent bullet to the back of the head.
5 cent ammo! Whoo hoo!! I'm going to China!!!! :D
Good find Hop. Definitely puts things in a perspective more people can wrap their heads around.
S&P is saying we have a 1 in 3 chance of getting downgraded another notch. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_US_DEBT_RATING_CHAMBERS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-08-07-11-03-40
Belmont31R
08-07-11, 10:37
Democrats are blaming the republicans particularly the Tea Party members.
Remember S&P said there had to be significant cuts which the democrats didn't want.
Appearing Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Kerry called S&P’s decision a “tea party downgrade.” The Massachusetts Democrat says he believes that tea party supporters in the House are holding up progress.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/kerry-mccain-say-bipartisan-work-needed-post-sandp-downgrade-differ-on-who-to-blame/2011/08/07/gIQA7UjV0I_story.html
He also said this about a week ago:
And I have to tell you, I say this to you politely. The media in America has a bigger responsibility than it’s exercising today. The media has got to begin to not give equal time or equal balance to an absolutely absurd notion just because somebody asserts it or simply because somebody says something which everybody knows is not factual.
It doesn’t deserve the same credit as a legitimate idea about what you do. And the problem is everything is put into this tit-for-tat equal battle and America is losing any sense of what’s real, of who’s accountable, of who is not accountable, of who’s real, who isn’t, who’s serious, who isn’t?
This is going to be the line of attack. Obama didn't save us because the Tea Party are terrorists and held up his work. If we didn't have the Tea Party members in Congress the nation could be healed.
:rolleyes:
variablebinary
08-07-11, 11:13
It's a given that the Tea Party is going to be blamed by all the country club dems and GOP because you can't do anything with a person that draws a line in the sand as a matter of principle.
Remember the end of "Watchmen"? Rorschach said "no compromise" and both the good and bad guy agreed he had to go. That's the Tea Party. Neither the Dems or Reps want them there because it throws a wrench in the gravy train for both sides.
Keep in mind that there were two conservative spending plans proposed by the Republicans that would have raised the debt ceiling and met the S&P standard of $4T in savings over 10 years to avoid a downgrade. The first was the Cut, Cap, and Balance Plan which would have saved about $5.8T over 10 years. It was designed to only cut about $100B in 2012 to avoid damaging a weakened economy. It sailed through the House (only Paul and Bachmann voted against it on the Republican side) only to be tabled by the Senate without a floor vote. The second was the Penny Mack Plan which had growing support but not enough time for serious consideration. It proposed spending cuts of 1% per year over the next 6 years which totals about $7T in savings over the next 10 years. Both would have raised the debt ceiling, avoided a downgrade, and most importantly bought another 5-10 years to reform the tax code and get to real entitlement reform. Both were proposed by Republicans with conservative backing. Both were rejected by the President and Democrat-controlled Senate.
On the other hand, the Democrats never proposed a plan that would meet the S&P's criteria to avoid a downgrade. In fact, the only plan proposed by the Democrats was the Reid spending cuts of $2.7T which did not have enough muscle to make the grade. Although the Dems used the media to make the case for revenue increases (i.e. tax increases on the rich or closing loop holes and lowering rates), they could not put it in a plan that met the $4T standard. They knew that any such combination of tax hikes and spending cuts would have stoked fears of damaging the economy with the taxes, or angered the liberal base with the spending cuts - a combination that spelled disaster for the Dems in 2012. Therefore, they sat on their hand and played goalkeeper against the republican plans headed toward the Senate.
Since the Dems could never muster a vote on a plan that would have avoided a downgrade, its rather unfair to say that the conservative wing of the Republican Party held the nation hostage. In fact, the exact opposite happened with the Dems blocking the only legislation that passed a house (Cut Cap and Balance) that would have made the grade. So, if you are angry at Washington for a lack of compromise, look no further than the President and his liberal friends.
Belmont31R
08-07-11, 13:59
Keep in mind that there were two conservative spending plans proposed by the Republicans that would have raised the debt ceiling and met the S&P standard of $4T in savings over 10 years to avoid a downgrade.
The democrat controlled senate has not passed a budget in over 800 days, and they whipped out the Reid bill just days before the deadline. So in reality not only has the Senate not passed a bill in over 800 days they never really had a plan. Obama never proposed a plan but just some talking points. Neither the senate nor Obama ever proposed a plan to avoid the credit rating decrease S&P warned us about, and as far as I can tell they never agreed to one, either.
But their failure is blamed on the Tea Party, and they are going to completely lie about why our credit rating was lowered. Thats the only way they can hide the fact they never proposed or voted on their own plan which would have avoided the lowering.
Ron Paul on Cavuto discussing the issues. http://youtu.be/LvIxiSY1DV8 I think it's great that he's getting so much more press and being interviewed far more frequently now that some of the MSM talking heads have realized he's one of the very few politicians who actually understands economics and what's going on with our country.
Belmont31R
08-07-11, 16:50
One element of the GOP deficit reduction plans conveniently overlooked by everyone during the debate was that the projected savings were calculated based on the Bush tax cuts expiring at the end of 2012. When the CBO "scored" the proposals, they had to calculate future revenues based on what the law currently says (i.e. tax rates will revert back to pre-Bush tax cut levels in 2013).
But we all know full well the Republicans are going to fight tooth and nail to make those tax cuts permanent.
The House GOP was playing both sides of the street, basing their proposed savings on higher tax rates while, at the same time, intending to undercut those future revenues. Their deficit reduction figures are based on shit.
The whole lot of 'em, either party, are snakes whose only motivation is to keep their jobs and the access to the cash that comes rolling in the door to buy their votes.
I don't care what their plan was...I do but not in this context.
They were the only ones who:
1. Proposed a plan to be voted on.
2. Proposed a plan that would remove the downgrade.
Democrats neither proposed a plan or even a plan that would remove the possibility of downgrade.
montanadave
08-07-11, 17:22
One element of the GOP deficit reduction plans conveniently overlooked by everyone during the debate was that the projected savings were calculated based on the Bush tax cuts expiring at the end of 2012. When the CBO "scored" the proposals, they had to calculate future revenues based on what the law currently says (i.e. tax rates will revert back to pre-Bush tax cut levels in 2013).
But we all know full well the Republicans are going to fight tooth and nail to make those tax cuts permanent.
The House GOP was playing both sides of the street, basing their proposed savings on higher tax rates while, at the same time, intending to undercut those future revenues. Their deficit reduction figures are based on shit.
The whole lot of 'em, either party, are snakes whose only motivation is to keep their jobs and the access to the cash that comes rolling in the door to buy their votes.
Belmont31R
08-07-11, 19:05
This is a guy who is responsible for where we are right now, and along with the ole GOP cats like Cheney who said deficits dont matter.
http://youtu.be/-_N0Cwg5iN4
montanadave
08-07-11, 19:49
Under the current law the Bush tax cuts will expire. So thats what the projections are based on.
And the Republicans aren't going to campaign next year on making those same Bush tax cuts permanent? Yeah, right. :rolleyes:
The deficit reduction figures are based on future revenues they have no intention of collecting. They're bullshit numbers.
But, hey, you keep keepin' on.
Belmont31R
08-07-11, 20:09
One element of the GOP deficit reduction plans conveniently overlooked by everyone during the debate was that the projected savings were calculated based on the Bush tax cuts expiring at the end of 2012. When the CBO "scored" the proposals, they had to calculate future revenues based on what the law currently says (i.e. tax rates will revert back to pre-Bush tax cut levels in 2013).
But we all know full well the Republicans are going to fight tooth and nail to make those tax cuts permanent.
The House GOP was playing both sides of the street, basing their proposed savings on higher tax rates while, at the same time, intending to undercut those future revenues. Their deficit reduction figures are based on shit.
The whole lot of 'em, either party, are snakes whose only motivation is to keep their jobs and the access to the cash that comes rolling in the door to buy their votes.
Its not based on shit. Until Obama is out of office the tax rates can't be lowered anymore since he wanted tax RAISES. So of course you have to base 10 year plans on what the law is. Under the current law the Bush tax cuts will expire. So thats what the projections are based on.
How hard is this?
VooDoo6Actual
08-08-11, 13:20
More good news
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=xOAgT8L_BqQ&feature=player_embedded
If I'm tracking correctly here:
Riddle me this, If the Government employess all want to keep their jobs & get paid (especially since salaries are going up) & the entitlement slackers vote for for the candidate who promises these entitlement programs how is it mathematically possible via voting to contract or reign in the deficit spending ?
More good news
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=xOAgT8L_BqQ&feature=player_embedded
If I'm tracking correctly here:
Riddle me this, If the Government employess all want to keep their jobs & get paid (especially since salaries are going up) & the entitlement slackers vote for for the candidate who promises these entitlement programs how is it mathematically possible via voting to contract or reign in the deficit spending ?
It isn't. Hell, I'm a .gov employee and my favorite pol is Sen. Tom Coburn (aka, Dr. No). I vote for him at each election, but it doesn't matter. We're never going to get the free spenders out of DC with votes. I'm mildly hopeful that if the economy crashes completely, the big money folks will send them packing. Sadly, money talks a lot louder than voters do in DC. :(
The democrat controlled senate has not passed a budget in over 800 days, and they whipped out the Reid bill just days before the deadline. So in reality not only has the Senate not passed a bill in over 800 days they never really had a plan. Obama never proposed a plan but just some talking points. Neither the senate nor Obama ever proposed a plan to avoid the credit rating decrease S&P warned us about, and as far as I can tell they never agreed to one, either.
But their failure is blamed on the Tea Party, and they are going to completely lie about why our credit rating was lowered. Thats the only way they can hide the fact they never proposed or voted on their own plan which would have avoided the lowering.
They had plenty of time to pass a budget, they chose to address
more important :rolleyes: err I mean ram through other legislation.
VooDoo6Actual
08-08-11, 23:05
New Low: 17% Say U.S. Government Has Consent of the Governed
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/august_2011/new_low_17_say_u_s_government_has_consent_of_the_governed
I know some assclown will say Rasmussen is not a legit report or data.
variablebinary
08-09-11, 00:59
Consider how scary our debt really is for a moment.
The Europeans are on the verge of total collapse without a real defense budget.
Consider that. Collapse with no significant defense needs.
We have far more debt, far more, and are saddled with the responsibility or preserving NATO, safety in Asia, plus the nanny state, wars, the GWOT, etc etc etc.
We are in the world of shit.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.