The next president will inherit a deficit of over $400 billion...

elprincipe

elprincipe

CAGiversary!
Feedback
60 (100%)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122100742173517529.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks

Yet there are no solutions offered besides "soak the rich" or "stop earmarks," neither of which will get us even close to a balanced budget (especially when considering the large amount of new spending promised by both major-party candidates).

Take a look at this:

ED-AI204_1budge_NS_20080909210012.gif


The federal government is spending 57% more than it did at the turn of the century. Why is "lipstick on a pig" and the like front-page news and the candidates never have to enunciate a plan to fix our fiscal crisis? Note this deficit doesn't even include the massive problems with Social Security and Medicare...anybody listening?!
 
[quote name='elprincipe']
The federal government is spending 57% more than it did at the turn of the century. Why is "lipstick on a pig" and the like front-page news and the candidates never have to enunciate a plan to fix our fiscal crisis? Note this deficit doesn't even include the massive problems with Social Security and Medicare...anybody listening?![/QUOTE]

romney was, but people just dismissed him when ever he talked about spending. budgets arent sexy.
 
If you've ever taken a class on the mass media in politics you would know that...

A - Financial numbers involving the Government is boring
B - Perceived insults are Hot Hot Hot
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']romney was, but people just dismissed him when ever he talked about spending. budgets arent sexy.[/QUOTE]

Ummmm no Romney really didnt. He brought it up sometimes but not hardly more then anyone else. Besides that though Romney was a flip flopping jackass that let lobbyists and big interest run his camp.
 
[quote name='Liquid 2']Whoever wins is going to inherit the deficit and double it, at least. :whistle2:|[/quote]

That will be impossible. China won't extend us THAT much credit.

Also, where would another $400 billion a year be pissed away? It isn't like we're at war with Russia.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']That will be impossible. China won't extend us THAT much credit.

Also, where would another $400 billion a year be pissed away? It isn't like we're at war with Russia.[/QUOTE]

Yet!
 
[quote name='Liquid 2']Whoever wins is going to inherit the deficit and double it, at least. :whistle2:|[/QUOTE]
That's not fair to Democrats. They've been reasonable with the pork the last couple of years (GI Bill increase anyone?) and Democratic presidents have a history that extends multiple decades now of holding the line. Add to that an increased fiscal conservatism in the Democratic party and that statement just isn't fair.

The GI Bill is a perfect example. Bush threatened to veto it (!!!!) unless the provision that PAID FOR IT was removed. A program the GAO says returns $6 to the economy for every $1 spent and the Republicans refuse to provide provisional payment. That's a turd that stinks to high heaven, not to mention being willing to dick over war veterans to do so.

The provision? 1/2% tax on individuals making $500,00 and couples making over $1m.
 
Republicans want to bankrupt the government so they can get rid of Social Security and other programs.

They want to drag this country back to the Gilded Age.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Republicans want to bankrupt the government so they can get rid of Social Security and other programs.

They want to drag this country back to the Gilded Age.[/QUOTE]
Masquerading as a partisan Republican, I went to a small meeting hosted by local Republicans with Grover Norquist as the keynote speaker. He said exactly that. His plan was to screw up American finances so badly that cuts across the board would be necessary to survive. Cutting off our nose to spite our face. He even mentioned killing the "social security lockbox" directly as a means of undercutting the program.

The meeting was in 2003.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']If you've ever taken a class on the mass media in politics you would know that...

A - Financial numbers involving the Government is boring
B - Perceived insults are Hot Hot Hot[/quote]

I choose B.

When do I get my own talk show?
 
China buys our treasury securities because they rely on us economically -- it's a symbiotic relationship. They won't do anything to harm us economically, ever, because it will harm them even more. The only place our debt matters is in that it greatly weakens our leverage and influence over China, and gives them a greater voice. We can't push them around because they know we can't harm them, but neither can they harm us.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']That will be impossible. China won't extend us THAT much credit.

Also, where would another $400 billion a year be pissed away? It isn't like we're at war with Russia.[/QUOTE]Social programs like healthcare, for starters.

[quote name='speedracer']That's not fair to Democrats. They've been reasonable with the pork the last couple of years (GI Bill increase anyone?) and Democratic presidents have a history that extends multiple decades now of holding the line. Add to that an increased fiscal conservatism in the Democratic party and that statement just isn't fair.

The GI Bill is a perfect example. Bush threatened to veto it (!!!!) unless the provision that PAID FOR IT was removed. A program the GAO says returns $6 to the economy for every $1 spent and the Republicans refuse to provide provisional payment. That's a turd that stinks to high heaven, not to mention being willing to dick over war veterans to do so.

The provision? 1/2% tax on individuals making $500,00 and couples making over $1m.[/QUOTE]
I wasn't singling out Democrats or Republicans.

I don't think it makes any real difference at this point.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Masquerading as a partisan Republican, I went to a small meeting hosted by local Republicans with Grover Norquist as the keynote speaker. He said exactly that. His plan was to screw up American finances so badly that cuts across the board would be necessary to survive. Cutting off our nose to spite our face. He even mentioned killing the "social security lockbox" directly as a means of undercutting the program.

The meeting was in 2003.[/QUOTE]

:bomb:
 
[quote name='Koggit']China buys our treasury securities because they rely on us economically -- it's a symbiotic relationship. They won't do anything to harm us economically, ever, because it will harm them even more. The only place our debt matters is in that it greatly weakens our leverage and influence over China, and gives them a greater voice. We can't push them around because they know we can't harm them, but neither can they harm us.[/QUOTE]

I agree with you somewhat but to even let them have the option to ruin us is not a good thing let alone how much power they have over us and our policies.
 
[quote name='Msut77']I agree with you somewhat but to even let them have the option to ruin us is not a good thing let alone how much power they have over us and our policies.[/quote]

If we don't owe trillions of dollars to countries around the world, the terrorists win.
 
Why can't we just draw up a budget like any family is doing this year. Scrap everything and start from zero. Put needs in one category and wants in another. They should quit tying dollars in one category to wants in another. Have independent anylysts go in and show much money we REALLY need for military, education, transportation, emergency response, Social Security, and all the other needs and just quit with the rest of the crap right now. It'll never happen but it would be so much better.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Also, where would another $400 billion a year be pissed away? It isn't like we're at war with Russia.[/QUOTE]

Shhhh, don't lay down that challenge, I beg you.

Whoever said the Democrats are fiscally responsible, check the numbers coming out of Congress since January 2007 and get back to me.
 
Our debt is significant but nothing unprecedented, when you look at our debt as percentage of GDP it's not bad at all and when you take into consideration the price of oil many may even consider it good.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Easy solution: Auction off every state to the highest bidder, starting with the Eastern seaboard and working west, until the debt is paid off.[/quote]

But they're already did that in Dubai.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Masquerading as a partisan Republican, I went to a small meeting hosted by local Republicans with Grover Norquist as the keynote speaker. He said exactly that. His plan was to screw up American finances so badly that cuts across the board would be necessary to survive. Cutting off our nose to spite our face. He even mentioned killing the "social security lockbox" directly as a means of undercutting the program.

The meeting was in 2003.[/QUOTE]

Man, if only somebody would have thought of, say, paying down the national debt as soon as possible and then using the surplus to ensure, say, Social Security. It sure would have been nice to have that budget surplus available to buoy the economy in case of war or something. MAN! Why didn't anybody think of this back in, say, 2000? I'm sure they wouldn't have been laughed at or anything.

http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Al_Gore_Social_Security.htm
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Easy solution: Auction off every state to the highest bidder, starting with the Eastern seaboard and working west, until the debt is paid off.[/quote]

Can you sell my state to Canada? I have a feeling that your people have made me unwelcome in Dubai...
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Easy solution: Auction off every state to the highest bidder, starting with the Eastern seaboard and working west, until the debt is paid off.[/QUOTE]

The smart seller knows to auction the valuable items as part of a set. You ain't getting anyone to take South Dakota or Nebraska unless New York or Boston are part of the deal.
 
[quote name='camoor']Can you sell my state to Canada? I have a feeling that your people have made me unwelcome in Dubai...[/QUOTE]
My people? I don't get it.

I'd just sell to the highest bidder, which would likely be China.

[quote name='trq']The smart seller knows to auction the valuable items as part of a set. You ain't getting anyone to take South Dakota or Nebraska unless New York or Boston are part of the deal.[/QUOTE]

True. But that's why I'd get rid of the Eastern seaboard first, state by state. They are pretty valuable (and my least liked states). I figure the National debt would be paid off by the time we got to Ohio.
 
[quote name='trq']The smart seller knows to auction the valuable items as part of a set. You ain't getting anyone to take South Dakota or Nebraska unless New York or Boston are part of the deal.[/QUOTE]

Dont forget Virginia!
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']My people? I don't get it.

I'd just sell to the highest bidder, which would likely be China.



True. But that's why I'd get rid of the Eastern seaboard first, state by state. They are pretty valuable (and my least liked states). I figure the National debt would be paid off by the time we got to Ohio.[/quote]You can take the western half of TN, the only things there are graceland and FedEx.:lol:
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']My people? I don't get it.

I'd just sell to the highest bidder, which would likely be China.

True. But that's why I'd get rid of the Eastern seaboard first, state by state. They are pretty valuable (and my least liked states). I figure the National debt would be paid off by the time we got to Ohio.[/QUOTE]

Normally, since the bulk of the educated and NGP-contributing citizenry is consolidated in Blue states, I'd be fine with leaving the rest of the populace to waterboard muscrats and generally run around like the mohawked, cannibal mutants from "Mad Max," but if you're planning on selling to the Chinese, you're probably SOL: they need room, like you've got in those nice, empty states, and they've already got enough of their people on the coasts as-is; no need to buy the cow when they're getting the milk for free. I think most of Europe would be happy to have us, though.
 
[quote name='Koggit']Our debt is significant but nothing unprecedented, when you look at our debt as percentage of GDP it's not bad at all and when you take into consideration the price of oil many may even consider it good.[/QUOTE]

And who are those people? Are they the ones receiving interest payments on our ten trillion dollars of debt or the ones who keep optimistically believing we can grow our way out of it?

Sure, when you have a monetary system that's based 99% on debt and the sale of debt, creating money with the wave of a magic wand with debt is always a good thing - until something catastrophic happens and it can't be paid back.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']And who are those people? Are they the ones receiving interest payments on our ten trillion dollars of debt or the ones who keep optimistically believing we can grow our way out of it?

Sure, when you have a monetary system that's based 99% on debt and the sale of debt, creating money with the wave of a magic wand with debt is always a good thing - until something catastrophic happens and it can't be paid back.[/QUOTE]

My point is that the current state of national debt is no different than its been for decades and decades, you hear "record" being shouted all the time but that's only because $1 is worth less and our GDP is higher, we don't actually have as much debt as many (read: the alarmist media) pretend.
 
[quote name='Koggit']My point is that the current state of national debt is no different than its been for decades and decades, you hear "record" being shouted all the time but that's only because $1 is worth less and our GDP is higher, we don't actually have as much debt as many (read: the alarmist media) pretend.[/QUOTE]

I'm assuming you mean deficit, not debt.

Did we have a $10 trillion debt in those times? Did debt service take up ~25% of the budget, and getting worse because we spend a lot more than we have each year? Do you think our current (and future) economic problems are unrelated to these facts, including the devaluation of the dollar?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I'm assuming you mean deficit, not debt.

Did we have a $10 trillion debt in those times? Did debt service take up ~25% of the budget, and getting worse because we spend a lot more than we have each year? Do you think our current (and future) economic problems are unrelated to these facts, including the devaluation of the dollar?[/QUOTE]

No I mean debt

National-Debt-GDP.gif
 
[quote name='Koggit']No I mean debt

National-Debt-GDP.gif
[/quote]

Very interesting chart.

One thing I think modern Republicans don't understand is that war costs exponentially more then any social program ever conceived. If only we could get them to make the connection between their "patriotism" and their wallet.
 
[quote name='camoor']Very interesting chart.

One thing I think modern Republicans don't understand is that war costs exponentially more then any social program ever conceived. If only we could get them to make the connection between their "patriotism" and their wallet.[/quote]

But that money goes to corporations and the defense industry instead of poor folks in the ghetto that'll just use it for more crack, babies, and malt liquor.
 
[quote name='depascal22']But that money goes to corporations and the defense industry instead of poor folks in the ghetto that'll just use it for more crack, babies, and malt liquor.[/QUOTE]

Well the problem with goverment right now is a lack of compromise and working across the aisle.......so ow about this solution. Republicans can keep having their childish wars but the poor folks in the gheto and crack babies make the weapons!
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']Well the problem with goverment right now is a lack of compromise and working across the aisle.......so ow about this solution. Republicans can keep having their childish wars but the poor folks in the gheto and crack babies make the weapons![/QUOTE]

Good idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top