|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
SS was never built to be self-funding. Without unsustainable population growth, it cannot be. Not possible. Something similar COULD be done, based on rational financial planning. You would have to run it like a business, instead of a wish-fulfillment center.
What you pay out is dictated by what you have available. Using credit is a short-term, temporary solution. Debts are paid FIRST.
There is absolutely NWIH that any government-based entity would be able to run any sort of plan, rational or otherwise, without squandering the resources, spending them stupidly, and leaving us further in debt. They are buying votes with our own credit.
The crunch is coming. It will get worse the longer we put it off. Time is growing short, IMO we are well under twenty years to go at the outside.
Shut them down, let DC and the major cities burn, defend the borders, let regional control handle regional issues. After a couple years or so, send some delegates to a conference, get out the Constitution, and start all over.
I think it's either that, a police state, or total anarchy.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
Quote:
Quote:
I never got the slashing of benefits first talk. It's obvious that we're spending way too much on the military and it needs to be reduced by 400 billion.
I'll just say this: I know a lot about military spending. There is some waste in there for sure, but it's more based on Congress routing money to their districts/lobbyist defense contractors. That needs to be exposed as much as possible.
That being said, you have very little idea of what you're talking about.
Then please inform me, because spending 400 bn less than we already are still makes us the #1 spender in the world for military. Better that than Medicare, food stamps, welfare, things people actually need to live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
Cut $400 Billion from the military AND cut ANOTHER $400 Billion from Medicare, Welfare, and food stamps, then you've got to find at least one more $400 Billion to cut somewhere else.
The options are rapidly narrowing. It is very much like a business in the process of going bankrupt. Sometimes they can be saved, often they can't. The correct solution almost always involves radical change. Continuing to do the same things they have always done fails every time.
Consistently spending more than you rake in calls for change in leadership and management structure. A simple change in voting rights tied to paying taxes would accomplish what needs to be done.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,561
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,561 |
Quote:
Cut $400 Billion from the military AND cut ANOTHER $400 Billion from Medicare, Welfare, and food stamps, then you've got to find at least one more $400 Billion to cut somewhere else.
Can't cut from the Military until you end these wars we're in. I don't want to cut that as long as we have troops in harms way. That's just unthinkable.
You wanna cut medicare, fine, I don't know if you have any elderly relatives, but if you do, you will find that they don't have many choices. Even with Obamacare, the costs would be prohibitive. Then you got another problem you've created..
Then you wanna cut from somewhere else, Ok,, where?
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
Quote:
Cut $400 Billion from the military AND cut ANOTHER $400 Billion from Medicare, Welfare, and food stamps, then you've got to find at least one more $400 Billion to cut somewhere else.
The options are rapidly narrowing. It is very much like a business in the process of going bankrupt. Sometimes they can be saved, often they can't. The correct solution almost always involves radical change. Continuing to do the same things they have always done fails every time.
Consistently spending more than you rake in calls for change in leadership and management structure. A simple change in voting rights tied to paying taxes would accomplish what needs to be done.
I like how we haven't seen the option to raise taxes on everyone. Right now we have one of the lowest tax burdens in a developed country and raising it 11% (which would be on par with the Brits) could actually solve our debt problem without cutting anything. I'm not sure why we can't raise taxes a bit and cut a bit.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480 |
Quote:
Quote:
Cut $400 Billion from the military AND cut ANOTHER $400 Billion from Medicare, Welfare, and food stamps, then you've got to find at least one more $400 Billion to cut somewhere else.
The options are rapidly narrowing. It is very much like a business in the process of going bankrupt. Sometimes they can be saved, often they can't. The correct solution almost always involves radical change. Continuing to do the same things they have always done fails every time.
Consistently spending more than you rake in calls for change in leadership and management structure. A simple change in voting rights tied to paying taxes would accomplish what needs to be done.
I like how we haven't seen the option to raise taxes on everyone. Right now we have one of the lowest tax burdens in a developed country and raising it 11% (which would be on par with the Brits) could actually solve our debt problem without cutting anything. I'm not sure why we can't raise taxes a bit and cut a bit.
Not sure I'd be on board with 11%, but something in the 4-5% range on EVERYONE and that extra goes solely to reduce our debt I'd be OK with it.
And also eliminate these "refunds" to people that don't pay taxes. It isn't a refund if you didn't pay anything! It's a gift.
If we are willing to raise taxes on everyone, I'd prefer the fair tax idea.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,496
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,496 |
You might find Chile's retirement plans interesting They have two ..
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,423
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,423 |
Quote:
I like how we haven't seen the option to raise taxes on everyone. Right now we have one of the lowest tax burdens in a developed country and raising it 11% (which would be on par with the Brits) could actually solve our debt problem without cutting anything. I'm not sure why we can't raise taxes a bit and cut a bit.
I think that the focus doesn't get put there because it isn't a revenue problem, it is a spending problem..... we've habitually spent more than we have revenue for to the extent that we are - again - exceeding our self-imposed debt limits. The very limits that were put in place because it is bad to go beyond them.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,561
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,561 |
Quote:
Quote:
Cut $400 Billion from the military AND cut ANOTHER $400 Billion from Medicare, Welfare, and food stamps, then you've got to find at least one more $400 Billion to cut somewhere else.
The options are rapidly narrowing. It is very much like a business in the process of going bankrupt. Sometimes they can be saved, often they can't. The correct solution almost always involves radical change. Continuing to do the same things they have always done fails every time.
Consistently spending more than you rake in calls for change in leadership and management structure. A simple change in voting rights tied to paying taxes would accomplish what needs to be done.
I like how we haven't seen the option to raise taxes on everyone. Right now we have one of the lowest tax burdens in a developed country and raising it 11% (which would be on par with the Brits) could actually solve our debt problem without cutting anything. I'm not sure why we can't raise taxes a bit and cut a bit.
Wonderful, let's give these morons in DC more money to blow 
I hear what you are saying but I don't think that's the answer until you get the people that handle it change the way they think..
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
Quote:
Quote:
I like how we haven't seen the option to raise taxes on everyone. Right now we have one of the lowest tax burdens in a developed country and raising it 11% (which would be on par with the Brits) could actually solve our debt problem without cutting anything. I'm not sure why we can't raise taxes a bit and cut a bit.
I think that the focus doesn't get put there because it isn't a revenue problem, it is a spending problem..... we've habitually spent more than we have revenue for to the extent that we are - again - exceeding our self-imposed debt limits. The very limits that were put in place because it is bad to go beyond them.
Depends on how you want to look at it. You could just as easily say we have a payment problem. We've bought a lot of cool, useful, and helpful things and now we refuse to pay for them. Again, just depends on how you want to look at it. Though it's really a bit of both.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I like how we haven't seen the option to raise taxes on everyone. Right now we have one of the lowest tax burdens in a developed country and raising it 11% (which would be on par with the Brits) could actually solve our debt problem without cutting anything. I'm not sure why we can't raise taxes a bit and cut a bit.
I think that the focus doesn't get put there because it isn't a revenue problem, it is a spending problem..... we've habitually spent more than we have revenue for to the extent that we are - again - exceeding our self-imposed debt limits. The very limits that were put in place because it is bad to go beyond them.
Depends on how you want to look at it. You could just as easily say we have a payment problem. We've bought a lot of cool, useful, and helpful things and now we refuse to pay for them. Again, just depends on how you want to look at it. Though it's really a bit of both.
And you could say you gave your kid money to get milk, bread and a candy bar, and he comes home with 6 candy bars and no milk or bread. So just give him more and hopes this time he gets the milk and bread.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
I would urge you to take a moment and think about this concept.
The level of Government spending that would match the current tax burden without borrowing is completely unthinkable to you.
That is the beginning and the end of the problem.
Giving these boobs yet more money to spend is no longer an option that will fly, over and beyond being a stupid idea.
Spending must be reduced drastically. The cuts I outlined are pretty much a best-case scenario. It can, and likely will, get much, much worse.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,570
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,570 |
On the other hand - increasing the tax burden until we have the SECOND lowest tax burden of any developed country is unfathomable to you....
It goes both ways.
"When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 19:33-34
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,423
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,423 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I like how we haven't seen the option to raise taxes on everyone. Right now we have one of the lowest tax burdens in a developed country and raising it 11% (which would be on par with the Brits) could actually solve our debt problem without cutting anything. I'm not sure why we can't raise taxes a bit and cut a bit.
I think that the focus doesn't get put there because it isn't a revenue problem, it is a spending problem..... we've habitually spent more than we have revenue for to the extent that we are - again - exceeding our self-imposed debt limits. The very limits that were put in place because it is bad to go beyond them.
Depends on how you want to look at it. You could just as easily say we have a payment problem. We've bought a lot of cool, useful, and helpful things and now we refuse to pay for them. Again, just depends on how you want to look at it. Though it's really a bit of both.
No... why are you buying new things if you can't afford them? Whether or not they are cool, useful, and helpful or not.... either you can afford them, or you shouldn't be shopping.
There is no second way of looking at it.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,426
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,426 |
Quote:
I'll just say this: I know a lot about military spending. There is some waste in there for sure, but it's more based on Congress routing money to their districts/lobbyist defense contractors. That needs to be exposed as much as possible.
Dead on, with this. I don't overly blame the candidates though, I blame the voters. We do NO research on Congressional candidates. We basically just ask, "What can you give me?". The person with the best answer to that question wins 9 times out of 10. There is no looking out for anybody else, there is no informed electorate. We became a two-party system out of ignorance. We didn't want to dissect issues, we just needed to know which party generally agreed with two or three key points to us.
Political pundits have done a great job of steering these issues. Where once it was education, jobs, security that were top three issues, somehow now abortion, religion, and gun control are the three issues. There is no real debate, there is no real substance to any election. We, as a voting public, are consistently distracted by the shiny object.
[color:"green"] "World domination has encountered a momentary setback. Please talk amongst yourselves." Get Fuzzy[/color]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,423
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,423 |
Quote:
Political pundits have done a great job of steering these issues. Where once it was education, jobs, security that were top three issues, somehow now abortion, religion, and gun control are the three issues. There is no real debate, there is no real substance to any election. We, as a voting public, are consistently distracted by the shiny object.
The parties orchestrate this.
Rather than having platforms that address real problems that everyone can identify with, the attention is steered toward things that polarize people into voting blocks that candidates can play to.
EVERYONE wants better education, more jobs, better security... but it is hard for a candidate to qualify to the voters just how and why their plan is better than their opponents'. By forcing polarized subjects into the foreground, and then baiting their opponents into taking a stance on the subjects, they can instantly claim a large block of voters and play up to them on those topics.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,882
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,882 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I never got the slashing of benefits first talk. It's obvious that we're spending way too much on the military and it needs to be reduced by 400 billion.
I'll just say this: I know a lot about military spending. There is some waste in there for sure, but it's more based on Congress routing money to their districts/lobbyist defense contractors. That needs to be exposed as much as possible.
That being said, you have very little idea of what you're talking about.
Then please inform me, because spending 400 bn less than we already are still makes us the #1 spender in the world for military. Better that than Medicare, food stamps, welfare, things people actually need to live.
Well, as a beginning tip of the ice berg, how many bases does the next spender have outside of its own borders. I know the Russians have one base still outside of the former Soviet Union which they are desperately trying to hold onto, while risking their international reputation.
Imagine if we shut down military operations in Korea, didn't maintain our naval fleet with everything going on in the Pacific, pulled out all military support to Israel, etc.
Do you want to see WW3? If so, then, yes, let's make draconian cuts to our military.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,561
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,561 |
Quote:
I would urge you to take a moment and think about this concept.
The level of Government spending that would match the current tax burden without borrowing is completely unthinkable to you.
That is the beginning and the end of the problem.
Giving these boobs yet more money to spend is no longer an option that will fly, over and beyond being a stupid idea.
Spending must be reduced drastically. The cuts I outlined are pretty much a best-case scenario. It can, and likely will, get much, much worse.
I think that's exactly what I said. You are preaching to the choir on raising taxes and leaving the sam baffoons in charge of managing it.
But Cutting just to cut isn't the answer either.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
Quote:
Quote:
Political pundits have done a great job of steering these issues. Where once it was education, jobs, security that were top three issues, somehow now abortion, religion, and gun control are the three issues. There is no real debate, there is no real substance to any election. We, as a voting public, are consistently distracted by the shiny object.
The parties orchestrate this.
Rather than having platforms that address real problems that everyone can identify with, the attention is steered toward things that polarize people into voting blocks that candidates can play to.
EVERYONE wants better education, more jobs, better security... but it is hard for a candidate to qualify to the voters just how and why their plan is better than their opponents'. By forcing polarized subjects into the foreground, and then baiting their opponents into taking a stance on the subjects, they can instantly claim a large block of voters and play up to them on those topics.
I think it's more that the parties are extremely close in "real issues" that the only issues that differentiate them are social issues.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I never got the slashing of benefits first talk. It's obvious that we're spending way too much on the military and it needs to be reduced by 400 billion.
I'll just say this: I know a lot about military spending. There is some waste in there for sure, but it's more based on Congress routing money to their districts/lobbyist defense contractors. That needs to be exposed as much as possible.
That being said, you have very little idea of what you're talking about.
Then please inform me, because spending 400 bn less than we already are still makes us the #1 spender in the world for military. Better that than Medicare, food stamps, welfare, things people actually need to live.
Well, as a beginning tip of the ice berg, how many bases does the next spender have outside of its own borders. I know the Russians have one base still outside of the former Soviet Union which they are desperately trying to hold onto, while risking their international reputation.
Imagine if we shut down military operations in Korea, didn't maintain our naval fleet with everything going on in the Pacific, pulled out all military support to Israel, etc.
Do you want to see WW3? If so, then,èyes, let's make draconian cuts to our military.
China has zero. I didn't say what they should cut, but they should cut 400 bn of it. Are you claiming all US military budget is 100% necessary? Do you work for the DoD or as a military contractor?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I like how we haven't seen the option to raise taxes on everyone. Right now we have one of the lowest tax burdens in a developed country and raising it 11% (which would be on par with the Brits) could actually solve our debt problem without cutting anything. I'm not sure why we can't raise taxes a bit and cut a bit.
I think that the focus doesn't get put there because it isn't a revenue problem, it is a spending problem..... we've habitually spent more than we have revenue for to the extent that we are - again - exceeding our self-imposed debt limits. The very limits that were put in place because it is bad to go beyond them.
Depends on how you want to look at it. You could just as easily say we have a payment problem. We've bought a lot of cool, useful, and helpful things and now we refuse to pay for them. Again, just depends on how you want to look at it. Though it's really a bit of both.
No... why are you buying new things if you can't afford them? Whether or not they are cool, useful, and helpful or not.... either you can afford them, or you shouldn't be shopping.
There is no second way of looking at it.
Well, technically we can afford them. The government and the people is a false dichotomy.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,882
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,882 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I never got the slashing of benefits first talk. It's obvious that we're spending way too much on the military and it needs to be reduced by 400 billion.
I'll just say this: I know a lot about military spending. There is some waste in there for sure, but it's more based on Congress routing money to their districts/lobbyist defense contractors. That needs to be exposed as much as possible.
That being said, you have very little idea of what you're talking about.
Then please inform me, because spending 400 bn less than we already are still makes us the #1 spender in the world for military. Better that than Medicare, food stamps, welfare, things people actually need to live.
Well, as a beginning tip of the ice berg, how many bases does the next spender have outside of its own borders. I know the Russians have one base still outside of the former Soviet Union which they are desperately trying to hold onto, while risking their international reputation.
Imagine if we shut down military operations in Korea, didn't maintain our naval fleet with everything going on in the Pacific, pulled out all military support to Israel, etc.
Do you want to see WW3? If so, then, yes, let's make draconian cuts to our military.
China has zero. I didn't say what they should cut, but they should cut 400 bn of it. Are you claiming all US military budget is 100% necessary? Do you work for the DoD or as a military contractor?
Exactly. Our global presence alone creates a lot more overhead and differential in spending. People hate our global presence, and I do too in some sectors, but just imagine if/when the day arrives when we shut all those bases down. What happens in Korea? What happens with the entire Pacific? Nobody talks about it right now but the tensions over there are extremely high. What happens if we pull out of the Middle East? Stopped orchestrating strikes? Stopped giving our troops a technological edge FAR beyond the guys who are trying to kill them, etc?
If you read my first post, I do mention waste. To the tune of $400 billion? No. The sequester's cuts in and of themselves did a lot of damage. A lot of schedule was pushed to the right and men down range suffered as a result.
I work for the DoD. I know areas where I would save money if I had to reduce DoD spending. But, it was your proposal to cut $400 billion. Please tell us your idea to implement that.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,564
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,564 |
J/C
Lot's of good comments in here.
I am going to pose a question. We always hear about SS running out of money. When are we going to hear about welfare running out of money?
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,840
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,840 |
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
Lyuokdea - I would really, really like to know what you have seen about the spending habits and methods of Congress that makes you anxious to put MORE MONEY into their hands? Do you think they will use ANY of that additional money to reduce the total debt, or even a single year's increase of that debt?
I seem to recall you are in academics and/or research, does your paycheck come from the government, either all or partially?
Does everybody know what happens when there are too many piglets sucking at the teats of the sow? A farmer who knows his business will remove and kill some of them. A stupid farmer will watch ALL the piglets die, possibly the sow as well. Then his family goes hungry.
Daman - When you say that "cutting just to cut" is bad, what I hear is "Don't cut anything at all". Cuts MUST be made. We need to cut almost 50% of our expenses. EVERYTHING is on the table, NOTHING is sacred. CUT, CUT Now, Cut FAST, Cut DEEP, then, after that, CUT SOME MORE. You can stop when we don't need to borrow money any more. Getting "close" is not good enough.
You run a small business. That means you know what needs to be done in order to survive. Fail, and you close the doors and find another job. There is no other option.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,570
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,570 |
Quote:
Does everybody know what happens when there are too many piglets sucking at the teats of the sow? A farmer who knows his business will remove and kill some of them. A stupid farmer will watch ALL the piglets die, possibly the sow as well. Then his family goes hungry.
So we're supposed to cut government spending because....piglets??
We are all adults here - it's possible to discuss actual economics. Stupid metaphors are not evidence.
"When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 19:33-34
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,570
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,570 |
Quote:
Lyuokdea - I would really, really like to know what you have seen about the spending habits and methods of Congress that makes you anxious to put MORE MONEY into their hands? Do you think they will use ANY of that additional money to reduce the total debt, or even a single year's increase of that debt?
Yes - the center has tried targeted tax increases (such as letting Bush tax cuts expire) targeted at decreasing the debt over the last 5 years - they have continually received backlash from republicans which have prevented a reasonable bill from being passed.
In order to make meaningful legislation - legislatures are going to have to have a more nuanced version of government than "it is always bad and everything it does is waste...we must destroy it"
Luckily the right block has been broken up in the last few weeks - it is possible that a center could prevail which gets some actual legislation passed.
"When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 19:33-34
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
$17 Trillion dollars in debt. Using a round population estimate of 500 million, that is $34,000 for every man, woman, and child, over and above all federal, state, county, and city taxes.
The people who have brought this about are obviously completely clueless in economic matters. Suggesting that we give them more money Is not something that a non-stupid adult would conceivably do.
A barnyard metaphor seemed appropriate, and I elected not to use jackasses, mules, or goats having sex.
The "actual economics" demands that spending be cut. That is becoming obvious to almost all rational adults. The "where" and "what" is up for grabs, but the "when" is NOW.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
I really want to make sure I understand what you are saying.
They wanted to increase taxes, they said they would use this to reduce the debt, and, um, you BELIEVED THEM? Have I got that right?
They Said that they had a Plan to do something they haven't been able to do in over 40 years, and that was good enough for you to believe, really, confidently Believe, that they would actually do it?
Has every used car you ever bought been owned by a little old lady and driven only on Sundays?
What in God's name are you smoking?
Why don't you just ask people to invest their retirement funds with Bernie Maidoff?
I asked what you had SEEN THEM DO, their ACTIONS, over time, that would lead you to believe giving them more money was a good idea. Your serious answer is wishful thinking and the promises of a politician?
You wanted to discuss economics? Here's a buck, go buy a lollipop.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,184
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,184 |
Quote:
Quote:
Lyuokdea - I would really, really like to know what you have seen about the spending habits and methods of Congress that makes you anxious to put MORE MONEY into their hands? Do you think they will use ANY of that additional money to reduce the total debt, or even a single year's increase of that debt?
Yes - the center has tried targeted tax increases (such as letting Bush tax cuts expire) targeted at decreasing the debt over the last 5 years - they have continually received backlash from republicans which have prevented a reasonable bill from being passed.
In order to make meaningful legislation - legislatures are going to have to have a more nuanced version of government than "it is always bad and everything it does is waste...we must destroy it"
Luckily the right block has been broken up in the last few weeks - it is possible that a center could prevail which gets some actual legislation passed.
If you give congress 100 billion of new tax revenue, they are not going to pay down the debt, they are going to find 100 billion in new spending. That's why I am against any kind of tax increase. These guys should not get another penny until they prove they can handle the money responsibly.
It's supposed to be hard! If it wasn't hard, everyone would do it. The hard... is what makes it great!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,943
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,943 |
Quote:
If you give congress 100 billion of new tax revenue, they are not going to pay down the debt, they are going to find 100 billion in new spending. That's why I am against any kind of tax increase. These guys should not get another penny until they prove they can handle the money responsibly.
No they won't.
Give them an extra 100 billion, they'll spend another 150 billion...........then rationalize it, and seek even more. They won't be happy until EVERYONE thinks they need the gov't. to take care of them.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
The "tax increase" would have to be over sixteen times that amount, just under 1, 700 Billion dollars, just to keep from INCREASING the total debt this year, or break even.
We borrowed almost one-half of this year's spending.
These clowns would spend that 100 Billion on a program that required borrowing another 100 Billion dollars.
The understanding of this problem is growing. We must outnumber, and outvote, the total of the idiots who will never get it AND the vast numbers of people on the receiving end of the handouts. I am beginning to believe that this might happen.
It's either that, or we find out who's aim is better.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,561
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,561 |
Quote:
$17 Trillion dollars in debt. Using a round population estimate of 500 million, that is $34,000 for every man, woman, and child, over and above all federal, state, county, and city taxes.
The people who have brought this about are obviously completely clueless in economic matters. Suggesting that we give them more money Is not something that a non-stupid adult would conceivably do.
A barnyard metaphor seemed appropriate, and I elected not to use jackasses, mules, or goats having sex.
The "actual economics" demands that spending be cut. That is becoming obvious to almost all rational adults. The "where" and "what" is up for grabs, but the "when" is NOW.
What was the Debt when Bush took over?
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,943
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,943 |
According to this: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500803_162-4486228-500803.html when Bush took over, it was $5.727 trillion, and when he left office, it was $9.849 trillion. In 8 years, the debt went up $4.122 trillion. We now have gone from 9.849, to 17 trillion. And no one is concerned, or worried, about our nation???????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
Lower, but what difference does it make?
Increasing the debt each year is the problem, quibbling over by what amount we overspend is just silly.
The all have done it, and we all are about to pay the price. The time for finger-pointing is long past. That ship has sailed.
As a nation we are like a business going thru receivership. Our survival is at stake. There is no rule that says we have to come thru intact.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
Last edited by PETE314; 10/17/13 11:47 AM.
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,184
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,184 |
It's supposed to be hard! If it wasn't hard, everyone would do it. The hard... is what makes it great!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
jc So I just read that it is estimated to have cost 24 billion for this shutdown ( LINK), and all federal furloughed employees will receive back pay, so essentially, there was no point to furloughing them, it would have saved 24 billion to have them stand at the parks, museums, etc and turn people away.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,970
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,970 |
Quote:
Quote:
$17 Trillion dollars in debt. Using a round population estimate of 500 million, that is $34,000 for every man, woman, and child, over and above all federal, state, county, and city taxes.
The people who have brought this about are obviously completely clueless in economic matters. Suggesting that we give them more money Is not something that a non-stupid adult would conceivably do.
A barnyard metaphor seemed appropriate, and I elected not to use jackasses, mules, or goats having sex.
The "actual economics" demands that spending be cut. That is becoming obvious to almost all rational adults. The "where" and "what" is up for grabs, but the "when" is NOW.
What was the Debt when Bush took over?
In 2000, the National Debt was $5.6 trillion, and the country's GDP was $10.34 trillion. Our debt stood at 55% of GDP.
Then the recession hit, 9-11 occurred, and we went to war, twice.
By 2007, Bush's last year in office, (and the last year with a Republican Congress) the debt had grown to $9 trillion, and GDP was at $14.5 trillion. This means that the debt was 62% of GDP.
By 2012, the national debt had exploded to $16 trillion. GDP was $16.3 trillion. The debt was 98% of GDP.
In 2008, we hit 68%. We had that trillion dollar bank bailout included in that year, plus the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act" that also cost a huge amount.
This year, for the 1st time since 1947, the national debt is expected to exceed 100% of GDP.
So, in 8 years of Bush, we went from $5.6 trillion to $9 trillion in debt. This was awful. Obama, and a Democrat House (for the most part) and Senate have taken us from either $9 or $10 trillion, (depending on who you blame for 2008 ..... it was a Democrat House and Senate, and a combination of Bush and Obama who spent money in that year)
We'll give Bush all of the blame there. We went from $5.6 trillion in debt, that accounted for 55% of GDP ... to $10 trillion in debt, or 68% of GDP. We'll blame Bush 100% for that.
Sine that point, with no federal budgets passed at all, (even when the Dems controlled all 3 branches of the government) we have gone from $10 trillion, blaming Bush entirely for the year after he left office ..... to over $16 trillion just 4 years after the last budget/deficit we blame on Bush.
Just for the record, I hated much of the spending Bush foisted upon us. I hated the idiotic refundable tax credits that he (and a Republican Congress) expanded. Throughout Bush's term, we had budget deficits that approached half a trillion dollars 3 times. (If you count 2008 as belonging to Bush) In the other years, we had much smaller deficits.
Since Obama took over, we have had deficits in excess of a trillion+ every year. This year we might fall to a budget deficit of just under a trillion dollars. That's considered a victory, because the deficit has come down slightly. It is still more than double the worst deficit of any deficit in the Bush years.
So ... Bush took us from $5.6 trillion to $9 trillion, or $3.4 trillion in additional new debt in 8+ years. (actually 9, since we assign 100% of the blame for 2008 to Bush) From 2009 to 2012, we have added $7 trillion in new debt .... or almost as much as every President before Obama .... combined. That's in just 4 of his years in office, since we don't blame him for the big jump from 2008 to 2009.
Next year Obamacare should take full effect. (unless the administration gives out more and more waivers to their friends) It will be interesting to see what happens to the deficit when this program takes full effect. They keep saying that the deficit will drop when Obamacare takes full effect, so it will be interesting to see what happens. I somehow doubt that the deficit will drop. We'll see though.
Bush was bad. He spent recklessly in a lot of areas. Obama has been twice as bad as Bush ever was.
Source
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,643
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,643 |
Quote:
jc
So I just read that it is estimated to have cost 24 billion for this shutdown (LINK), and all federal furloughed employees will receive back pay, so essentially, there was no point to furloughing them, it would have saved 24 billion to have them stand at the parks, museums, etc and turn people away.
LOL, that is so typical of our Govt. I was reading about parks that were normally unmanned that had been shut down and had rangers guarding them 24/7 to keep people out.. 
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... THE GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN
|
|
