bills_fan Posted October 14, 2008 Posted October 14, 2008 Take a look at this graph... http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm Just awful. This is unsustainable and will break the US as a nation if it is not reigned in. Obama is proposing massive new government spending programs. McCain forgot what he proposed, but knows its expensive. Where is Ross Perot when you need him? If he ran today...he just might win. Prediction...within 25 years, there will be a new viable 3rd party, dedicated to fiscal conservatism/social libertarianism that will elect a President. The Republicans will be marginalized to the South, the Democrats to the left coast and certain Northeast/Midwest industrial areas. This is ridiculous.
Chilly Posted October 14, 2008 Posted October 14, 2008 McCain forgot what he proposed, but knows its expensive. Best McCain is old joke I've read. Where is Ross Perot when you need him? If he ran today...he just might win. Prediction...within 25 years, there will be a new viable 3rd party, dedicated to fiscal conservatism/social libertarianism that will elect a President. The Republicans will be marginalized to the South, the Democrats to the left coast and certain Northeast/Midwest industrial areas. This is ridiculous. Dear God, I hope so. Sign me up.
Andrew in CA Posted October 14, 2008 Posted October 14, 2008 Prediction...within 25 years, there will be a new viable 3rd party, dedicated to fiscal conservatism/social libertarianism that will elect a President. The Republicans will be marginalized to the South, the Democrats to the left coast and certain Northeast/Midwest industrial areas. See, I don't know about this. If anything, I would see the new party being a more socially conservative party- it seems to me that many dissatisfied voters in the flyover states want more social conservatism and ignore, put up with, or support an expanding, spending government.
bills_fan Posted October 14, 2008 Author Posted October 14, 2008 See, I don't know about this. If anything, I would see the new party being a more socially conservative party- it seems to me that many dissatisfied voters in the flyover states want more social conservatism and ignore, put up with, or support an expanding, spending government. When the entire US Federal budget goes to servicing the interest on the national debt, at the expense of Medicare/Social Security/military spending/etc., you will have one of two options... 1- US citizens living in abject poverty due to excessive spending of prior generations (Note, I'm talking about within the next 20 years) 2- The US defaults on its debt and declares bankruptcy leading to a global revolution I really don't want to contemplate either scenario. Gov't spending MUST be reduced. There is no possible way the economy can expand enough to cover the ineterest on this level of debt. If anyone knows how, I'd be glad to listen.
molson_golden2002 Posted October 14, 2008 Posted October 14, 2008 Cut military spending and re-impose tax rates that are sensible. Problem solved
bills_fan_in_raleigh Posted October 14, 2008 Posted October 14, 2008 Take a look at this graph... http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm Just awful. This is unsustainable and will break the US as a nation if it is not reigned in. Obama is proposing massive new government spending programs. McCain forgot what he proposed, but knows its expensive. Where is Ross Perot when you need him? If he ran today...he just might win. Prediction...within 25 years, there will be a new viable 3rd party, dedicated to fiscal conservatism/social libertarianism that will elect a President. The Republicans will be marginalized to the South, the Democrats to the left coast and certain Northeast/Midwest industrial areas. This is ridiculous. Massive spendings started with the Hero of the republican party. I agree with you that eventually fiscal conservatism must take over otherwise we just keep digging a bigger hole.
DC Tom Posted October 14, 2008 Posted October 14, 2008 Good thing President Obama will reverse that trend...
SD Jarhead Posted October 14, 2008 Posted October 14, 2008 This is exactly what I was referring to in another thread. Our spending is untenable. With the recent tanking of the market this will reduce hundreds of billions of tax dollars to states and the federal gov't compounding the problem. Now we're going to tax people more? WTF? What we need are MASSIVE Gov't spending reductions across the board. The reality is this will not happen. Unless this happens, our future as a nation is in doubt.
KD in CA Posted October 14, 2008 Posted October 14, 2008 Cut military spending and re-impose tax rates that are sensible. Problem solved I agree. Time to stop giving nearly 40% of the nation a free ride on federal taxes.
erynthered Posted October 14, 2008 Posted October 14, 2008 I agree. Time to stop giving nearly 40% of the nation a free ride on federal taxes. Good point, KD. Imagine if 120 million people who werent paying federal income taxes would pay at least $1000.00 a year in taxes. Sure would go a long way in reducing the debt.
bills_fan Posted October 14, 2008 Author Posted October 14, 2008 I agree. Time to stop giving nearly 40% of the nation a free ride on federal taxes. Everyone must have a skin in the game, or else there is no incentive for voters to control and restrain spending.
Dan Posted October 14, 2008 Posted October 14, 2008 Take a look at this graph... http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm Just awful. This is unsustainable and will break the US as a nation if it is not reigned in. Obama is proposing massive new government spending programs. McCain forgot what he proposed, but knows its expensive. Where is Ross Perot when you need him? If he ran today...he just might win. Prediction...within 25 years, there will be a new viable 3rd party, dedicated to fiscal conservatism/social libertarianism that will elect a President. The Republicans will be marginalized to the South, the Democrats to the left coast and certain Northeast/Midwest industrial areas. This is ridiculous. Interesting graphic to say the least. Aside from that, anyone that thinks either of the candidates previous spending/taxing proposals are still on the table given the recent couple of weeks is ignoring the reality that will face this guy next January. Not knowing much about this sort of thing, it would be interesting to know what's the difference between the 50's and the 80's regarding government budgeting. Also, what did the Clinton administration do (if anything) to taper the debt? Seems like someone should know and be able to propose similar plans to curtail the deficit. Just read the article below the graph. Quite interesting indeed. Obviously, I don't have time (nor knowledge) to fact check the whole thing and critique it properly. However, it seems to fly directly in the face of the notion that Obama and the Democrats will spend more, tax more, and run the debt up higher. In fact, it states just the opposite. The Republicans regularly state they want a balanced budget and less government spending, yet no republican president has been able to achieve that "goal" (I paraphrased). I would suggest that anyone concerned about bigger government and increased government spending - read the entire article. It's thought provoking in the least.
TPS Posted October 14, 2008 Posted October 14, 2008 I agree. Time to stop giving nearly 40% of the nation a free ride on federal taxes. Haven't you guys figured out that total federal revenues include SS taxes? The government doesn't keep it in a lock box, it uses it like general revenue. But, hey, we all know that you guys are the party that wants to foment class warfare... Btw, since the last update of that graph was 9/21, it doesn't include the bailout.
molson_golden2002 Posted October 14, 2008 Posted October 14, 2008 How do you cut government spending without hurting consumer spending?
Da Big Man Posted October 14, 2008 Posted October 14, 2008 Haven't you guys figured out that total federal revenues include SS taxes? The government doesn't keep it in a lock box, it uses it like general revenue. But, hey, we all know that you guys are the party that wants to foment class warfare... Btw, since the last update of that graph was 9/21, it doesn't include the bailout. Lets assign blame where it is due. Dem majority senate and house is the big problem here and will be no matter who is elected. Obama=more hand outs domestically, more jobs lost overseas, more money given to third world coutries, higher taxes, less defense, less security, trouble for everybody with a job.
OCinBuffalo Posted October 14, 2008 Posted October 14, 2008 Dear God, I hope so. Sign me up. Sign me up too. Perhaps we should start it right here and now. I suppose it would better than bitching all the time. We can even let Molson join if he promises to do the reading first. Example of Molson not doing the reading: How do you cut government spending without hurting consumer spending? Dude, if you cut government spending, you can also cut taxes, which means more money available for consumers to spend, save, pay off bills, whatever! All of which eventually lead to more money to spend or invest. Also, the more the government spends, the higher prices go = inflation = less buying power for the consumer's $ = less spending. Why on God's green earth is this so hard to understand? It's a straightforward concept written at the 5th grade English reading level.
Da Big Man Posted October 14, 2008 Posted October 14, 2008 Sign me up too. Perhaps we should start it right here and now. I suppose it would better than bitching all the time. We can even let Molson join if he promises to do the reading first. Example of Molson not doing the reading: Dude, if you cut government spending, you can also cut taxes, which means more money available for consumers to spend, save, pay off bills, whatever! All of which eventually lead to more money to spend or invest. Also, the more the government spends, the higher prices go = inflation = less buying power for the consumer's $ = less spending. Why on God's green earth is this so hard to understand? It's a straightforward concept written at the 5th grade English reading level. Logic to these morons is as useful as a poopy flavored lollypop. But I get it, Hands off or bust.
molson_golden2002 Posted October 14, 2008 Posted October 14, 2008 Sign me up too. Perhaps we should start it right here and now. I suppose it would better than bitching all the time. We can even let Molson join if he promises to do the reading first. Example of Molson not doing the reading: Dude, if you cut government spending, you can also cut taxes, which means more money available for consumers to spend, save, pay off bills, whatever! All of which eventually lead to more money to spend or invest. Also, the more the government spends, the higher prices go = inflation = less buying power for the consumer's $ = less spending. Why on God's green earth is this so hard to understand? It's a straightforward concept written at the 5th grade English reading level. No, that's not what would happen. Cutting taxes would mean the wealthy would keep more, and the wealthy can only buy so many cars, toasters and whatever else, so consumer spending would drop.
bills_fan Posted October 14, 2008 Author Posted October 14, 2008 How do you cut government spending without hurting consumer spending? You can't. And this is a nicely nuanced question, given that consumer spending acounts for 70% of GDP. And, to deal with this problem, I would ensure every person in America pays taxes (has a skin in the game). I'd cut government spending and run a surplus. Use the surplus to pay off the debt. Yes, I would put us into a technical recession (defined as negative GDP growth). Better recession than what would occur down the line. Once the debt is repaid (and a balanced budget amendment to the US Constitution is passed, ensuring it did not happen ever again), then we can look at tax cuts vs. government spending, using the surplus that had paid our debt. But the immediate problem will not be an easy fix.
OCinBuffalo Posted October 14, 2008 Posted October 14, 2008 Interesting graphic to say the least. Aside from that, anyone that thinks either of the candidates previous spending/taxing proposals are still on the table given the recent couple of weeks is ignoring the reality that will face this guy next January. And you are flat out kidding yourself if you don't get that in DC "accomplishing something" in order to have a "record" means spending money on something. That's the way they think, both parties. I highly doubt that the current paradigm is going to change unless we go down there together and beat it into their heads. And, we'll have to keep doing it every 5 years or so to prevent slippage. Not knowing much about this sort of thing, it would be interesting to know what's the difference between the 50's and the 80's regarding government budgeting. Also, what did the Clinton administration do (if anything) to taper the debt? Seems like someone should know and be able to propose similar plans to curtail the deficit. They didn't taper anything. 3 things happened: 1. Reagan cut corporate taxes which were at 60-70% 2. In doing so, he increased the national debt, but he also got American business moving again 3. Clinton benefited from Reagan's tax cuts, and from Reagan winning the cold war = the "peace dividend", and proceeded to further that effort by creating worker education programs(through tax cuts, incentives, grants, etc.). That gave business 2 things = a new, technology-educated labor force and a whole lot of extra money for R&D = economic boom. With the increased profit business made came increased taxes they were paying, plus increased payroll taxes because they were expanding and hiring. All this extra tax revenue = balanced national budget. The problem is that the politicians acted like children = no self-discipline, and thought "hey, with all this extra money we can spend all we like", and that's what killed the balanced budget. It was a political play by the Republicans = keep taxes low, but outspend Democrats so you take all of their issues away = get elected. It was the exact opposite of the Clinton years, where both parties were trying to see who could out-cut, not out-spend, the other. Just read the article below the graph. Quite interesting indeed. Obviously, I don't have time (nor knowledge) to fact check the whole thing and critique it properly. However, it seems to fly directly in the face of the notion that Obama and the Democrats will spend more, tax more, and run the debt up higher. In fact, it states just the opposite. The Republicans regularly state they want a balanced budget and less government spending, yet no republican president has been able to achieve that "goal" (I paraphrased). Bull. Like I said, Reagan needed to take drastic measures to fix Carter's mess. The problem was that instead of letting things settle, Clinton and Bush decided to increase spending instead of leaving it where it was. So really, and sadly, it's not a question of who is going to cut spending and who isn't anymore. Rather, it's "who is going to act only kind of like a spoiled brat instead of fully like one?"
Recommended Posts