I'd like to maybe point the finger at people voting over the last 30 years or so, but really the debt has mushroomed in only about the past 10 years (basically doubling in that time).

What bothers me the most is a lack of practical solutions. Repubs don't want to cut defense and Dems keep pushing that all we have to do is tax the rich and corporations more. The maddening thing about all this is the supposed "painful" steps needed to trim a $1.5T deficit when only 5 years ago it was 1/3 that amount.

In 2007, we spent @ $2.73B with a $500B deficit. Now in 2012 we are going to spend $3.6T and run a $1.2T deficit (and both probably end-up higher)? A 33% increase in spending in just 5 years?!? Note also that revenues, despite the economy, are projected about 10-12% higher than in 2007, which is about in-line with inflation. There's a good $500-$600B just being flushed down the toilet here.

BGFalcons82;1183334 wrote:I'm not sure I follow the blame game for a generation of people. Each generation of Americans had their own share of seemingly insurmountable problems. They found ways to solve them...some worked and some didn't. I just don't see how those born between 1945 and 1960 are to blame for the wanton disregard of fiscal sanity that is the latest insurmountable obstacle concerning our debt cliff. In fact, if any generation is responsible for promising utopia are the Progressives of Teddy Roosevelt and further with FDR.

I choose to not place blame on a group of folks born at the same time, but on a mindset and philosophy that has its roots in, "to each according to their needs from each according to their means." Those professing federal big government solutions for every problem have driven us to the cliff and they are to blame, not the boomers.

agreed

More deceptive still is Obama has transferred the cost of some of his policies to the states. Remember the "strings attached" with the stimulus? We're just talking federal debt here, but many states are in as much, if not more, trouble.

So as sad as the $1.4T or so deficits we've been averaging is that hundreds of billions more have been "transferred" to state deficits.

gut;1183350 wrote:More deceptive still is Obama has transferred the cost of some of his policies to the states. Remember the "strings attached" with the stimulus? We're just talking federal debt here, but many states are in as much, if not more, trouble.

So as sad as the $1.4T or so deficits we've been averaging is that hundreds of billions more have been "transferred" to state deficits.

You have to admire DC creative math. It's amazing that the Feds can get away with deception, lies, and fuzzy math to get away with economic failure, but the IRS is on the individual taxpayer like white on rice if we cheat on our taxes.

believer;1183351 wrote:You have to admire DC creative math. It's amazing that the Feds can get away with deception, lies, and fuzzy math to get away with economic failure, but the IRS is on the individual taxpayer like white on rice if we cheat on our taxes.

And for all the talk of Romney being Obama-lite, I shudder to think what Obama might do removed from concerns of being re-elected.

In essence, Obama's campaign is going to be two-pronged:
1) He was too inexperienced, so just forget these 4 years because he "gets it" now.
2) He had to pretend to be a pragmatic moderate. These next four years he can really push HIS agenda.

^^^Dead on target which is precisely why Romney (despite the Obama comparisons) is certainly a far better choice.

What still stuns and amazes me is the fact that there are still enough people out there buying off on the Hope & Change mantra that Obama stands a real chance of being re-elected in what is clearly the worst economy since the mid to late 70's...and arguably since the Great Depression.

And if this weren't bad enough, the even larger buffoons in Europe are flirting with throwing the world economy into an even deeper recession. That coupled with an Obama re-election could or most likely will make the last 4 years seem like good times.

No matter who is elected, domestic policy wise, they are crippled. No way will anything get done. There will be no Obama grand agenda, Romney won't/ can't reverse anything. The Congress will be deadlocked. Nothing will take place that will dramatically change anything.

Anything either candidate proposes budget or tax wise will not happen.
So, to me, any discussion on debt, budget, or tax is irrevelant unless it is prefaced on how they will interact and work with Congress.

All government spending is simply a means to bridge the unemployment gap. If Obama's economy didn't include an unemployment rate close to 10, he wouldn't have spent nearly as much.

It would be nice if the number of private sector jobs would grow at the rate needed to keep unemployment at 5%. But those days are gone....forever.

As for the complaint on boomers...sure we are complicit to the crime. But we never had an alternative to vote in. Since 1976 when I voted for Ford, I've watched both sides talk about reducing unemployment, creating jobs.....blah, blah, blah.

I gave up caring awhile ago...because it won't change. My idea of promoting private sector growth isn't shared by either party. So why should I even care?

As Keynes said...at the end of the day, we're all dead.

Dude, they aren't spending $1.5T+ because unemployment is 5 points higher than optimal. The toughest choices Obama has had to make are which toilet to flush billions down.

gut;1183342 wrote:In 2007, we spent @ $2.73B with a $500B deficit. Now in 2012 we are going to spend $3.6T and run a $1.2T deficit (and both probably end-up higher)? A 33% increase in spending in just 5 years?!? Note also that revenues, despite the economy, are projected about 10-12% higher than in 2007, which is about in-line with inflation. There's a good $500-$600B just being flushed down the toilet here.

Thank you. As some of us have been saying here and elsewhere, we have a spending problem; not a revenue problem. How the debate got to be framed by liberals as having to do with too little tax revenue and needing to tax the top income group even more is beyond belief. Quite simply, cut out the spending increases of the obama regime, and the budget would now be nearly balanced.

QuakerOats;1183714 wrote:Thank you. As some of us have been saying here and elsewhere, we have a spending problem; not a revenue problem. How the debate got to be framed by liberals as having to do with too little tax revenue and needing to tax the top income group even more is beyond belief. Quite simply, cut out the spending increases of the obama regime, and the budget would now be nearly balanced.

Maybe 1/4 of the deficit is due to taxes. Perhaps another 1/4 is due to the sluggish economy and unemployment. The rest is simply too much spending, which liberals refuse to cut because in order to buy votes you have to spend money.

And the spending elephant in the room is really Medicare. SS can be saved, but what's interesting is when you look at outlays, Medicare/Medicaid is even higher than SS. Now take a look at FICA - @ 1.2% for that vs. 6.2%(?) for SS. That's your big spending gap. So the solution IS a combination of cuts and taxes FOR EVERYONE (that's a social insurance program). To close that gap, you'd actually need to raise FICA 10pts (5% to you and 5% to your employer). That would, perhaps unsurprisingly, bring those taxes in line with Europe.

gut;1183758 wrote:And the spending elephant in the room is really Medicare. SS can be saved, but what's interesting is when you look at outlays, Medicare/Medicaid is even higher than SS. Now take a look at FICA - @ 1.2% for that vs. 6.2%(?) for SS. That's your big spending gap. So the solution IS a combination of cuts and taxes FOR EVERYONE (that's a social insurance program). To close that gap, you'd actually need to raise FICA 10pts (5% to you and 5% to your employer). That would, perhaps unsurprisingly, bring those taxes in line with Europe.

Regarding the bolded part, Uncle Sam really pulled a number on its citizens a few years ago by hiding the matching contribution from employers. The tax is really 12.4%, however that would never sell to the people, so they keep it at 6.2% for the employee AND the employer. Since citizens never see it, they don't consider it a tax. Businesses MUST allow for it in their labor rates as it is a direct tax on payroll.

But then again...it's evil rotten fat-cat wealth-hoarders, so they deserve more taxes, not less. :rolleyes: Nevermind the fact that this tax is INCLUDED in the cost of goods and services provided by the business, so people pay the tax when they buy any good or service.

That is the biggest argument for a sales tax so that people can start seeing how much the govt is taking. Even ignoring all the hidden taxes that are hard to see (such as corporate taxes passed on to the consumer in the price of goods), they lessen the blow by taking a little bit from everywhere.

Govt gets a ridiculous amount of tax on gasoline, too. But you never see that (directly) at the pump. Renters probably don't think they're paying property taxes, but they are. Sales tax in many states is already 9%+!!! Imagine if the feds tack on another 5-10% to that.

gut;1183783 wrote:Sales tax in many states is already 9%+!!!

Or higher. Tennessee's sales tax is 10% on all purchases including most food items. However, there is also no state income tax. Now that I live here I'm OK with that scenario. It encourages the consumer to be smarter about their purchases and businesses to be price sensitive.

believer;1184129 wrote:Or higher. Tennessee's sales tax is 10% on all purchases including most food items. However, there is also no state income tax. Now that I live here I'm OK with that scenario. It encourages the consumer to be smarter about their purchases and businesses to be price sensitive.

Yeah, many states with higher sales taxes have little to no state income tax. That is, unless you're one of the big liberal experiments like CA, IL or MA, then you get it coming and going.

gut;1183538 wrote:Dude, they aren't spending $1.5T+ because unemployment is 5 points higher than optimal. The toughest choices Obama has had to make are which toilet to flush billions down.

Actually it is unemployment numbers that spawn government spending. It's called Keynes philosophy...been going on for decades and decades. Sure there are some mitigating circumstances, but it's Keynes thinking for about 70 years.

Be careful before you call me a Keynesianist though. I'm just stating the numbers. Not cool with deficit spending. Never have been and never will be. My solution is boosting the American private sector, but nobody from either side likes my plan. Both parties are huge pro Keynesinists. One leans on local spending and the other leans a little bit more on foreign intervention spending. Both parties finance the charade through federal tax IOU. One party lowers the taxes a little more and as a result, deficit spends a little more.

All the same.

First obama insults Poland and its 38 million people and then he gives the Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian award, to a marxist ------- you just can't make this stuff up.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2889301/posts

change we can believe in ...

Governor Romney Inherited An Economy That Was Losing Jobs Each Month And Left Office With An Economy That Was Adding Jobs Each Month.

You can't make this stuff up.

This was an official release from Willard's campaign today in defense of his job creation record as his time as Govenor has come under scrutiny for being 47th out of 50 states in job creation.

Does anyone else realize he just made BHO's argument for him about why we should overlook his poor economic performance because he inhereted a recession and he has been cleaning it up (in his mind).

Willard is undercutting his own arguments for why we should throw BHO out with statements like that. It is surreal to me, because if I had just posted "Inherited An Economy That Was Losing Jobs Each Month And Left Office With An Economy That Was Adding Jobs Each Month" we would have all immediately figured it was BHO.

Thank God for the reports today that Super Pac's are planning to spend up to $1-2 Billion to get him elected this year (worth the investment since you know he won't raise your taxes) because left to his own devises the guy is an awful candidate.

IggyPride00;1184887 wrote:You can't make this stuff up.

This was an official release from Willard's campaign today in defense of his job creation record as his time as Govenor has come under scrutiny for being 47th out of 50 states in job creation.

Does anyone else realize he just made BHO's argument for him about why we should overlook his poor economic performance because he inhereted a recession and he has been cleaning it up (in his mind).

Willard is undercutting his own arguments for why we should throw BHO out with statements like that. It is surreal to me, because if I had just posted "Inherited An Economy That Was Losing Jobs Each Month And Left Office With An Economy That Was Adding Jobs Each Month" we would have all immediately figured it was BHO.

Thank God for the reports today that Super Pac's are planning to spend up to $1-2 Billion to get him elected this year (worth the investment since you know he won't raise your taxes) because left to his own devises the guy is an awful candidate.

The problem is that the US is still losing jobs, so BHO hasn't 'turned it around' at all.

The problem is that the US is still losing jobs, so BHO hasn't 'turned it around' at all.

Actually we aren't losing them anymore, just not creating enough new ones. Oddly enough, BHO has a net positive private sector jobs number while being upside down on government workforce size. I would have expected that to be flipped around.



These are the stats I found from the BLS. We have been creating jobs every month, just not enough of them.

I am interested to see where this new line of argument between the 2 of them goes because BHO could make the exact same claim as Willard is trying to based on the numbers.

By coming out and telling everyone that inherited recessions do major damage to your job numbers, Willard is going to inadvertently provide cover for BHO.

It is just not a smart angle to take (or try and protect yourself with) because it is a huge vulnerability for the one, and Willard basically admitted its not his fault, just as it wasn't his in Massachusetts. Just doesn't make sense really to me to even go there.

IggyPride00;1184968 wrote:Actually we aren't losing them anymore, just not creating enough new ones. Oddly enough, BHO has a net positive private sector jobs number while being upside down on government workforce size. I would have expected that to be flipped around.



These are the stats I found from the BLS. We have been creating jobs every month, just not enough of them.

I am interested to see where this new line of argument between the 2 of them goes because BHO could make the exact same claim as Willard is trying to based on the numbers.

By coming out and telling everyone that inherited recessions do major damage to your job numbers, Willard is going to inadvertently provide cover for BHO.

It is just not a smart angle to take (or try and protect yourself with) because it is a huge vulnerability for the one, and Willard basically admitted its not his fault, just as it wasn't his in Massachusetts. Just doesn't make sense really to me to even go there.

Look at the numbers across "Employed" under civilian...

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.a.htm

We lost 130,000 jobs from Feb to Mar and lost 170,000 jobs from Mar to Apr.

Facts are facts, no matter what you think the economy is currently doing, we are still losing jobs on a monthly basis.

I agree Iggy -- there is a better way for Romney to frame the debate.

If it was me; I would simply hammer away at the major items of concern and the fact that everything obama has touched has gotten worse.

Inherited debt --- made it way, way worse
Inherited deficit spending ---- made it way, way worse
Inherited unemployment --- made it way, way worse

gas prices --- doubled
regulations ---- out of control
green energy ---- subsidized bankruptcies

And on and on and on ......

Although, when you take on the challenge of running for president, you really don't 'inherit' anything --- that is a cop out; you asked for the job.

jmog;1184982 wrote:Look at the numbers across "Employed" under civilian...

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.a.htm

We lost 130,000 jobs from Feb to Mar and lost 170,000 jobs from Mar to Apr.

Facts are facts, no matter what you think the economy is currently doing, we are still losing jobs on a monthly basis.

Notice iggey said "private sector"

Were still losing lots of public sector jobs. Iggeys graph is private sector employment. If public sector jobs were growing at the rate they were following the early 80's recession we'd be approaching full employment. The private sector has actually done ok. Still definitely not enough to keep up with population growth.

Govt jobs don't create value, generally. If you believe they did, then in direct competition with the private sector it would necessarily crowd those jobs out, one way or the other. So it really doesn't matter whether the govt creates a job to count paperclips or the private sector does it (ignoring efficiency) because the economy only supports X number of such jobs.

Expanding the govt is never a cure for a struggling jobs outlook. The lone exception would be war/expanding the military. And make no mistake about it - unless they truly are as dumb as some think, the decision to end the wars in the Middle East had to take into consideration that there were no jobs for them to come home to.

I mean, sure, you can "create" govt jobs for whatever reason. That's basically welfare, except it's for life with a good pension and you ask them to dig holes and then fill them, as opposed to sitting on the couch watching Oprah re-runs.

You can't spend your way to prosperity. The govt SHOULD, in theory, grow with the economy and the population. In other words, what the economy can sustainably support. In the past 10 years or more the govt has grown far faster and it's weighing down the economy.

This ought to be cause for great celebration and joy amongst those who abhor the evil scum satanic wealthy - http://www.cnbc.com/id/47631154

129,000 less millionaires = happy days for all!!! They are all so lucky anyways, it's good that they are getting their just due now. Thieves. Miscreants. Slum lords. Tax cheats. Yeah...good for us!!

This will surely help our economy expand to new heights....right?