BoatShoes;730327 wrote:You sound like Billy Graham. U.S. debt as a percentage of GDP has been much higher before. We're getting there but the market is still supporting our debt and there is concern on the horizon but your solution would create even greater deficits down the road. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_debt_chart.html

In fact, the stagnant economic times of the late 70's was consistent with the U.S. having the lowest debt as a percentage of GDP since the 30's.

Too much Dave Ramsey methinks.

US debt will surpass our GDP come about June. Do you know what that means? It will mean we owe more than we are worth. We'll be just like nearly all 3rd world countries. Hooray for American exceptionalism, huh?

By the way, you have a problem with Billy Graham? Maybe if there were more Billy's and less Farakhan's, the world would be different. But I digress.

BGFalcons82;731059 wrote:US debt will surpass our GDP come about June. Do you know what that means? It will mean we owe more than we are worth.

Actually not, GDP is a measure of annual income. It would be like saying you're bankrupt because your mortgage and other debt is more than your annual salary.

queencitybuckeye;731263 wrote:Actually not, GDP is a measure of annual income. It would be like saying you're bankrupt because your mortgage and other debt is more than your annual salary.

Maybe, but if I do a net worth sheet, I get to count the value of my house as well as the debt owed. Up until a couple years ago, houses were always worth more than the mortgages, but that's turned hard the other way, hasn't it? But I digress from your point.

I may have misquoted someone when I wrote the post, but we've never had more debt than our GDP since The Big One. What was that, 6+ decades ago? It's not normal, It's not to be poo-poo'd. It's not a hill, it is a cliff...and we're getting closer to the edge every day by the tune of $4,000,000,000 per sunset. We are the economic balance sheet equal to a 3rd world country. Congratulations, Barry...you did it.

BoatShoes;730337 wrote:government should not be worried about running a surplus or a balanced budget yet! Those concerns are nearing on the horizon but if you don't do enough to make up for lost GDP we're going to end up like Japan and lose an entire decade because conservatives think deficits don't matter during boom times and they're the only thing that matters during rough times WHEN THIS IS COMPLETELY BACKWARDS!!!! If we had ran surpluses or a balanced budget during the boom times of 2001-2007 we would not have as great of a looming debt crisis.

?????????

dwccrew;731393 wrote:?????????

I assume he means until the job market recovers more.

revgat;731398 wrote:I assume he means until the job market recovers more.

Yes but what he ignores is the fact that the job market (the private job market at least) is not likely to recover significantly anytime soon. The manufacturing jobs that once drove economic recovery in the private sector don't exist anymore. The old "run up government deficits in bad economic times to prime the pump" idea no longer has any validity and, quite frankly, never really had.

Now it's just a faster track to the economic insanity being practiced by our nation's "leaders."

But what the hell...we'll just let the Feds create more good paying gubmint jobs with great benefits to pick-up the slack. We'll pay for that by raising taxes on businesses and individuals in the private sector who are still fortunate enough to have jobs. Then those businesses will export the remaining private sector jobs to India and China to avoid the taxation and the lefties will cry foul about corporate tax avoidance.

See how that works?

For all of the naysayers in the audience, whom claim that the Tea Party and their Republican counterparts are simply the party of "no" and offer nothing, Paul Ryan is coming out with a serious proposal in about 48 hours -

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/03/gop-budget-plan-cut-4-trillion-decade-ryan-says/

This proposal goes BEYOND what Obama's debt commission reported 4 months ago in the total amount of spending cuts over the next 10 years. It is a cut of MORE than $4,000,000,000,000 and takes on Medicare, the single largest entitlement program. This is the real discussion, not the killing of 70,000 children by evil satanic HR1. There is a line in the sand being drawn. One side is for serious reductions in government spending for the survival of the republic, the other is lip service and takes us over the economic cliff, some say as soon as 2 years from now. Which side are you on? The status-quo, a/k/a the Titanic or the lifeboat which takes extreme amounts of energy, effort and rowing, but survival is at least an option?

BGFalcons82;731596 wrote:For all of the naysayers in the audience, whom claim that the Tea Party and their Republican counterparts are simply the party of "no" and offer nothing, Paul Ryan is coming out with a serious proposal in about 48 hours -

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/03/gop-budget-plan-cut-4-trillion-decade-ryan-says/

This proposal goes BEYOND what Obama's debt commission reported 4 months ago in the total amount of spending cuts over the next 10 years. It is a cut of MORE than $4,000,000,000,000 and takes on Medicare, the single largest entitlement program. This is the real discussion, not the killing of 70,000 children by evil satanic HR1. There is a line in the sand being drawn. One side is for serious reductions in government spending for the survival of the republic, the other is lip service and takes us over the economic cliff, some say as soon as 2 years from now. Which side are you on? The status-quo, a/k/a the Titanic or the lifeboat which takes extreme amounts of energy, effort and rowing, but survival is at least an option?

Cool, but what about the budget from now until October 1, 2011?
I'm hearing mixed things on a deal before April 8th.

FY 2012 budget is nice, but makes no sense when there is no FY 2011 budget yet.

You can't take smaller steps now to get to a major piece of legislation in the immediate future, p-town?

I'm guessing they have to bring out information on this legislation now because there is bound to be a LOT of debate about whether it should go forward, and the bill sponsor wants to make sure that time is available. God knows, you don't want to be accused of trying to ram something through without public scrutiny the way we saw the porkulus and health care "reform" bills approved.

Writerbuckeye;731605 wrote:You can't take smaller steps now to get to a major piece of legislation in the immediate future, p-town?

I'm guessing they have to bring out information on this legislation now because there is bound to be a LOT of debate about whether it should go forward, and the bill sponsor wants to make sure that time is available. God knows, you don't want to be accused of trying to ram something through without public scrutiny the way we saw the porkulus and health care "reform" bills approved.

Oh, some of his plans sound great. But, until we get a budget for the rest of the fiscal year, no one is going to focus on the issue. I understand him rolling it out in two days, cause he said he would. But, that is next year's budget and we still need to fix this year's.

ptown_trojans_1;731598 wrote:FY 2012 budget is nice, but makes no sense when there is no FY 2011 budget yet.

Budget? What budget? Is there one? Do you mean the budget that went into effect on 10-1-10? The one that was essentially passed over by the ruling Dems last year? Are you now claiming it is somebody else's responsibility to do the the Dems' job for them? Fine with me as long as you can live with the Tea Party in charge of appropriations.

Cut cut cut I say. While I'd be very disappointed with only $32,000,000,000 is savings, it's a very small piece of the real monsters facing US - Medicare, Social Security, and Servicing the Debt.

BGFalcons82;731611 wrote:Budget? What budget? Is there one? Do you mean the budget that went into effect on 10-1-10? The one that was essentially passed over by the ruling Dems last year? Are you now claiming it is somebody else's responsibility to do the the Dems' job for them? Fine with me as long as you can live with the Tea Party in charge of appropriations.

Cut cut cut I say. While I'd be very disappointed with only $32,000,000,000 is savings, it's a very small piece of the real monsters facing US - Medicare, Social Security, and Servicing the Debt.

Yes, the current budget that has been passed off and kicked down the road. I don't care who is in charge or who is to blame, there just needs to be an agreement to a budget that will last to 9/30/11. That means everyone needs to agree on cuts to areas now for the next few months. I agree on cuts everywhere, only things is no one in power other than Ryan agree.

Then, we can move to the FY 2012 budget. But, sadly, I see that one lasting until this time next year for that too.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GOP_2012_BUDGET?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-04-03-10-33-40


Alas ........... change we can believe in ..........

revgat;731398 wrote:I assume he means until the job market recovers more.

I would have ???????? how the entirety of 2001-2007 was considered a boom time. Apparently he wasn't in the U.S. during the tech boom crash in 2nd Q '00 that lasted until early '04. Not too many people that saw their stock portfolios tank or lost their jobs in that period would consider that a boom time.