believer;842092 wrote:Where's Gibby when you need him?

I seriously don't get why people still support Obama. I can't think of one thing he's done right since he's been in office. Sure, killing OBL was awesome, but does Obama really deserve that much credit for accomplishing that? There's a zero percent chance I can cast a vote for this guy, and I'm highly considering voting for any Republican(even Bachman) just to get rid of him.

All of the plans put forward are bunk. Cutting 2.5 or 4 or even 8 trillion over 10 years isn't going to do shit for the deficit. The government is not going to freeze any kind of budget increase. They will spend more and more while "cutting" these puny amounts and continue to rack up huge deficits. The idea that we need to take a decade or more to balance the budget is laughable.

tk421;842105 wrote:All of the plans put forward are bunk. Cutting 2.5 or 4 or even 8 trillion over 10 years isn't going to do **** for the deficit. The government is not going to freeze any kind of budget increase. They will spend more and more while "cutting" these puny amounts and continue to rack up huge deficits. The idea that we need to take a decade or more to balance the budget is laughable.

Actually, assuming that someday we'll have 4% unemployment again, 4-8 trillion is not a bad number.

fish82;842133 wrote:Actually, assuming that someday we'll have 4% unemployment again, 4-8 trillion is not a bad number.

Good luck with that. I doubt unemployment will ever dip below 6% ever again, if it even gets that low.

fish82;842133 wrote:Actually, assuming that someday we'll have 4% unemployment again, 4-8 trillion is not a bad number.

When our deficit is $1.5 trillion per year (and rising), saving $4 trillion over 10 years means we are only going to add $11 trillion to the debt? No that's not enough. And when the interest rates on our debt increase you can double that number. And I don't see how unemployment will ever get down to 4% again. Cutting taxes would help, but it would cost too much in the short term, and it wouldn't solve enough problems to get unemployment down that low.

Cleveland Buck;842176 wrote:When our deficit is $1.5 trillion per year (and rising), saving $4 trillion over 10 years means we are only going to add $11 trillion to the debt? No that's not enough. And when the interest rates on our debt increase you can double that number. And I don't see how unemployment will ever get down to 4% again. Cutting taxes would help, but it would cost too much in the short term, and it wouldn't solve enough problems to get unemployment down that low.

I agree. I don't see how anyone thinks cutting 800B a year (assuming 8 billion in actual cuts/10 years, which would never happen) will do anything when we are running 1.5+ T deficits each year. I also agree about unemployment, the true number is 15%+, that's not going to ever drop below 6% ever again. Even if it did, the vast majority of those jobs will be part time/low paying full time jobs, not exactly the type of jobs that pay taxes at all.

tk421;842105 wrote:All of the plans put forward are bunk. Cutting 2.5 or 4 or even 8 trillion over 10 years isn't going to do shit for the deficit. The government is not going to freeze any kind of budget increase. They will spend more and more while "cutting" these puny amounts and continue to rack up huge deficits. The idea that we need to take a decade or more to balance the budget is laughable.

There are a couple dirty secrets that need to stated each and every time the word, "cut" is used:

1. There is no such thing as a "cut" 10 years from now. The next Congress, convening in January, 2013, doesn't have to follow one iota of what the current Congress hatches. The Congress in 2021 could care less what the 2010 Congress passed. HOWEVER, tax "loophole" closures, "revenue generators", and tax increases will be implemented as fast as the ink can dry and future Congresses have a helluva time dealing with tax changes. The idea of trading future "cuts" vs. virtually instantaneous tax increases is appalling. Yet...it's spit by Barry, Harry, MSNBC, etc. daily and everyone believes everything they say. Charlie...go ahead, kick Lucy's football again.

2. The term, "cut" needs defining. They have yet to propose what Webster would define as spending less than before. Our wonderful elitist leaders devised baseline budgeting back in the 70's and that means that spending less than what is forecast by baseline projections is deemed a "cut". Obama's Porkulus and TARP are NOW in the baselines for spending. This is how we got to 25% of our GDP to be spent by the feds this past year. These "leaders" in DC are now selling "cuts" in 10 years based on a baseline that included the awesome TARP and the Summer of Recovery's Pork Program. There are NO TRUE CUTS being proposed. Even Ryan's plan to reduce spending by $7,000,000,000,000 was founded on baseline budgeting.

The end is default without real cuts. It's where we're headed eventually because the elitist do-gooders can't handle the truth about money that does not exist. Maybe not next week or next month, but they've spent our country into oblivion and there will be a day of reckoning. The other choice is the way of Zimbabwe. Either way, business as usual and can-kicking are all over.

BGFalcons82;842261 wrote:There are a couple dirty secrets that need to stated each and every time the word, "cut" is used:

1. There is no such thing as a "cut" 10 years from now. The next Congress, convening in January, 2013, doesn't have to follow one iota of what the current Congress hatches. The Congress in 2021 could care less what the 2010 Congress passed. HOWEVER, tax "loophole" closures, "revenue generators", and tax increases will be implemented as fast as the ink can dry and future Congresses have a helluva time dealing with tax changes. The idea of trading future "cuts" vs. virtually instantaneous tax increases is appalling. Yet...it's spit by Barry, Harry, MSNBC, etc. daily and everyone believes everything they say. Charlie...go ahead, kick Lucy's football again.

Sort of true. There are areas where you can multi year budget. I only know about it in the Defense budget, with ship building, but you can expand it to lower levels for various programs each year over time. I'm not sure if that is feasible in the Appropriations Committees, but one option.You can also pass a law calling for the gradual reduction of a program or agency and stipulate that the only way that can be overturned is through a floor vote. I'm not sure how that could be received as well.

2. The term, "cut" needs defining. They have yet to propose what Webster would define as spending less than before. Our wonderful elitist leaders devised baseline budgeting back in the 70's and that means that spending less than what is forecast by baseline projections is deemed a "cut". Obama's Porkulus and TARP are NOW in the baselines for spending. This is how we got to 25% of our GDP to be spent by the feds this past year. These "leaders" in DC are now selling "cuts" in 10 years based on a baseline that included the awesome TARP and the Summer of Recovery's Pork Program. There are NO TRUE CUTS being proposed. Even Ryan's plan to reduce spending by $7,000,000,000,000 was founded on baseline budgeting.

1. TARP was Bush and needed to save the economy from going off a cliff. Remember, the stock market dropped 800 points and then 700 points in a matter of days. Also, TARP money has largely been paid back.
2. I agree on what you are saying. Both sides need to really get in the details and make it public what they are talking about on cuts. Give specific programs and agencies that cut.
3. Stimulus money was a temp solution. As far as I know, they budget for FY12 does not include that money. [/quote]

The end is default without real cuts. It's where we're headed eventually because the elitist do-gooders can't handle the truth about money that does not exist. Maybe not next week or next month, but they've spent our country into oblivion and there will be a day of reckoning. The other choice is the way of Zimbabwe. Either way, business as usual and can-kicking are all over.

Ehh, I disagree with your pessimism, but whatever. I believe will work find a way out of this like every other crisis we have had in this country''s history. This is America. We find solutions and move on.

ptown_trojans_1;842295 wrote:Ehh, I disagree with your pessimism, but whatever. I believe will work find a way out of this like every other crisis we have had in this country''s history. This is America. We find solutions and move on.

I can appreciate your optimism, but I don't understand where it is coming from. Mandatory spending (entitlements and interest on the debt) already exceeds tax revenue. If you can raise taxes without crushing what's left of the economy you might be able to squeeze a few hundred billion more out of the rich and balance the budget if you don't provide this country a military and cut out every dollar of discretionary spending.

Now factor in the fact that we will obviously maintain a military, have to pay for Obamakare, and skyrocketing interest rates on the debt when the U.S. credit rating is downgraded (which will happen any time now), and if they cut every other penny of discretionary spending we still have no chance of ever coming close to balancing the budget let alone paying down the debt.

ptown_trojans_1;842295 wrote: Ehh, I disagree with your pessimism, but whatever. I believe will work find a way out of this like every other crisis we have had in this country''s history. This is America. We find solutions and move on.

Is there a country that has successfully pulled itself out from under such a mountain of debt without default or devaluation? I'm not being coy, I'm asking because I honestly don't know.

I've lost all confidence in this govt to come remotely close to passing a balanced budget under anything but a booming economy (ala Clinton). IF - and it's a big if - we can get this thing back to $200B-$400B deficits that will be "good enough", such is the mentality in Washington. I don't think there's any kind of stomach to make the needed deep cuts to entitlements and military spending, and taxes (with the exception of a VAT) aren't going to come remotely close to bridging the gaps. Not to mention, the next crisis will come and will jack-up the deficit spending again.

It would take like 40 years to pay off the debt running a $200B surplus. We are in deep shit, and I was talking like you 3-4 years ago.

Cleveland Buck;842363 wrote:I can appreciate your optimism, but I don't understand where it is coming from. Mandatory spending (entitlements and interest on the debt) already exceeds tax revenue. If you can raise taxes without crushing what's left of the economy you might be able to squeeze a few hundred billion more out of the rich and balance the budget if you don't provide this country a military and cut out every dollar of discretionary spending.

Now factor in the fact that we will obviously maintain a military, have to pay for Obamakare, and skyrocketing interest rates on the debt when the U.S. credit rating is downgraded (which will happen any time now), and if they cut every other penny of discretionary spending we still have no chance of ever coming close to balancing the budget let alone paying down the debt.

The optimism comes from inside the DC beltway!

Joking aside, we are in trouble. The word thrown around is "uncertainty", but IMO a better word is the lack of "confidence" in the U.S.'s ability to service all of this debt and entitlements. What is going to happen? A major economic surge (unlikely) or a capital call on all of the "billionaires and millionaires" (i.e. those that make more than $250,000 per annum)?

gut;842374 wrote:Is there a country that has successfully pulled itself out from under such a mountain of debt without default or devaluation? I'm not being coy, I'm asking because I honestly don't know.

I've lost all confidence in this govt to come remotely close to passing a balanced budget under anything but a booming economy (ala Clinton). IF - and it's a big if - we can get this thing back to $200B-$400B deficits that will be "good enough", such is the mentality in Washington. I don't think there's any kind of stomach to make the needed deep cuts to entitlements and military spending, and taxes (with the exception of a VAT) aren't going to come remotely close to bridging the gaps. Not to mention, the next crisis will come and will jack-up the deficit spending again.

It would take like 40 years to pay off the debt running a $200B surplus. We are in deep ****, and I was talking like you 3-4 years ago.

Manhattan Buckeye;842409 wrote:The optimism comes from inside the DC beltway!

Joking aside, we are in trouble. The word thrown around is "uncertainty", but IMO a better word is the lack of "confidence" in the U.S.'s ability to service all of this debt and entitlements. What is going to happen? A major economic surge (unlikely) or a capital call on all of the "billionaires and millionaires" (i.e. those that make more than $250,000 per annum)?

We have made it through the War of 1812, the darkest days of the Civil War when it was thought all hope was lost, through the Great Depression and through the darkest days of WWII. Oh, and we made it through the Cold War when the world was on the brink of nuclear war. We can make it through this.

The optimism is hard to keep given this town haha. `

We can fight our way out of battles, we can't spend our way out of our deficits. True story I have a Facebook friend (apparently MSNBC and Huffington Post are rallying the troops after Obama's mediocre speech) who actually posted "we need to spend money to make money" on her pro-Obama diatribe on her wall.

So far it has zero likes.

ptown_trojans_1;842435 wrote:We have made it through the War of 1812, the darkest days of the Civil War when it was thought all hope was lost, through the Great Depression and through the darkest days of WWII. Oh, and we made it through the Cold War when the world was on the brink of nuclear war. We can make it through this.

The optimism is hard to keep given this town haha. `

Well, I would be optimistic too if we were fighting a war, that is what we have always done well. We made it through the Great Depression by getting into World War II and being the only country where our resources were unscathed by the war, so we made a fortune rebuilding the rest of the world. It was luck that got us out of the Great Depression, not something we did. Hell, without the war to distract Roosevelt he might have finished us off back then.

This isn't an enemy we can see and kill. This is an economy strangled by inflated prices, wages, and taxes, a government and oligopolies so large that they can never be properly reigned in, and politicians that don't give a fuck about anything except buying their vote for the next election and buying a cushy job in the future when they are out of office. This, to me, is much more dire, because our own elected leaders are killing against us, not the Japanese or British or Russians.

ptown_trojans_1;842435 wrote:We have made it through the War of 1812, the darkest days of the Civil War when it was thought all hope was lost, through the Great Depression and through the darkest days of WWII. Oh, and we made it through the Cold War when the world was on the brink of nuclear war. We can make it through this.

The optimism is hard to keep given this town haha. `

With wars, the enemy is easily defined. It's also easy to rally people for the cause and defeat those that are trying to stop our way of life.

Today, facing a national debt that is days away from becoming $15,000,000,000,000, the enemy is not easily defined as it is those entrusted with leadership roles, the eeeevil rotten rich making over $200,00 a year, and TEA party patriots demanding a return to fiscal sanity.

How do we win a war against those with the sovereign duty to protect us from all enemies both foreign AND DOMESTIC? This is a battle against our past, our greed, our entitlement-state, and those ball-less pricks who've lied to Americans in order to perpetuate their own agendas and political preservation. We are dying from within and the solutions necessary to fix us will not be taken.

Manhattan Buckeye;842454 wrote: So far it has zero likes.

LMFAO....So we have to spend money to make money, so long as spending (according to the Washington definition) doesn't include tax cuts to the rich and corporations that actually hire people?

Cleveland Buck;842461 wrote:Well, I would be optimistic too if we were fighting a war, that is what we have always done well. We made it through the Great Depression by getting into World War II and being the only country where our resources were unscathed by the war, so we made a fortune rebuilding the rest of the world. It was luck that got us out of the Great Depression, not something we did. Hell, without the war to distract Roosevelt he might have finished us off back then.

This isn't an enemy we can see and kill. This is an economy strangled by inflated prices, wages, and taxes, a government and oligopolies so large that they can never be properly reigned in, and politicians that don't give a **** about anything except buying their vote for the next election and buying a cushy job in the future when they are out of office. This, to me, is much more dire, because our own elected leaders are killing against us, not the Japanese or British or Russians.

Post of the week.

Our present crisis doesn't give a crap about what we've done in the past. America has succeeded in the past because each generation made it happen. I wish I had more optimism about this generation.

Cleveland Buck;842461 wrote:Well, I would be optimistic too if we were fighting a war, that is what we have always done well. We made it through the Great Depression by getting into World War II and being the only country where our resources were unscathed by the war, so we made a fortune rebuilding the rest of the world. It was luck that got us out of the Great Depression, not something we did. Hell, without the war to distract Roosevelt he might have finished us off back then.

This is spot on. The average American and most elitist politicians are historically illiterate.

majorspark;842615 wrote:This is spot on. The average American and most elitist politicians are historically illiterate.

And we've never fully recovered from the internet bubble. The fed dropped interest rates to what were then historical lows to fight deflation and try to avoid a deep recession (sound familiar?), and that of course helped pump all the air in to inflate the housing bubble. It was also largely a "jobless" recovery in that, while employment did get down to 4.7% or so, many of those jobs were not full-time and certainly wages never followed with the increase in productivity (sound familiar?). We never really got back on solid footing, propped up by paper gains in housing, and then the bubble burst.

I wish I had the optimism others have - I did 2-3 years ago. But the reality is we've been speeding toward this mess for over 10 years. We got to the top of the hill and voted for hope and change, and Obama/Pelosii/Reid floored it down the wrong side of the hill.

Cleveland Buck;842461 wrote:It was luck that got us out of the Great Depression, not something we did. Hell, without the war to distract Roosevelt he might have finished us off back then.

That is absolutely correct. Before Hitler invaded Poland, FDR's spending policies weren't that successful. The Feds were cranking out make-work jobs and going deeper and deeper into debt. The make-work jobs might have put food on the tables of millions of families, but it was quite temporary and unsustainable.

Despite the unfortunate death and carnage, the Japanese did FDR a huge favor on the morning of December 7, 1941.

gut;842630 wrote:I wish I had the optimism others have - I did 2-3 years ago. But the reality is we've been speeding toward this mess for over 10 years. We got to the top of the hill and voted for hope and change, and Obama/Pelosii/Reid floored it down the wrong side of the hill.

Anyone with any amount of common sense saw it coming.

Any decent plan must include a balanced budget amendment going forward.

http://www.passthebba.com/amendment/

Mandate that total budgetary outlays for any fiscal year not exceed total revenues;

Cap federal spending as percentage of GDP;

Require the President to submit a balanced budget to Congress every fiscal year;

Prohibit revenue-raising measures that are not approved by two-thirds of both the House and Senate;

Allow provisions to be waived if there is a formal declaration of war, if the U.S. is engaged in a military conflict constituting a threat to national security, or if two-thirds of both the House and Senate approve.; and,

Hold Congress accountable through strict enforcement of a balanced budget.

Con_Alma;842679 wrote:Any decent plan must include a balanced budget amendment going forward.

http://www.passthebba.com/amendment/

Mandate that total budgetary outlays for any fiscal year not exceed total revenues;

Cap federal spending as percentage of GDP;

Require the President to submit a balanced budget to Congress every fiscal year;

Prohibit revenue-raising measures that are not approved by two-thirds of both the House and Senate;

Allow provisions to be waived if there is a formal declaration of war, if the U.S. is engaged in a military conflict constituting a threat to national security, or if two-thirds of both the House and Senate approve.; and,

Hold Congress accountable through strict enforcement of a balanced budget.

Are you delusional? This makes way too much sense.

so say you pass a balanced budget amendment - and in 7 years from now you have some repeat of what we saw in 2008... you would be unable to bail anyone out, correct? Since you don't have the ability to have a deficit that year? I don't see how that would be beneficial (letting the whole financial system collapse). Is there some work-around for times of distress?

derek bomar;842703 wrote:so say you pass a balanced budget amendment - and in 7 years from now you have some repeat of what we saw in 2008... you would be unable to bail anyone out, correct? Since you don't have the ability to have a deficit that year? I don't see how that would be beneficial (letting the whole financial system collapse). Is there some work-around for times of distress?

Technically since we got most, if not all, the money back from bailouts they could probably account for it as a loan rather than spending.

what about gov't stimulus? does this just nix the idea all together in times of recession?
And I read this interesting tidbit just now:
*** Talk about business uncertainty: Last year, Boehner often attacked the Obama White House’s policies, arguing that they created business uncertainty. But as we’ve pointed out before, the GOP’s insistence on tying the debt ceiling to deficit reduction has created plenty of business uncertainty, too. Indeed, the Wall Street Journal reports that businesses are hoarding cash and delaying hiring because of the possibility of a U.S. debt default. “While companies generally expect Washington to resolve the debt-ceiling impasse at the last moment, they are lining up extra sources of financing, and carefully husbanding cash just in case a deal falls through. All the uncertainty comes just as businesses were starting to spend some of their record piles of cash. The confusion is also giving them another reason to delay hiring and investment.”
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/07/27/7178356-first-thoughts-boehners-boxed-in