billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,515
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 23, 2011 11:15:29 GMT -5
... Your reasoning is like that of the housewife who expects her husbands income to increase to match whatever she chooses to spend, whatever that is. The eventual result is bills that cannot be paid.The situation we are dealing with is more like the husband who expects the wife to have expensive steaks and high priced booze for him every night but doesn't give her enough money in the food budget to buy it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 23, 2011 11:55:26 GMT -5
But just think about it , even if it was 18%, isn't that an insanely huge chunk out of GDP for the Federal Government to take? Depends on how you look at it. I read it was 19% & was set because that was historical spending levels. 18-19% has been the historic tax revenue. So based on those historic levels it may not be too high. The biggest problem I see is that right now tax revenues are at less than 15% GDP & republicans are fighting any form of tax increases. So limiting spending to even just 19% won't dig us out of any hole. bingo. this is precisely the problem. unless your goal is to make the government so small (and so indebted) that you can drown it in a bathtub. checkmate.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 23, 2011 12:00:05 GMT -5
no it isn't. you can go bankrupt, too. it is all about choices. being cavalier about what you owe is not especially virtuous, imo. manning up and paying what you borrowed IS. Yes, you can go bankrupt, or you can prioritize your payments. Just borrowing more to meet you desired ends seems far more dangerous and cavalier than actually manning up and cutting spending. By borrowing more to meet current demands seems like a complete disregard for the actual problem of spending. it does SEEM that way. i will agree to that. but a government has responsibilities to it's electorate. let me use this analogy. let's say you are the head of a charity. you have staff, and you have people that you serve. say that you serve starving children. you are 40% over budget. is it more responsible to borrow for now, and make gradual cuts to get things in line, or is it more responsible to simply let 40% of the children you supply with food starve? i don't think the situation is that dramatic. but i don't think it is as easy as you make it sound, either.
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Jul 23, 2011 14:50:59 GMT -5
Are you saying we couldn't and wouldn't prioritize $200m of interest payments per year out of the $2 trillion that we collect from the tax payers of America?
Isn't that kind of like being $100 short on your mortgage because you decided to pay the cable bill instead?
When most families are forced to prioritize on a tight budget, they cut the non necessities. I want to see that action from our government.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Jul 25, 2011 9:38:06 GMT -5
We have seen constant growth on the revenue side but our government spending has far out paced these increases. Many here posting in defense of current spending are the very ones who opposed the spending and borrowing of more when Bush was president. Obama and the Democratically controlled House and Senate have increased both short and long term spending to levels never seen before and these same "sheeple" now favor maintaining these levels because their party tells them too. The facts are simple. We were over spending then and we are over spending even more now. It's time to turn this train around and the time to do it was 30 years ago but the second best choice is today.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 25, 2011 10:21:06 GMT -5
We have seen constant growth on the revenue side but our government spending has far out paced these increases. Many here posting in defense of current spending are the very ones who opposed the spending and borrowing of more when Bush was president. Obama and the Democratically controlled House and Senate have increased both short and long term spending to levels never seen before and these same "sheeple" now favor maintaining these levels because their party tells them too. The facts are simple. We were over spending then and we are over spending even more now. i don't think the facts are that simple. the spending was not done for spending's sake. it was done to keep the economy from a death spiral. now, we can have a healthy debate about how effective that was, but it was well intentioned, not some Alinsky plot to bankrupt the US.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 25, 2011 10:22:26 GMT -5
It's time to turn this train around and the time to do it was 30 years ago but the second best choice is today. we had no deficit (11) years ago. wtf are you talking about?
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Jul 25, 2011 10:35:00 GMT -5
we had no deficit (11) years ago. wtf are you talking about? We've had a deficit every year since 1957. wtf are you talking about? 9/30/2010 ~ 13,561,623,030,891.70 - UP - 1,651,794,027,380.00 9/30/2009 ~ 11,909,829,003,511.70 - UP - 1,885,104,106,599.30 9/30/2008 ~ 10,024,724,896,912.40 - UP - 1,017,071,524,649.92 9/30/2007 ~ 9,007,653,372,262.48 - UP - 500,679,473,047.25 9/30/2006 ~ 8,506,973,899,215.23 - UP - 574,264,237,491.73 9/30/2005 ~ 7,932,709,661,723.50 - UP - 553,656,965,393.18 9/30/2004 ~ 7,379,052,696,330.32 - UP - 595,821,633,586.70 9/30/2003 ~ 6,783,231,062,743.62 - UP - 554,995,097,146.46 9/30/2002 ~ 6,228,235,965,597.16 - UP - 420,772,553,397.10 9/30/2001 ~ 5,807,463,412,200.06 - UP - 133,285,202,313.20 9/30/2000 ~ 5,674,178,209,886.86 - UP - 17,907,308,271.43 9/30/1999 ~ 5,656,270,901,615.43 - UP - 130,077,892,717.81 9/30/1998 ~ 5,526,193,008,897.62 - UP - 113,046,997,500.28 9/30/1997 ~ 5,413,146,011,397.34 - UP - 188,335,072,261.61 9/30/1996 ~ 5,224,810,939,135.73 - UP - 250,828,038,426.34 9/29/1995 ~ 4,973,982,900,709.39 - UP - 281,232,990,696.07 9/30/1994 ~ 4,692,749,910,013.32 - UP - 281,261,026,873.94 9/30/1993 ~ 4,411,488,883,139.38 - UP - 346,868,227,617.72 9/30/1992 ~ 4,064,620,655,521.66 - UP - 399,317,303,824.63 9/30/1991 ~ 3,665,303,351,697.03 - UP - 431,989,899,919.78 9/28/1990 ~ 3,233,313,451,777.25 - UP - 375,882,491,589.93 9/29/1989 ~ 2,857,430,960,187.32 - UP - 255,093,248,146.16 9/30/1988 ~ 2,602,337,712,041.16 - UP - 252,060,821,088.16 9/30/1987 ~ 2,350,276,890,953.00 - UP - 224,974,274,294.58 9/30/1986 ~ 2,125,302,616,658.42 - UP - 302,199,616,658.42 9/30/1985 ~ 1,823,103,000,000.00 - UP - 250,837,000,000.00 9/30/1984 ~ 1,572,266,000,000.00 - UP - 195,056,000,000.00 9/30/1983 ~ 1,377,210,000,000.00 - UP - 235,176,000,000.00 9/30/1982 ~ 1,142,034,000,000.00 - UP - 144,179,000,000.00 9/30/1981 ~ 997,855,000,000.00 - UP - 90,154,000,000.00 9/30/1980 ~ 907,701,000,000.00 - UP - 81,182,000,000.00 9/30/1979 ~ 826,519,000,000.00 - UP - 54,975,000,000.00 9/30/1978 ~ 771,544,000,000.00 - UP - 72,704,000,000.00 9/30/1977 ~ 698,840,000,000.00 - UP - 78,407,000,000.00 6/30/1976 ~ 620,433,000,000.00 - UP - 87,244,000,000.00 6/30/1975 ~ 533,189,000,000.00 - UP - 58,129,184,268.45 6/30/1974 ~ 475,059,815,731.55 - UP - 16,918,210,419.46 6/30/1973 ~ 458,141,605,312.09 - UP - 30,881,144,371.59 6/30/1972 ~ 427,260,460,940.50 - UP - 29,130,716,484.96 6/30/1971 ~ 398,129,744,455.54 - UP - 27,211,037,505.61 6/30/1970 ~ 370,918,706,949.93 - UP - 17,198,453,108.52 6/30/1969 ~ 353,720,253,841.41 - UP - 6,141,847,415.53 6/30/1968 ~ 347,578,406,425.88 - UP - 21,357,468,631.34 6/30/1967 ~ 326,220,937,794.54 - UP - 6,313,849,999.06 6/30/1966 ~ 319,907,087,795.48 - UP - 2,633,188,811.84 6/30/1965 ~ 317,273,898,983.64 - UP - 5,560,999,726.34 6/30/1964 ~ 311,712,899,257.30 - UP - 5,853,266,260.89 6/30/1963 ~ 305,859,632,996.41 - UP - 7,658,810,275.54 6/30/1962 ~ 298,200,822,720.87 - UP - 9,229,884,110.82 6/30/1961 ~ 288,970,938,610.05 - UP - 2,640,177,761.68 6/30/1960 ~ 286,330,760,848.37 - UP - 1,624,853,770.15 6/30/1959 ~ 284,705,907,078.22 - UP - 8,362,689,332.41 6/30/1958 ~ 276,343,217,745.81 - UP - 5,816,045,849.38 6/30/1957 ~ 270,527,171,896.43 - DOWN - 2,223,641,752.89 6/30/1956 ~ 272,750,813,649.32 - DOWN - 1,623,409,153.306/30/1955 ~ 274,374,222,802.62 - UP - 3,114,623,694.16 6/30/1954 ~ 271,259,599,108.46 - UP - 5,188,537,469.89 6/30/1953 ~ 266,071,061,638.57 - UP - 6,965,882,853.14 6/30/1952 ~ 259,105,178,785.43 - UP - 3,883,201,970.50 6/29/1951 ~ 255,221,976,814.93 - DOWN - 2,135,375,536.116/30/1950 ~ 257,357,352,351.04
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 25, 2011 10:41:44 GMT -5
we had no deficit (11) years ago. wtf are you talking about? We've had a deficit every year since 1957. wtf are you talking about? 9/30/2010 ~ 13,561,623,030,891.70 - UP - 1,651,794,027,380.00 9/30/2009 ~ 11,909,829,003,511.70 - UP - 1,885,104,106,599.30 9/30/2008 ~ 10,024,724,896,912.40 - UP - 1,017,071,524,649.92 9/30/2007 ~ 9,007,653,372,262.48 - UP - 500,679,473,047.25 9/30/2006 ~ 8,506,973,899,215.23 - UP - 574,264,237,491.73 9/30/2005 ~ 7,932,709,661,723.50 - UP - 553,656,965,393.18 9/30/2004 ~ 7,379,052,696,330.32 - UP - 595,821,633,586.70 9/30/2003 ~ 6,783,231,062,743.62 - UP - 554,995,097,146.46 9/30/2002 ~ 6,228,235,965,597.16 - UP - 420,772,553,397.10 9/30/2001 ~ 5,807,463,412,200.06 - UP - 133,285,202,313.20 9/30/2000 ~ 5,674,178,209,886.86 - UP - 17,907,308,271.43 9/30/1999 ~ 5,656,270,901,615.43 - UP - 130,077,892,717.81 9/30/1998 ~ 5,526,193,008,897.62 - UP - 113,046,997,500.28 9/30/1997 ~ 5,413,146,011,397.34 - UP - 188,335,072,261.61 9/30/1996 ~ 5,224,810,939,135.73 - UP - 250,828,038,426.34 9/29/1995 ~ 4,973,982,900,709.39 - UP - 281,232,990,696.07 9/30/1994 ~ 4,692,749,910,013.32 - UP - 281,261,026,873.94 9/30/1993 ~ 4,411,488,883,139.38 - UP - 346,868,227,617.72 9/30/1992 ~ 4,064,620,655,521.66 - UP - 399,317,303,824.63 9/30/1991 ~ 3,665,303,351,697.03 - UP - 431,989,899,919.78 9/28/1990 ~ 3,233,313,451,777.25 - UP - 375,882,491,589.93 9/29/1989 ~ 2,857,430,960,187.32 - UP - 255,093,248,146.16 9/30/1988 ~ 2,602,337,712,041.16 - UP - 252,060,821,088.16 9/30/1987 ~ 2,350,276,890,953.00 - UP - 224,974,274,294.58 9/30/1986 ~ 2,125,302,616,658.42 - UP - 302,199,616,658.42 9/30/1985 ~ 1,823,103,000,000.00 - UP - 250,837,000,000.00 9/30/1984 ~ 1,572,266,000,000.00 - UP - 195,056,000,000.00 9/30/1983 ~ 1,377,210,000,000.00 - UP - 235,176,000,000.00 9/30/1982 ~ 1,142,034,000,000.00 - UP - 144,179,000,000.00 9/30/1981 ~ 997,855,000,000.00 - UP - 90,154,000,000.00 9/30/1980 ~ 907,701,000,000.00 - UP - 81,182,000,000.00 9/30/1979 ~ 826,519,000,000.00 - UP - 54,975,000,000.00 9/30/1978 ~ 771,544,000,000.00 - UP - 72,704,000,000.00 9/30/1977 ~ 698,840,000,000.00 - UP - 78,407,000,000.00 6/30/1976 ~ 620,433,000,000.00 - UP - 87,244,000,000.00 6/30/1975 ~ 533,189,000,000.00 - UP - 58,129,184,268.45 6/30/1974 ~ 475,059,815,731.55 - UP - 16,918,210,419.46 6/30/1973 ~ 458,141,605,312.09 - UP - 30,881,144,371.59 6/30/1972 ~ 427,260,460,940.50 - UP - 29,130,716,484.96 6/30/1971 ~ 398,129,744,455.54 - UP - 27,211,037,505.61 6/30/1970 ~ 370,918,706,949.93 - UP - 17,198,453,108.52 6/30/1969 ~ 353,720,253,841.41 - UP - 6,141,847,415.53 6/30/1968 ~ 347,578,406,425.88 - UP - 21,357,468,631.34 6/30/1967 ~ 326,220,937,794.54 - UP - 6,313,849,999.06 6/30/1966 ~ 319,907,087,795.48 - UP - 2,633,188,811.84 6/30/1965 ~ 317,273,898,983.64 - UP - 5,560,999,726.34 6/30/1964 ~ 311,712,899,257.30 - UP - 5,853,266,260.89 6/30/1963 ~ 305,859,632,996.41 - UP - 7,658,810,275.54 6/30/1962 ~ 298,200,822,720.87 - UP - 9,229,884,110.82 6/30/1961 ~ 288,970,938,610.05 - UP - 2,640,177,761.68 6/30/1960 ~ 286,330,760,848.37 - UP - 1,624,853,770.15 6/30/1959 ~ 284,705,907,078.22 - UP - 8,362,689,332.41 6/30/1958 ~ 276,343,217,745.81 - UP - 5,816,045,849.38 6/30/1957 ~ 270,527,171,896.43 - DOWN - 2,223,641,752.89 6/30/1956 ~ 272,750,813,649.32 - DOWN - 1,623,409,153.306/30/1955 ~ 274,374,222,802.62 - UP - 3,114,623,694.16 6/30/1954 ~ 271,259,599,108.46 - UP - 5,188,537,469.89 6/30/1953 ~ 266,071,061,638.57 - UP - 6,965,882,853.14 6/30/1952 ~ 259,105,178,785.43 - UP - 3,883,201,970.50 6/29/1951 ~ 255,221,976,814.93 - DOWN - 2,135,375,536.116/30/1950 ~ 257,357,352,351.04 you are still ignoring the fact that the problem was basically solved in 2000. $17B is a VERY small deficit. did you want me to say "practically no deficit"?
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Jul 25, 2011 11:56:05 GMT -5
you are still ignoring the fact that the problem was basically solved in 2000. $17B is a VERY small deficit.
did you want me to say "practically no deficit"? As a matter of fact, yes. "Practically no deficit" isn't quite "no deficit". Don't get me wrong, DJ. I'm in no way implying that Bush was even close to fiscally conservative....not by a long shot. Like those numbers show, the last actual decrease in national debt was 54 years ago. This all highlight one of the problems with today's budget / debt ceiling talks to cut 4 trillion over 10 years. Today's solution is in no way binding on future budgets.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 25, 2011 12:08:26 GMT -5
you are still ignoring the fact that the problem was basically solved in 2000. $17B is a VERY small deficit.
did you want me to say "practically no deficit"? As a matter of fact, yes. "Practically no deficit" isn't quite "no deficit". Don't get me wrong, DJ. I'm in no way implying that Bush was even close to fiscally conservative....not by a long shot. Like those numbers show, the last actual decrease in national debt was 54 years ago. This all highlight one of the problems with today's budget / debt ceiling talks to cut 4 trillion over 10 years. Today's solution is in no way binding on future budgets. and what i am saying is that the problem was basically solved 11 years ago, not 53. are we in agreement, then?
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Jul 25, 2011 13:56:43 GMT -5
and what i am saying is that the problem was basically solved 11 years ago, not 53. are we in agreement, then? If the problem was solved 11 years ago, would we even be having this conversation today?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 25, 2011 14:06:57 GMT -5
and what i am saying is that the problem was basically solved 11 years ago, not 53. are we in agreement, then? If the problem was solved 11 years ago, would we even be having this conversation today? given that it essentially WAS solved, yes. in other words, what i am saying is that the last (11) years has 99% to do with our situation. i would take it that you disagree?
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Jul 25, 2011 14:09:47 GMT -5
First of all anything good that happened while Clinton was president would have to been an affect from the president before him correct? Secondly him opening the markets with communist China was the most likely reason for the boom years we saw during that time period as US companies built banks of product and tools so the manufacturing jobs could be exported to other countries and is one of the biggest contributors to what we are dealing with today. If you want to point fingers there is blame for all. If you want to fix the problem then we better get this train stopped and headed the other direction today.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 25, 2011 14:13:21 GMT -5
First of all anything good that happened while Clinton was president would have to been an affect from the president before him correct? i don't think so. i think it takes 1-5 years for a policy to have a real impact, here in the US. some people think it takes ten years, but i just don't see a lot of evidence for that.Secondly him opening the markets with communist China was the most likely reason for the boom years we saw during that time period as US companies built banks of product and tools so the manufacturing jobs could be exported to other countries and is one of the biggest contributors to what we are dealing with today. i thought Nixon opened the markets with China. no?If you want to point fingers there is blame for all. If you want to fix the problem then we better get this train stopped and headed the other direction today. i don't think cutting $1.6T out of the economy "today" is a good idea at all. but to each their own.
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Jul 25, 2011 14:36:09 GMT -5
in other words, what i am saying is that the last (11) years has 99% to do with our situation. i would take it that you disagree? You take it correct. Its' not not 99% Bush's fault. I don't think adding another $1.6T to our already unaffordable $14.5T debt is a good idea at all, but to each their own.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Jul 25, 2011 14:40:48 GMT -5
In reality most policy comes as a result of not just who is president but often by who controls the house and senate. Clinton was a major supporter of free trade with China during his tenure which resulted in allowing an Arkansas based company to buy almost all of their product from China. Ever hear of Wal Mart? Again it really doesn't matter to much to me who did what as long as we recognize that what they did really hurt us in the long run and that our only chance of survival is to demand a change in how they conduct business in Washington. We need to support the officials who are standing up and taking the heat on this issue. The ones who stand for a balanced budget ammendment.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 25, 2011 15:05:26 GMT -5
in other words, what i am saying is that the last (11) years has 99% to do with our situation. i would take it that you disagree? You take it correct. Its' not not 99% Bush's fault. i don't see how the second sentence follows from the first. Bush has not been president the last (11) years.I don't think adding another $1.6T to our already unaffordable $14.5T debt is a good idea at all, but to each their own. i disagree that $14.5T is unaffordable. our interest payments are 6% of our budget currently. we could probably afford 20%, but i think 10% would be a good "maximum target".
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 25, 2011 15:08:25 GMT -5
In reality most policy comes as a result of not just who is president but often by who controls the house and senate. control has been pretty evenly divided for the last two decades. therefore, using your standard, both parties are culpable.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 25, 2011 15:09:32 GMT -5
We need to support the officials who are standing up and taking the heat on this issue. The ones who stand for a balanced budget ammendment. you may not remember the contract for america, but i do. there is only one article from it that was never presented to congress. do you remember which one it was?
|
|
Driftr
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 10, 2011 13:08:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,478
|
Post by Driftr on Jul 25, 2011 15:14:06 GMT -5
I'll take a guess. Eliminate DoE?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,515
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 25, 2011 15:15:19 GMT -5
My guess is a balanced budget amendment
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 25, 2011 15:18:42 GMT -5
My guess is a balanced budget amendment bingo.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,515
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 25, 2011 15:25:38 GMT -5
My stepson was always one of the biggest kids in his class. He is also a very gentle soul. One year when he was having his annual struggle over whether to turn out for football (in his small high school) I told him, "You need to decide to be a football player doing what football players do before you decide to turn out for football." A balanced budget amendment without a majority will in this country to have a balanced budget will just lead to a lot of game playing with numbers.
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Jul 25, 2011 15:25:55 GMT -5
i disagree that $14.5T is unaffordable. our interest payments are 6% of our budget currently. agreed....time to end the default hype.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 25, 2011 15:27:40 GMT -5
i disagree that $14.5T is unaffordable. our interest payments are 6% of our budget currently. agreed....time to end the default hype. again, default in governmental parlance means "missing a payment". just get used to it. it is a very real possibility, and if Boehner's proposal gets adopted, it will continue to be for the next (18) months.
|
|
cme1201
Junior Associate
Tennis Elbow, Jock Itch, and Athletes Foot, every man has a sports life!
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 13:55:07 GMT -5
Posts: 5,503
|
Post by cme1201 on Jul 25, 2011 17:33:00 GMT -5
Jill A. Holman is an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. Steve Lamberty, formerly a research associate at the bank, helped prepare the article. This article is on the bank’s web site at www.kc.frb.org. Is The Large U.S. Current Account Deficit Sustainable? Very interesting read the first part is the lead in the second is the exit, what ended up happening is instead of narrowing the account deficit we have decided to balloon it instead. so Yes, I personally disagree that it was "practically" delt with 11 years ago.
|
|
ameiko
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 16, 2011 10:48:22 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by ameiko on Jul 26, 2011 5:29:28 GMT -5
The cut, cap and balance plan failed to get approval in the senate by a vote of 51-46 which means three democratic senators may ultimately be responsible for a global economic melt down, the end of Social Security and force the USA to default on all of it's loans for the first time in history. Where is the outrage??? Buried by the Main Stream Media. Barely anyone out only follows the MSM is even aware of Cut, Cap, and Balance or that the Democrats have shown in their actions that they do not believe in cutting spending, making the government smaller, or balancing a budget. Reverse the parties and the MSM would be banging from drum as loudly as they could from the highest point just as they did when "Bush raised your taxes" (actually the Democrats did) or "Gringrich shut down the government" (I guess Bill Clinton was just a humble bystander." God, no wonder the lefties want to shut down Fox news and conservative talk radio so badly- can't have the truth coming out!
|
|
ameiko
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 16, 2011 10:48:22 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by ameiko on Jul 26, 2011 5:34:56 GMT -5
The cut, cap and balance plan failed to get approval in the senate by a vote of 51-46 which means three democratic senators may ultimately be responsible for a global economic melt down, the end of Social Security and force the USA to default on all of it's loans for the first time in history. Where is the outrage??? um....it was going to get vetoed, dude. the vote was window dressing. That's Obama's call but in that case, let him be exposed to the world as the one man who then refused to balance the budget. really though, that's all most voters need to know: that Obama himself refuses to cut and cap spending. Mr. "balanced approach" doesn't want to balance the budget, case closed. If he wants to claim, "well we don't need a balanced budget amendment to do our jobs," I said: CLEARLY YOU DO! He and the Democrats exploded the deficit and still refuse to take credit. And if you don't, hey why not have it anyway? It's not going to hurt you, right? You're going to do it anyway, right? Man, this Muslim from Kenya NEEDS TO GO!!!
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Jul 26, 2011 7:47:16 GMT -5
You take it correct. Its' not not 99% Bush's fault. i don't see how the second sentence follows from the first. Bush has not been president the last (11) years.I don't think adding another $1.6T to our already unaffordable $14.5T debt is a good idea at all, but to each their own. i disagree that $14.5T is unaffordable. our interest payments are 6% of our budget currently. we could probably afford 20%, but i think 10% would be a good "maximum target". Six percent of our budget, gong primarily overseas for bills past due. Six percent of our budget. What could be done with that for the programs underfunded here in this country, or, horror of horrors, even some taxcuts for the middle class. Oh heck. Let's go and make it nine percent of the budget in years down the road..........it is only going to Communists in China anyway.
|
|