Congrats all around...we went over $17T today

[lawpoke87]

Took a group effort and there are far too many people who deserve credit to mention here. To lend a little perspective....this amounts to a little over $124,000 for every working American.

Again...congrats America. Our children and their children thank you.

 

[WATU2]

Lots of blame to go around, including focusing solely on a single metric. Recently attended talks given by former chairman/CEO of Lockheed, general Patreus, Alan blinder, VP of NY Fed, etc. and primary long term concerns were 1) divisive politics (ala this board), 2) failing education, 3) under investment in infrastructure, 4) improving immigration openness for US trained foreigners, 5) and under investment in infrastructure. All of these undermined US jobs and long term competitiveness.

Patreus said the divisiveness in Washington was the biggest threat we face today. Greater than Islamic fundamentalism.

.

This post was edited on 10/20 10:17 AM by WATU2

 

[rabidTU]

Being critical of the system of debt/deficits on one hand and pushing spending on the other is an oxymoron.

We need to address the inherent causes of the govt debt in the same way we would in our own families. Too much spending? Cut back. Work more (overtime - get another PT Obamajob). Be more frugal.

What should have happened to the Fed Govt is they should do what most Republican states do and have a rainy day fund for emergencies instead of creating more spending and robbing from one program (SS trust fund etc) and using it as a private piggy bank for another.

The Tea Party has absorbed a lot of criticism from the (Propaganda) Media for trying to get a handle on this. But the way they see it is that the govt needs "intervention" from its spending habits in the same way a crack-cocaine user needs it. In that respect, they should be applauded, not chastized.

There was a C-Span discussion by two economists recently who took calls (Rudolph Penner from the Urban Inst and Jason Fichtner a senior fellow at George Mason). They discussed the debt in depth - where we are and where we are headed if things don't immediately turn around. One of the questions asked of them was "at what point does debt become so great the economy can't be saved and reformed". Both seemed to believe we are very near it or have passed it - that is, without huge reforms in intitlements and the long term commitments that are unfunded.

That is what happened in Greece where wo major reforms the level of debt/deficits was insurmountable. There, the debt was momentarily stalled when the world community stepped in to help. Do any of you believe there is an "economic savior" for the USA - the largest economy in the world (between 20 and 25% of the WGDP)?

This will eventually become inflationary - to the extreme. But our kids - who don't see it coming for the most part will pay. Everyday, more baby boomers are retiring and begin pulling SS, Medicare etc from the system. That is what I mean by unsustainable.

Sooner or later, "unfortunately", our kids will hope thier parents die early out of necessity and personal survival. As long as the democrats reject fiscal reform, that will occur. Its inevitable. There is no evidence the Dems will address this mess, now or in the future because they are the party being rewarded most for the overspending. The only thing that may change this mess is an economic collapse.

 

[lawpoke87]

President Obama in February of 2009:

"today I'm pledging to cut the deficit we inherited in half by the end of my first term in office. This will not be easy. It will require us to make difficult decisions and face challenges we've long neglected. But I refuse to leave our children with a debt that they cannot repay ? and that means taking responsibility right now, in this administration, for getting our spending under control."

 

[aTUfan]

It got him elected.

 

[rabidTU]

So . . . . it was unpatriotic under Bush, but now it has magically become a patriotic act. Again, lieberals are lieberals.

 

[WATU2]

Interesting commentary on your quotation. We all take comments out of context (e.g., my signature) but as Covey says "Seek first to understand."

Why Bush and Obama.....

 

[lawpoke87]

I don't see what the TARP expenditure has to do with the deficits Obama has incurred. 97% of those Tarp funds were paid back into the Treasury by 2012. While TARP may have increased the deficit for 2009 the repayments have reduced the same in the years thereafter. This amounts to a wash as far as the total deficit numbers during Obama's presidency. Something the article mysteriously omits. The spending due to the recession and points made there are legitimate.

However, almost five years later the President who talked on many occasions about the outrage of the debt we are burdening our children with still has no stomach to take any significant steps to address the $17T in debt we now face.

 

[WATU2]

Before we go round and round again, let's be clear that I do not agree that the debt is the single, biggest threat to our economy. Nor do I think the President is the sole determiner of what ends up in our economic legislation. Our recovery from the worst economic disaster in 70 years has been slowed by a refusal to focus on job growth and in the longer run our cut backs in R&D and infrastructure, our stupid tax policy which supports sending jobs overseas, and the unwillingness of Congressional Republicans to work across the aisle,

Debt is serious, but deficits are coming down. If our underlying economic engine continues to suffer, if we continue to reduce investing in the long term, we will not be able to work our way out, regardless of our level of debt.

Consider that for the first time since George Washington, the next generation will be less well educated than the previous one, Not a great way to compete in a high tech world.

Anyway, if we continue to use our tax dollars to subsidize environmentally destructive behaviors, debt won't be the biggest problem future generations deal with.

 

[lawpoke87]

I agree with 95% of that post. Not that I think the Congressional Republicans are going to be receptive to the Administration on a comprehensive debt reduction and tax overhaul plan but isn't it incumbent on the POTUS to set the agenda in this direction and submit proposals regarding the same. Like I've stating many times, he appointed a bi-partisan debt commission to study the problem and come up with solutions. I've yet to see the Administration push those proposals.

Senator Obama and Presidential candidate Obama spoke elequently and often about the wrongs of burdening our children with what was then a $11T debt and used phrases such as a "lack of leadership" etc.. Where is that man?

 

[WATU2]

Do you think the economy would look different today and the debt lower if we had not had the economic crisis or if the Republicans had made their #1 priority increasing employment instead of defeating Obama in 2012?

Would the ACA look and work better if Republicans had worked to implement their ideas into the ACA instead of simply opposing it? There are smart people on both sides of the aisle, and half of them withdrawing from the process hurts everyone. Part of the problem with the ACA's implementation is any delays in opening only increased the chances of it not being implemented at all. Political pressure ruled out extending deadlines or finding additional funding for more help.

The more I think about it, the more I agree with General Patreus that the biggest risk we face as a nation is political divisiveness in Washington...as well as in the electorate.

 

[lawpoke87]

We agree that the economic crisis of 2008/2009 has played a role in the deficit. I've never intended to state or imply otherwise. However, it's almost 2014 and still no action despite of recommendations from his own commission. This is my issue.

The White House has the initiative to set the agenda not the party who controls the House or even the Senate. The White House has done this on healthcare and immigration yet practically no effort has been made on either the job or deficit front. Hell, based on this logic let's blame the Dems for Bush's agenda and lousy policies. We elect a President to lead and set the direction of the country. They get the credit and the blame. FWIW....employment numbers have now dropped for three straight quarters, poverty in the last year is up in 49 of the 50 states despite what we're being told is better economic conditions, the number of people on food stamps on other federal entitlement programs continue to grow. We have a problem yet no one wants to deal with it.

As far as the ACA...let's forget about the problems with the law itself and the fact that it was changed by executive order so it wouldn't apply to Congress and it's support staff. It's a freaking website. It locks up. It contains incorrect data and tables. Hell...the damn caculator doesn't even work. I can go on Amazon.com and buy anything I want in a matter of minutes yet I can't access the federal website to get healthcare? Go ahead and implement the darn thing but why not hold off on committing to cancelling group and individual plans who don't comply with the new framework until the website is actually functional? Again....it's a website.

This post was edited on 10/23 12:36 PM by lawpoke87

This post was edited on 10/23 1:18 PM by lawpoke87

 

[rabidTU]

The scariest part of the website is that from what I understand, a persons personal information (including your SSN) can either be accessed easily by a third party or accidently opened. I assume that passwords can be "hacked" or the site may accept duplicates etc. That is very scary.

I'm going to BCBS in November and getting mine personally at the center on 41st/memorial. No internet needed.

BTW, I also am losing my present health insurance and will need to make the switch (so I obviously cannot keep my insurance as it is), but its all worked out as far as I can figure by going directly to the source - but not on that stupid website. What a bunch of lieberal losers we have at the WH and executive branch. But they ARE very good at laying blame on anyone they oppose philosophically and diverting it from themselves..



This post was edited on 10/24 12:59 PM by rabidTU

 

[Chazz Reinhold48]

Not a problem....You just have to print more money, right?

 

[WATU2]

Makes some sense to me....see link

Originally posted by lawpoke87:
Like I've stating many times, he appointed a bi-partisan debt commission to study the problem and come up with solutions. I've yet to see the Administration push those proposals.

Simpson Bowles - what happened

 

[lawpoke87]

So we have a President who refuses to support a measure this country vitally needs because he's afraid the opposition party will oppose if if he supports the same. That's leadership. Can you imagine Clinton or Reagan taking this position on a matter they thought was in the best interest of the country? This reasoning sure isn't preventing him from pushing immigration. The difference....there are many things in Simpsons-Bowles that the left doesn't like.

So...The reason I'm not talking and trying to do something about an issue I swore to fix as a Senator and Presidential Candidate, an issue I thought important enough to form a bi-partisan committee for recommendations is because the opposing party won't embrace it? Come on.


Ezra Klien might want to talk to Obama's treasury secretary before he blames Congress on why the President didn't embrace the commission's recommendations:




'Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Thursday explained why President Obama never fully embraced the 2010 report of his fiscal commission, headed by former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.) and Erskine Bowles.

Geithner, under heavy fire from the Senate Budget Committee, said the Obama administration “did not feel” it could embrace it because the cuts to defense were too deep and the reforms to Social Security relied too much on benefit cuts"



This post was edited on 10/25 3:12 PM by lawpoke87

 

[WATU2]

Gosh, presidents have to make decisions that are politically based? How terrible. My signature below indicates what the President was dealing with at the time.

Was it a mistake? Maybe, but it so, there were plenty made by everyone. Why did the Republicans not jump at the various deals that were closer to their demands than Simpson Bowles.

In any event, the problems in Washington start with the electorate that creates the atmosphere forces those type of considerations.

 

[lawpoke87]

Stop....Obama (to his credit) has shown he has no problems in setting unpopular items on the country's agenda. The problem here is that many in his own party oppose the recommendations. Clinton pushed welfare reform to a Republican Congress despite the opposition from the far left.

I get it. Bush sucked as a President because of the atmosphere the electorate create. Same for Dubya and Obama. Bush Sr. and Dubya failed because of the Congressional Dems. Obama had no chance to turn this economy and country around and address our growing deficit, ss and medicare because of Congressional Republicans.

Basically, The President of the United States isn't in charge or responsible because:

1) Dubya's fault
2) Congress' fault
3) Electorate's fault
4) Some chick at Fox news fault

It's been almost five years, isn't it time to start taking some blame along with the credit. Like it or not the President is ultimately responsible and will be held accountable for what occurs during his presidency. This reminds me of my 5 year old who blames everything that goes wrong on his 3 year sister.

Can you imagine if the defenders of Dubya (which I'm not one of) used these excuses to explain his failures?

This post was edited on 10/25 3:55 PM by lawpoke87

This post was edited on 10/25 4:55 PM by lawpoke87

 

[rabidTU]

The more money the govt has, the more potential corruption. Pork is the piggy bank nowdays for keeping political power. We need a balanced budget and tying govt (and entitlement) spending to the GDP. When the GDP isn't increasing, the budget must adjust. New spending programs should require universal support, like going to war or taking over 20% of the economy for someones personal idea of whats supposedly best for us. Govt is not the answer to every problem and isn't Robin Hood, Santa Claus or the tooth fairy.

One more thing, we should hold those govt officials criminally accountable for wasting the "peoples money". See Bell, California.

 

[aTUfan]

1. Term limits will go along way to cutting pork projects. Politicians cant use pet projects in their district to get re-elected.
2. Cut the number of staffers each Congressman has.
3. When a Politician retires, is out of terms, any money left in his Campaign fund reverts back to the Gov; If he runs for a different office, he starts over at $0.00. sort of like if I dont use all of my pre-tax medical dollars, I lose them.
4. Cut the government Charity programs. The Government is not a Charity. Helping those is need is one thing, but when that becomes a source of income for %50 of the people, something is wrong.

 

[rabidTU]

We are sending aid to the Phillipines - a worthy gesture and one that we should continue if we can. But in reality, our debt is so huge we may not be able to keep doing this long term. With 17 trillion dollars of debt and the corresponding service for it, we may be helping others and even saving lives at the same time we are committing fiscal suicide.

If my neighbor is in harms way, I should indeed help him, but if I'm under more distress than him, can I? Do I really help him if I sacrifice myself doing so? Then what happens the next time he's in trouble?

With our govts predisposition to overspend, there is no rainy day fund for emergencies - just the printing press. That is madness.

If we are broke and have the largest debt in the world, can we really say we are the richest nation on earth?

 

[aTUfan]

How much aid and help did we recieve from other countries during
Katrina, Sandy, . . . ?

This post was edited on 11/14 12:44 AM by aTUfan

This post was edited on 11/14 1:03 AM by aTUfan

 

[aTUfan]

This post was edited on 11/14 12:42 AM by aTUfan

 

[2PoorTUFans]

Originally posted by aTUfan:
How much aid and help did we recieve from other countries during
Katrina, Sandy, . . . ?

This post was edited on 11/14 12:44 AM by aTUfan

This post was edited on 11/14 1:03 AM by aTUfan

I don't completely disagree with your distaste of foreign aid, but if you don't understand the difference between us giving supplies to the Philippines and the Philippines giving us supplies, then you are probably braindead.

 

[WATU2]