29 BILLION DOLLARS A month ON INTEREST ALONE ON THE NATIONAL DEBT

[LordBrownTrout]

What he Heck--NO LIBERALS want to talk about 29 BILLION DOLLARS A MONTH going out in INTEREST along on our current debt?

Freakin FIGURES.

Run and HIDE you freakin chicken pieces of crap.

Debt occurs when the government fails to tax enough to pay for its spending.

The willingness to spend without paying for it with sufficient taxation is not a uniquely liberal phenomenon.

In fact, it's not even a disproportionately liberal phenomenon.

Debt occurs when expenditures exceed revenues. The govt could easily stop spending but they're worried about their precious dept, agencies, social programs etc. The govt needs to do without for awhile...just like all of have done for the last few years.

I agree with your second point. All are guilty.

 

[Moonglow]

gotta love capitalism

 

[uscitizen]

We should not get outraged about this interest, many people are getting richer off of it.
What we should be outraged about is the 3.3 billion that fannie/freddie is in the hole for helping people to buy houses that someone made a living off of being built.

We should support finiancial sector jobs over construction jobs?

 

[Polk]

Liberals didn't cause the problem.

Is that why Liberals refuse to do anything about it?

Liberals are refusing to do anything about it? Last time I checked, they're the only ones making serious proposals to address it.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I'm still outraged that we spent 750 billion to bail out the banks. I called my reps and senators but they didn't listen, usc.

 

[uscitizen]

I'm still outraged that we spent 750 billion to bail out the banks. I called my reps and senators but they didn't listen, usc.

Of course they do not listen to us their ears are tuned to those who benefitted the most from the finiancial sector bailout.

 

[angryvet]

I don't understand the conservative anger at the debt. They were more than happy to have two unfunded wars. They love to build expensive prisons to put poor people in. The fact is that both Democrats and Republicans are addicted to spending. Both Democrats and Republicans were more than happy to give boat loads of our money to their corporate masters.

Their arguments are not ours. The political class (both Democrat and Republican) has nothing in common with the people that they pretend to represent. Why would either of their solutions be acceptable to any working person?

 

[kyzr]

I'm still outraged that we spent 750 billion to bail out the banks. I called my reps and senators but they didn't listen, usc.

Get over it. The banks paid every fucking dollar back + interest. The taxpayers made money off saving the US banks.

BTW, it was the governments fault, specifically Clinton's "Community Reinvestment Act" that setup the financial collapse when the banks had to make loans to the unqualified. When the deadbeats defaulted, the system collapsed. Try running a country without banks.

 

[Polk]

I'm still outraged that we spent 750 billion to bail out the banks. I called my reps and senators but they didn't listen, usc.

Get over it. The banks paid every fucking dollar back + interest. The taxpayers made money off saving the US banks.

BTW, it was the governments fault, specifically Clinton's "Community Reinvestment Act" that setup the financial collapse when the banks had to make loans to the unqualified. When the deadbeats defaulted, the system collapsed. Try running a country without banks.

The Community Reinvestment Act was passed in 1977, 16 years before Clinton became President. It's also odd to argument that the Community Reinvestment Act caused the crisis, noting that financial institutions not subject to the CRA were the primary sub-prime lenders.

 

[Liability]

What he Heck--NO LIBERALS want to talk about 29 BILLION DOLLARS A MONTH going out in INTEREST along on our current debt?

Freakin FIGURES.

Run and HIDE you freakin chicken pieces of crap.

Sounds like we should be taking steps to reduce the deficit. Of course, you oppose that.

HUH?

We support reducing the DEBT and the "deficit."

We oppose raising taxes to do this.

We support the cutting of spending. We support slashing some "programs" outright and vastly reducing others.

YOU seem to confuse an opposition to the raising of taxes with some mythical opposition to reducing the deficit.

You remain wrong.

 

[Polk]

There is no reasonable way to meaningfully reduce the deficit without tax increases. Using FY2010 at an example, the government spent 3.456 trillion dollars and collected 2.162 trillion in revenue. If you eliminated every dime of non-defense discretionary spending, the deficit would still be around 630 billion dollars.

 

[kyzr]

I'm still outraged that we spent 750 billion to bail out the banks. I called my reps and senators but they didn't listen, usc.

Get over it. The banks paid every fucking dollar back + interest. The taxpayers made money off saving the US banks.

BTW, it was the governments fault, specifically Clinton's "Community Reinvestment Act" that setup the financial collapse when the banks had to make loans to the unqualified. When the deadbeats defaulted, the system collapsed. Try running a country without banks.

The Community Reinvestment Act was passed in 1977, 16 years before Clinton became President. It's also odd to argument that the Community Reinvestment Act caused the crisis, noting that financial institutions not subject to the CRA were the primary sub-prime lenders.

True that the Act was first passed in 1077, but Clinton modified it...

Community Reinvestment Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Legislative changes 1992
Although minor amendments were made directly to the Community Reinvestment Act concerning the consideration of minority and female owned institutions & partnerships during evaluations first established in 1991, other portions of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 indirectly affected the CRA practices at the time in requiring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two government sponsored enterprises that purchase and securitize mortgages, to devote a percentage of their lending to support affordable housing.[4]

Mortgage defaults led to the financial collapse. Look who took protection money from Fannie & Freddie...then blame Wall Street...

 

[Liability]

There is no reasonable way to meaningfully reduce the deficit without tax increases. Using FY2010 at an example, the government spent 3.456 trillion dollars and collected 2.162 trillion in revenue. If you eliminated every dime of non-defense discretionary spending, the deficit would still be around 630 billion dollars.

Sure there is.

SPEND FAR FAR LESS. Our entitlement programs have to be altered or eradicated. Our choice on when and on what we spend so much fucking money must be adjusted dramatically.

If we do that and permit the economy to actually shoot up, the increased productivity alone will yield significant "revenues" that do not require any increase in taxation or tax rates.

You do tend to think statically and two dimensionally, Polky.

 

[kyzr]

There is no reasonable way to meaningfully reduce the deficit without tax increases. Using FY2010 at an example, the government spent 3.456 trillion dollars and collected 2.162 trillion in revenue. If you eliminated every dime of non-defense discretionary spending, the deficit would still be around 630 billion dollars.

I don't get why the dems don't brag that the Bush Tax Cuts expire in 2013, so that revenue will be available.
Medicare is the problem, it needs to implement a "Maximum Lifetime Benefit" like most insurance. Otherwise it will go bankrupt.

 

[Polk]

There is no reasonable way to meaningfully reduce the deficit without tax increases. Using FY2010 at an example, the government spent 3.456 trillion dollars and collected 2.162 trillion in revenue. If you eliminated every dime of non-defense discretionary spending, the deficit would still be around 630 billion dollars.

Sure there is.

SPEND FAR FAR LESS. Our entitlement programs have to be altered or eradicated. Our choice on when and on what we spend so much fucking money must be adjusted dramatically.

If we do that and permit the economy to actually shoot up, the increased productivity alone will yield significant "revenues" that do not require any increase in taxation or tax rates.

You do tend to think statically and two dimensionally, Polky.

Good luck selling eliminating Security and Medicare to the public.

 

[Polk]

There is no reasonable way to meaningfully reduce the deficit without tax increases. Using FY2010 at an example, the government spent 3.456 trillion dollars and collected 2.162 trillion in revenue. If you eliminated every dime of non-defense discretionary spending, the deficit would still be around 630 billion dollars.

I don't get why the dems don't brag that the Bush Tax Cuts expire in 2013, so that revenue will be available.

The Democrats won't do it because they're too cowardly to tell people the truth.

Medicare is the problem, it needs to implement a "Maximum Lifetime Benefit" like most insurance. Otherwise it will go bankrupt.

That's a terrible idea. What needs to be done is fundamental changes in the delivery of health care services.

 

[Liability]

There is no reasonable way to meaningfully reduce the deficit without tax increases. Using FY2010 at an example, the government spent 3.456 trillion dollars and collected 2.162 trillion in revenue. If you eliminated every dime of non-defense discretionary spending, the deficit would still be around 630 billion dollars.

Sure there is.

SPEND FAR FAR LESS. Our entitlement programs have to be altered or eradicated. Our choice on when and on what we spend so much fucking money must be adjusted dramatically.

If we do that and permit the economy to actually shoot up, the increased productivity alone will yield significant "revenues" that do not require any increase in taxation or tax rates.

You do tend to think statically and two dimensionally, Polky.

Good luck selling eliminating Security and Medicare to the public.

Gee. Good thing I didn't make that suggestion.

 

[Polk]

Sure there is.

SPEND FAR FAR LESS. Our entitlement programs have to be altered or eradicated. Our choice on when and on what we spend so much fucking money must be adjusted dramatically.

If we do that and permit the economy to actually shoot up, the increased productivity alone will yield significant "revenues" that do not require any increase in taxation or tax rates.

You do tend to think statically and two dimensionally, Polky.

Good luck selling eliminating Security and Medicare to the public.

Gee. Good thing I didn't make that suggestion.

Don't you just hate the quote function...

SPEND FAR FAR LESS. Our entitlement programs have to be altered or eradicated. Our choice on when and on what we spend so much fucking money must be adjusted dramatically.

If we do that and permit the economy to actually shoot up, the increased productivity alone will yield significant "revenues" that do not require any increase in taxation or tax rates.

You do tend to think statically and two dimensionally, Polky.

 

[kyzr]

There is no reasonable way to meaningfully reduce the deficit without tax increases. Using FY2010 at an example, the government spent 3.456 trillion dollars and collected 2.162 trillion in revenue. If you eliminated every dime of non-defense discretionary spending, the deficit would still be around 630 billion dollars.

I don't get why the dems don't brag that the Bush Tax Cuts expire in 2013, so that revenue will be available.

The Democrats won't do it because they're too cowardly to tell people the truth.

Medicare is the problem, it needs to implement a "Maximum Lifetime Benefit" like most insurance. Otherwise it will go bankrupt.

That's a terrible idea. What needs to be done is fundamental changes in the delivery of health care services.

Right now Medicare has $51-trillion of unfunded liabilities. One way to reduce that is to reduce the liabilities based on the amount paid in. People who did not pay in are not eligible and need to pay for health insurance. No more freebies for freeloaders.

 

[Polk]

You realize we already charge a higher premium to those who did not work a certain number of years, correct?