Common Sense and Our Dangerous National Debt

[Moonglow]

why dont we just print up about a million 10,000 bills and pay off the debt?

Only if I can do it at home...

hey, don't they make printers that print real legal money? can I buy one at Best Buy?

Sure, the hard part is getting the clothe just right for the bills....

at some point we will run out of trees/material/ink to print up the 30 trillion dollars we will owe come 2020. then what? file bankruptcy? I have an idea, lets sell the earth to a nearby alien planet.

You don't think they actually print that money do you?

digital bills man.....

 

[FA_Q2]

Stop And Smell The Roses: Final 2014 Federal Deficit Fell...Big Time

Until the Republicans finally forced Obama to agree to some spending restraint in 2013, Obama was shattering Bush's spending record. From January 2009 to October 2013, Obama piled up more debt than Bush did in his entire 8 years.

What is galling is to see Obama and the Dems proudly noting that the deficit has fallen over the last year and a half, when the deficit would still be rising if they had had their way in the budget battles. This is like when Obama took credit for the increase in domestic oil production when there would have been no increase if his suit against the North Dakota drilling had succeeded.

Again, until the Republicans finally gathered up some nerve and played hardball to get Obama to agree to some modest spending restraint, Obama and the Dems were spending like drunken sailors.

Finally, I saw someone make the argument that the only time the national debt was paid off was under a Democratic president. Gosh, are you serious? That was Andrew Jackson, and that was in the days when the Democratic Party was the conservative party. Jackson was a fiscal hawk and a strong opponent of federal control of banks, the national bank, fiat currency, etc., etc.

The only significant spending increases the Democrats made into law were the stimulus bills. Also the Republicans were against limiting increases in military spending, let alone reducing military spending.

The stimulus was a temporary thing and was in direct co-relation with the 2008 crash. You never made mention of the fact that the first 3 years of Obama's presidency were part of the Recession in which government revenues shrink naturally anyway, thus adding to the deficit (and in effect debt)

Other reasons for the high deficit were the two wars in the middle east were finally calculated into the budget rather then their costs being hidden, and also Obama agreeing to extend the Bush Tax Cuts in 2010.

Finally the Republicans did not play hardball and got Obama to agree to nothing.....the sequestration was never meant to be enacted but it was because the two sides could not agree to terms. The military cuts and tax increases which the GOP was against went into effect as did other spending cuts that the GOP was against as well. It's really not as black and white as you make it out to be, which frankly just makes it look like propaganda to an informed person.

There is no such thing as 'hidden' outlays. That is a misnomer and utterly false. There are off budget and on budget. The only thing that having the items off budget means is that the government did not budget the costs - they were simply paid whatever they were. There is nothing inherently wrong with that in the middle of a war where the cost of body armor is rather irrelevant - it MUST be purchased. At the end of the day though, 100 percent of the government outlays are reflected in the deficit - budgeted or not.

 

[mikegriffith1]

And look at the budget that Obama just submitted: It calls for a net increase in federal spending! That is just insane. When Obama campaigned in 2008, he went around the country promising to bring about a net reduction in federal spending. Obviously, he never meant to keep that promise.

Again, this is basic math: You can't get out of debt until you stop going into debt. You can't decrease a sum until you stop increasing it. That's a law of math that liberalism can't change, no matter how many egg-headed leftist economists tell us that federal spending is "investing." Yeah, that's what a spendaholic says when he calls his credit card company and asks for another increase in his line of credit.

Why can't the Democrats at least propose a budget that calls for spending the same amount that was spent last year? At least then we wouldn't go deeper into debt. In fact, if we only spent the same amount that we spent the previous year, the deficit might even go down if the economy grows enough to increase revenues.

 

[nodoginnafight]

If you think our debt is a partisan issue - you are a useful idiot and part of the problem.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

To start paying down the debt you need a cool 1,000 billion. 500 billion to balance the budget and 500 to send back to China. With a 3,500 billion Federal Budget, go find the programs and do the math. We want to see numbers not ideology this time.

 

[BluesLegend]

The CBO recently reported the deficit will rise again north of $600 billion in only a few years and the interest on the national debt will be close to $800 billion. Meanwhile liberals are trying to sell us oceanfront property in Nebraska.

 

[BluesLegend]

To start paying down the debt you need a cool 1,000 billion. 500 billion to balance the budget and 500 to send back to China. With a 3,500 billion Federal Budget, go find the programs and do the math. We want to see numbers not ideology this time.

We can pay off the debt in about 10 years, step one temporarily imprison liberals.

 

[Londoner]

Reagan tripled Carter's debt and your side said nothing.

Bush doubled Clinton's debt and your side said nothing. When your side controlled the House, Senate and Presidency during the Bush years, you fucking raised the debt ceiling 3 times.

Meaning: you have no credibility.

But let's address your claim about the relationship of taxes and debt to economic growth.

Our greatest economic growth in the last 100 years was from 1945-1973, during a time of high taxes and high spending.

We had a boom in the 80s during the historic Reagan deficits (mostly because Reaganomics replaced high Union wages with credit cards).

Clinton destroyed Bush for economic growth, yet he raised taxes by contrast.

And what about Reagan's insane, unprecedented defense spending (a.k.a. Government Spending, which resulted in massive government job increase as well as technological advances stemming from the defense industrial sector. Reagan's government jobs added a huge number of consumers to Orange and San Diego counties, both of which thrived because of their spending.).

Learn the complications and stop repeating tired talking points.

Eisenhower and Nixon had high taxes and high spending- and their respective economies blows everything that came after out of the water. Good things happen when the government invests in infrastructure, technology and the middle class.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

To start paying down the debt you need a cool 1,000 billion. 500 billion to balance the budget and 500 to send back to China. With a 3,500 billion Federal Budget, go find the programs and do the math. We want to see numbers not ideology this time.

We can pay off the debt in about 10 years, step one temporarily imprison liberals.

Yeah, next time just don't bother wasting the keystrokes, to say nothing.

 

[rightwinger]

Common sense says don't panic about the debt and gradually reduce the deficit until you run a small surpluss

 

[g5000]

To start paying down the debt you need a cool 1,000 billion. 500 billion to balance the budget and 500 to send back to China. With a 3,500 billion Federal Budget, go find the programs and do the math. We want to see numbers not ideology this time.

I can provide you with $1.2 trillion.

Easily.

 

[Mac1958]

.

I wonder what our national debt would look like if our "leaders" <cough> operated under a Balanced Budget Amendment.

.

 

[g5000]

The individual and corporate income tax systems contain many exclusions, deductions, exemptions, and credits. Some of those tax provisions are called "tax expenditures" by many tax analysts because they resemble government spending in that they provide financial assistance to specific activities, entities, or groups of people.

Special interests drop a few thousand dollars in various congressional campaign bank accounts every couple years in order to receive those government gifts.

• That set of tax expenditures will total nearly $12 trillion over the 2013–2022 period—or 5.8 percent of GDP—including the effects on both payroll and income taxes.

$1.2 trillion a year. That's one hell of a return on investment of a little campaign cash!

 

[mikegriffith1]

To start paying down the debt you need a cool 1,000 billion. 500 billion to balance the budget and 500 to send back to China. With a 3,500 billion Federal Budget, go find the programs and do the math. We want to see numbers not ideology this time.

It's not rocket science:

* Do not replace federal workers who retire, unless they are in a truly critical job that others can't do (which is rare). In 10 years you'd have the federal workforce cut by at least 15%.

* Abolish the Department of Education and the Department of Commerce. They are not needed.

* Impose a 15% cut on ALL federal agencies over a 4-year period. I've worked for the government for over 30 years. Every single federal agency could easily perform its core functions and still absorb a 15% cut over 4 years.

* Citizens Against Government Waste has published several studies documenting redundant, duplicative federal departments and even agencies. Abolish half of those.

The liberal answer in this forum seems to be, "Well, since the debt rose under Bush too, we just wanna keep spending and hope that somehow things will work out."

 

[FA_Q2]

The individual and corporate income tax systems contain many exclusions, deductions, exemptions, and credits. Some of those tax provisions are called "tax expenditures" by many tax analysts because they resemble government spending in that they provide financial assistance to specific activities, entities, or groups of people.

Special interests drop a few thousand dollars in various congressional campaign bank accounts every couple years in order to receive those government gifts.

• That set of tax expenditures will total nearly $12 trillion over the 2013–2022 period—or 5.8 percent of GDP—including the effects on both payroll and income taxes.

$1.2 trillion a year. That's one hell of a return on investment of a little campaign cash!

Not really - you are talking about raising the shit out of taxes - that includes a MASSIVE raise on the poor. That is not something that you are going to get any traction for.

I am all for removing the asinine pay back system that we have in place but it should be accompanied by a far lower tax rate. You don't really need 1.2 trillion though - just our current deficit would do and a basic freeze in spending with small increases to account for inflation would serve the purpose well.

 

[FA_Q2]

* Impose a 15% cut on ALL federal agencies over a 4-year period. I've worked for the government for over 30 years. Every single federal agency could easily perform its core functions and still absorb a 15% cut over 4 years.

That would require a change in the principals that we currently work under (aka - cut the asinine red tape and regs). Unfortunately, I have never seen them actually accomplish this. We underwent 'lean' and 'triple s' processes in just the last few years in an effort to do just that. The result? Our processes are worse off and less efficient. I have serious doubts in the governments ability to actually cut red tape rather than create more of it to fix the current red tape.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

To start paying down the debt you need a cool 1,000 billion. 500 billion to balance the budget and 500 to send back to China. With a 3,500 billion Federal Budget, go find the programs and do the math. We want to see numbers not ideology this time.

I can provide you with $1.2 trillion.

Easily.

Show us, and bring the numbers. TY.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

To start paying down the debt you need a cool 1,000 billion. 500 billion to balance the budget and 500 to send back to China. With a 3,500 billion Federal Budget, go find the programs and do the math. We want to see numbers not ideology this time.

It's not rocket science:

* Do not replace federal workers who retire, unless they are in a truly critical job that others can't do (which is rare). In 10 years you'd have the federal workforce cut by at least 15%.

* Abolish the Department of Education and the Department of Commerce. They are not needed.

* Impose a 15% cut on ALL federal agencies over a 4-year period. I've worked for the government for over 30 years. Every single federal agency could easily perform its core functions and still absorb a 15% cut over 4 years.

* Citizens Against Government Waste has published several studies documenting redundant, duplicative federal departments and even agencies. Abolish half of those.

The liberal answer in this forum seems to be, "Well, since the debt rose under Bush too, we just wanna keep spending and hope that somehow things will work out."

Numbers please. This is a numbers game. If you can't produce them then they don't count.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

At latest count, we are now $18 trillion in debt, which is more than our GDP, and the government continues to run a deficit of around half a trillion dollars each year.

Common sense and basic math tell us that we will never get out of debt unless we first stop going into debt.

Yet Obama and the Democrats continue to want to increase federal spending. They also want to raise taxes--on gas, on investments, on just about everything.

How do Democrats expect the economy to grow if the government keeps taking more and more money out of it? How do the Democrats expect to ever balance the budget, much less to start paying down the debt, when they constantly want to increase federal spending? Have they learned nothing from Greece, Spain, Italy? You can't tax and spend your way to a balanced budget and prosperity.

If you wanna be pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-
card check, pro-amnesty, fine. But why can't you follow basic math when it comes to the budget and the debt? No sensible, rational person would run their personal finances the way the Democrats want to run the federal budget.

When you're $18 trillion in debt and rising, that is not the time for more "investing" (read: more federal spending)--that's the time to cut spending down to revenue, to balance the budget, and start the long process of paying down the debt. When you're $18 trillion in debt, you don't try to get an increase in your line of credit--it's time to bite the bullet and stop charging on the national credit card.

I agree with everything you've said.

Where we differ is in the implication wherein you seem, at least, to assume that the ideological left is reasonable, recognizes the problem, cares to prevent catastrophe... .

You may rest assured that the left is not reasonable and their intentions are to bankrupt the United States... they feel that in so doing that they will rebuild the US into a workers utopia.

Sadly, part and parcel of not being reasonable, is that they underestimate their means to survive what will be open season on every single human being that ever uttered an advocacy for a 'woman's right to choose', put a 'No nukes' decal on their Subaru, owned a Subaru, a Che Guevara T-shirt or a pair of Birkenstocks.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

At latest count, we are now $18 trillion in debt, which is more than our GDP, and the government continues to run a deficit of around half a trillion dollars each year.

Common sense and basic math tell us that we will never get out of debt unless we first stop going into debt.

Yet Obama and the Democrats continue to want to increase federal spending. They also want to raise taxes--on gas, on investments, on just about everything.

How do Democrats expect the economy to grow if the government keeps taking more and more money out of it? How do the Democrats expect to ever balance the budget, much less to start paying down the debt, when they constantly want to increase federal spending? Have they learned nothing from Greece, Spain, Italy? You can't tax and spend your way to a balanced budget and prosperity.

If you wanna be pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-
card check, pro-amnesty, fine. But why can't you follow basic math when it comes to the budget and the debt? No sensible, rational person would run their personal finances the way the Democrats want to run the federal budget.

When you're $18 trillion in debt and rising, that is not the time for more "investing" (read: more federal spending)--that's the time to cut spending down to revenue, to balance the budget, and start the long process of paying down the debt. When you're $18 trillion in debt, you don't try to get an increase in your line of credit--it's time to bite the bullet and stop charging on the national credit card.

The fails as a straw man fallacy.

And to perceive the debt as 'dangerous' is not consistent with common sense.

Issues such as the debt need to be addressed in a pragmatic, factual manner, not in the context of errant partisan dogma, the premise of your thread being one such example.

ROFLMNAO! Straw men do not have histories of active participation.

BUT MAN! IF THEY DID! THAT would be one HELLUVA fine point.