Make your mark...spending problem or revenue problem

Revenue or Spending


  • Total voters
    47
You don't seem to understand a simple poll.
I said PRIMARY problem. I didn't say all or none...that saying if you vote spending - then you think there is no revenue problem.

Geez...I thought people understood basic English and simple concepts.

You didn't, but that's definitely the tone of the debate, noting that the Republicans would rather default on the national debt than raise one red cent in additional revenue.

So I see you enjoy your Kool Aid blue. Your just like them.
It can also be said with equal "accuracy" that the Democrats would rather default on the national debt than spend one red cent less on runaway entitlements.

That's so not true. The proposal still on the table calls for $4 trillion in cuts, much of which does address runaway entitlements. Once that basic premise is agreed to, then the nuts and bolts of WHERE will be subject to congressional debate. Obviously the entire proposal isn't laid out yet. First things first. But the Republicans still have their feet encased in clay because the $4 trillion also calls for elimination of certain major tax breaks (which, by the way, a majority of people in every single poll says THEY WANT!).

Budget/Taxes
 
I would agree that the recession is part of the economic problems we as a nation are facing. However, Congress overspends. Note: I said Congress not the President. I'm not blaming the President although being one of those who have suffered from the economic collapse, I would say that his Stimulus Plan did not do jack shit for those who really needed it.

Thanks for the effort Mr. President. Now do you think you can actually do something for those in this country who really need help as opposed to your buddies that put you in office?

Immie

Mark Zandi, who was an economic adviser to the McCain campaign, wrote a paper showing there would be 8.5 million fewer jobs today in the absence of the stimulus.

So?

All that tells me is that Zandi is as good at using the "jobs saved" bull shit as the President.

The Stimulus Package has done little to ease the burden of those who suffered job loss during the recession. Maybe if one wants to believe the "pie in the sky" numbers pulled out of their asses one might say well, that is 8.5 million less people on the unemployment lines, but then one would need to believe those pie in the sky numbers first.

I repeat the stimulus package did not do jack shit for those who really needed it.

Immie

Of course there are those in power who don't think the stimulus was enough, for that reason. But do you honestly think anything MORE would have ever had a chance of passage? Bush's stimulus gave $250 in cash to just about every American, but that helped for about as long as the trip to the bank and the first gas station and grocery store. Should more cash have been put in people's pockets? Many of the jobs created by stimulus funds ended in the short run, but then so would cash. And then it's back to Square One. Who has the answer? Apparently no one has short-term solutions, so we have to grin and bear it and remain optimistic for the long-term (and of course do our part, whatever that might be).
 
I think he meant pulling money out of stone.

There is absolutely nothing to stop the Fed from engaging in another round of quantitative easing. There is also no logical reason the Fed should be paying interest on excess bank reserves.

I don't understand the process as much as I should, but aren't the feds between a rock and a hard place as they try to keep inflation from marching upward in times of economic distress anyway?

In theory, sure. In practice, inflation is well below the level the Fed defines as stable and has been for several years. We could actually run above that level for several years at this point without doing any real harm, and that's without getting into the idea that we should be targeting a higher rate of inflation anyway.
 
You didn't, but that's definitely the tone of the debate, noting that the Republicans would rather default on the national debt than raise one red cent in additional revenue.

So I see you enjoy your Kool Aid blue. Your just like them.
It can also be said with equal "accuracy" that the Democrats would rather default on the national debt than spend one red cent less on runaway entitlements.

That's so not true. The proposal still on the table calls for $4 trillion in cuts, much of which does address runaway entitlements. Once that basic premise is agreed to, then the nuts and bolts of WHERE will be subject to congressional debate. Obviously the entire proposal isn't laid out yet. First things first. But the Republicans still have their feet encased in clay because the $4 trillion also calls for elimination of certain major tax breaks (which, by the way, a majority of people in every single poll says THEY WANT!).

Budget/Taxes

In all due respect, the President and the Congressional Democrats have so far turned thumbs now on EVERY proposal that has addressed entitlements and the one proposal Obama has sent (last February) failed to include any cuts and substantially increased the deficit. Few House Democrats supported it and not a single Democrat Senator voted for it. And THEN his Arrogance had the nerve to go on television to say that if the Republicans continue to be intransigent, that Social Security recipients might not get their checks. I can't imagine anything demonstrating more dishonest demogoguery than that.
 
you'll see there are real similarities to the current financial crisis and resulting Great Recession.

how odd that the liberal was not able to say what the similarities were.

I'll tell you, in both cases the liberals interfered with the free market, primarily through the Federal Reserve. Bernanke's[world's acknowledged expert] words on the Great Depression: " you were right we[the Fed] caused it."

can anyone say with a straight face the the Fed, with an assist from Fanny Freddie, didn't cause the current crisis??

Cause? No. Participate? Yes. Barry Ritholz wrote the book "Bailout Nation," which I suggest you read in order to really understand the mechanisms that were at work. Here's a sampling:

Get Me ReWrite! | The Big Picture
When writing Bailout Nation, I tried to steer clear of partisan finger pointing. I kept the focus on what actually occurred, what could be proven mathematically. I blamed Democrats and Republicans — not equally, but in proportion to their actions, and what they did. Unsupported theories, tenuous connection, loose affiliations were not part of the analysis.

To be blameworthy, every legislative change, each regulatory failure, any corporate action had to manifest themselves in actual mathematical proof. This led me to ascertain the following 30 year sequence:

-Free market absolutism becomes the dominant intellectual thought.

-Deregulation of markets, investment houses, and banks becomes a broad goal: This led to Glass Steagall repeal, unfettering of Derivatives, Investing house leverage exemptions, and a new breed of unregulated non bank lenders.

-Legislative actions reduce or eliminate much of the regulatory oversight; SEC funding is weakened.

-Rates come down to absurd levels.

-Bond managers madly scramble for yield.

-Derivatives, non-bank lending, leverage, bank size, compensation levels all run away from prior levels.

-Wall Street securitizes whatever it can to satisfy the demand for higher yields.

-”Lend to securitize” nonbank mortgage writers sell enormous amounts of subprime loans to Wall Street for this purpose.

-To meet this huge demand, non bank lenders collapse lending standards (banks eventually follow), leading to a credit bubble.

-The Fed approves of this “innovation,” ignores risks.

-Housing booms . . . then busts

-Credit freezes, the markets collapse, a new recession begins.

You will note that the CRA is not part of this sequence. I could find no evidence that they were a cause or even a minor factor. If they were, the housing bubbles would not have been in California or S. Florida or Las Vegas or Arizona — Harlem and South Philly and parts of Chicago and Washington DC would have been the focus of RE bubbles.

Nor do I blame Fannie and Freddie. Now understand, there is no love lost between myself and the GSEs. For years, I have called them “Phoney and Fraudy.” Since George Bush and Hank Paulson nationalized them, I have accused the government of using these two as a backdoor bailout for banks — a hidden PPIP/TARP used to buy all the garbage mortgages that banks are desperate to get off their balance sheets. Longtime readers will recall we very publicly shorted Fannie based upon their fraudulent practices and horrific balance sheet when FNM’s stock was in the $40s (it soon after collapsed).

But even I cannot reconcile reality with the movement to place all of the world’s troubles at the feet of the GSEs. Not, at least, according to the data.

That lack of evidence, however, doesn’t stop ideologues from trying. Consider this attempt at rewriting the causes of the credit crisis by Kevin Hassett:

“The worst financial crisis in generations was set off by a massive government effort, led by the two mortgage giants, to make loans to homebuyers no matter whether they could make the payments. Lenders were willing to lend money to just about all comers, no matter how low their income. Why? Because the lenders knew Fannie and Freddie would purchase the loans from them for a high price before bundling them into securities to sell to investors.”

Now, this makes for a fascinating narrative that plays into a number of different ideological beliefs. It exonerates the radical free market deregulators, it ignores what the private sector did, and it somehow ignores the fact that Congress was controlled by a very conservative GOP from 1994 to 2006 — the prime period of time covered leading up to and including the beginning of the crisis.

But worse than all of that, the data supporting Hassett’s position simply isn’t there.


Over the past 2 years, I have repeatedly asked the people who push this narrative to provide some evidence for their positions. I have offered a $100,000 if they could prove their case.

Specifically, I have requested some data or evidence that DISPROVED the following facts:

-The origination of subprime loans came primarily from non bank lenders not covered by the CRA;

-The majority of the underwriting, at least for the first few years of the boom, were by these same non-bank lenders.

-When the big banks began chasing subprime, it was due to the profit motive, not any mandate from the President (a Republican) or the the Congress (Republican controlled) or the GSEs they oversaw.

-Prior to 2005, nearly all of these sub-prime loans were bought by Wall Street — NOT Fannie & Freddie

-In fact, prior to 2005, the GSEs were not permitted to purchase non-conforming mortgages.


-After 2005, Fannie & Freddie changed their own rules to start buying these non-conforming mortgages — in order to maintain market share and compete with Wall Street for profits.

-The change in FNM/FRE conforming mortgage purchases in 2005 was not due to any legislation or marching orders from the President (a Republican) or the the Congress (Republican controlled). It was the profit motive that led them to this action.

These are data supported facts I pounded on in BN.
 
The facts are this: Republican Presidents have presided over too much spending. Democratic Presidents have presided over too much spending. President Bush with a Republican majority did some very good things for the economy, but instead of reducing the debt and addressing entitlement reform, they increased the deficit and added to entitlements.

So the Republicans were voted out of power in 2006. And the Democrats have performed no better and in many ways worse. So their power was substantially decreased in 2010 and they will likely lose the majority altogether in 2012.

And both the traditional Republicans and the Democrats are refusing to make the hard choices necessary to solve the problem. And both are trashing the few conservatives in either party who have had the guts to propose real reform that will solve the problem.

The Tea Party made up of fiscally responsible Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, and Independents is looking better all the time.
 
give me a break. BO is a communist who had 2 communist parents. Any increased control the government has is creeping socialism. BO care is rampaging socialism. Communists don't understand competition so don't expect the insurance companies to compete any more than they do now. You are crazy to pretend BO's socialist/fascist take over is capitalistic.

You know what? Fuck you, idiot. My dog has more brains.

a perfect example of more liberal ignorance and violence. A liberal thinks violence will cover up her ignorance

Tell you to go fuck yourself is violence? Talk about ignorance...
 
The Federal Reserve didn't cause the meltdown either.

actually all now agree it did with an assist from Fanny Freddie
It seems the greatest economists and greatest newspapers on the left and right agree that liberal interference caused the crisis. Sorry.
Wall Street was just a symptom, not a cause.



"First consider the once controversial view that the crisis was largely caused by the Fed's holding interest rates too low for too long after the 2001 recession. This view is now so widely held that the editorial pages of both the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal agree on its validity!"...John B. Taylor( arch conservative, author of the Taylor Rule)


" The Federal reserve having done so much to create the problems in which the economy is now mired, having mistakenly thought that even after the housing bubble burst the problems were contained, and having underestimated the severity of the crisis, now wants to make a contribution to preventing the economy from sinking into a Japanese Style malaise....... - "Joseph Stiglitz"


If you still can't grasp what happened why not read "Reckless Endangerment" by NY Times person and see if you can say with a straight face that the crisis was not caused by liberal interference wit the free market.

The federal reserve is hardly a "liberal" organization.
 
Responsible people do not max out their credit cards on stuff they can get by without.
Responsiible governments don't either.

Responsible people do not borow money to gamble with in hopes they will get lucky.
Responsible governments don't either.

Responsible people of limited means go to the store, comparison shop, and get the best bang for their buck when they buy what they need.
Responsible governments of limited means do that too.

Responsible people of limited means spend money on necessities first and then, if there is anything left over they buy things nice to have. But when the money runs out, they stop spending.
Responsible governments do that too.

Responsible people of limited means don't hand over their money to somebody else who will siphon off one to two thirds of it for their own use and too often waste much of the rest.
Yet our government expects the people to do just that, and currently we have a President and some in Congress who think we should hand them over still more money to use in the same way.

Conservatives look at the rich who have trillions of dollars parked off shore lest a huge chunk of it be taxed if they bring it home. They look at the $3 trillion small business is sitting on in this country due to the uncertainty in taxes, interest, and regulation that has been a cornerstone of this administration. Conservatives want policy that will encourage both groups to free up that money and get the economy moving again.

Through onerous regulation, a healthcare plan only a socialist could love, and threats of still more taxes on those in the best position to start growing, expanding, and hiring, the President and some in Congress seem determined to keep all that money sidelined.

It is a spending problem. Not a revenue problem.

Continuing to ignore that we had BOTH a spending AND a revenue problem prior to the election of Barack Obama and the introduction of his health care reform doesn't add a thing to the mathematical facts.

Fiscal FactCheck | FactCheck.org
Summary

Washington's spending has recently been higher as a percentage of the nation's economic output than at any time since World War II. But by the same measure, Washington's revenues are the lowest in more than 60 years.

So does the U.S. have "a spending problem," as Republicans keep repeating in the current debate over how to reduce the nation's record deficits? Or is the problem that taxes are not high enough? Those questions frame a long-running partisan debate, and as usual we won't offer an opinion one way or the other. But for those seeking their own answers, we can offer some fiscal history and factual context.

Some key facts we think are worth considering:

Federal spending ("outlays" in budget jargon) is expected to equal 24.1 percent of the nation's gross domestic product in the current fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30. The figure was 25 percent in fiscal year 2009, highest since 1945.

On the other hand, federal revenues are expected to drop to 14.8 percent of GDP this year, lower even than the 14.9 percent attained in both 2009 and 2010. There has been only one year since World War II when revenues have been as low as in any of these years: 1950, when the figure was 14.4 percent.

These historically high rates of spending and low rates of taxation have combined to produce a chain of deficits that are also the highest since WWII. The deficit was 10.0 percent of GDP in fiscal 2009. It declined to 8.9 percent last year as the economy started to recover, but is projected to go up to over 9 percent this year. Each of these deficits is larger than in any year since 1945, measured as a percentage of GDP.

The U.S. is borrowing about 36 cents of every dollar spent so far this year. It borrowed 37 cents on the dollar last year, and 40 cents in fiscal 2009.

The largest components of federal spending are Social Security and Medicare programs for the elderly (33.5 percent of total outlays in 2010) and national defense (20.1 percent). Interest payments on the federal debt alone accounted for 5.7 percent of all federal spending, and that percentage is rising.

The federal income tax accounted for 41.5 percent of federal receipts in 2010 (down from 49.6 percent prior to the Bush tax cuts of 2001 – 2003). Corporate taxes brought in only 8.9 percent, also down sharply since the recent recession. Payroll taxes and other "social insurance" payments accounted for 40 percent of total receipts in 2010.

It's easy to argue one side or the other by just citing facts that support a particular view, and omitting others. In the Analysis that follows, we offer some graphics, details and documentation in an attempt to give our readers a quick look at the entire picture — both where the money goes, and where it comes from.
 
And in the 'you can't make this stuff up' category:

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) on Friday strongly suggested that members of Congress are making it difficult for President Obama to raise the debt ceiling because of his race.

"I do not understand what I think is the maligning and maliciousness [toward] this president,” said Jackson Lee, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus. “Why is he different? And in my community, that is the question that we raise. In the minority community that is question that is being raised. Why is this president being treated so disrespectfully? Why has the debt limit been raised 60 times? Why did the leader of the Senate continually talk about his job is to bring the president down to make sure he is unelected?”

Earlier in her speech, Jackson Lee said Obama has been targeted unlike any other president.

"I am particularly sensitive to the fact that only this president — only this one, only this one — has received the kind of attacks and disagreement and inability to work, only this one," said Jackson Lee from the House floor.

"Read between the lines," she continued. "What is different about this president that should put him in a position that he should not receive the same kind of respectful treatment of when it is necessary to raise the debt limit in order to pay our bills, something required by both statute and the 14th amendment?"

Jackson Lee: Congress complicating debt ceiling because Obama is black - The Hill's Floor Action

I guess she and President Obama were most complimentary of President Bush when they both voted against raising the debt ceiling in 2006. And no doubt because he was white. :)

Obama said of that 2006 vote:

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure,” he said on March 16, 2006. “Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership . Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”
Gibbs: Senator Obama Only Voted Against Raising Debt Ceiling in 2006 Because He Knew It Would Pass Anyway | Scotty Starnes's Blog

Robert Gibbs subsequently defended him by saying that 'he only voted against it because he knew it would pass." :)

I kid you not. You can't make this stuff up.

Without intending to derail this entire thread, surely you realize there are great numbers of people who actually DO hate Obama because he's black. I think Sheila Jackson's major point in saying that is that he does NOT have the respect of THE POSITION by many people, some of whom are elected officials.
 
One overwhelming problem with the strange people who put down 'revenue problem'

Our government is borrowing money from CHINA... perhaps the biggest threat to our national security in the world...to pay interest on borrowed money.

In case you missed it - our government borrows money to pay interest on previous borrowed money.

China is no longer a threat, except for the fact that it has outrun the US as far as advanced technology and education, so yes, in an oblique sort of way, it's a threat to our national security. But China needs the USA as much as the USA needs China. Their export of their goods is paramount, and they're not about to upset that cash cow.
 
So, you don't think the Stimulus Package or Health Care Reform are new spending plans?

Obviously he was not as interested in PayGo as he was forcing his socialistic ideas on health care into our laps. Or was it that he was more interested in giving the health insurance companies a huge and I do mean huge gift. What he asked for with reform was socialism. What he gave the insurance companies was a gift.

Immie

You know, you guys really need to pick a line of attack and stick with it. The same proposal can't nationalize the insurance industry AND be a massive handout to them at the same time.

Here maybe the highlights will help.

Maybe, just maybe, what he asked for was smoke and mirrors to get what he got? The chance to screw us all in the name of greasing the palms of those who put him where he is.

I used to think he was socialistic. Now I think he's more of the typical politician who knows who butters his bread (in this case the insurance companies) and is more than willing to sell his soul to get what he can get.

Immie

You look at it as hidden corruption. I look at it as trying to accommodate the basic ideologies of a very diverse nation by compromising between liberalism and capitalism.
 
The "Problem" is a recession fueled by a contracting economy which had been bloated with consumer debt and overvaluation of financial instruments.

But out of the two choices, it's a revenue problem. Government revenue (as percent of GDP) is at its lowest point since about 1970. Sorry to all of you who have been taught that Obama is some kind of tax-and-spend machine by unscrupulous sources. It's really just not the case.

hummm...spending to what we are taking in is still very high, the issue is we have baselined our way into a hole becasue of the ongoing prgms that eat up dollars year to year.

yes that drop in revenue is killing us, but, even then, we need to do some heavy editing of prgms etc. that just take on a life of their own. and yes its not a 1 party problem, never has been.

the fact is we have a revolving door of allocators that come and og in congress and wh, thats why we have to cut into the 2012 and 13 budgets, I don't trust this out year cut plan, so much as the immediate cuts, because congress can change and poof, there it goes right out the door.

that is why we need the BB amend. yes I know there are some drawbacks, but we are heading for a cliff Cuyo, we have to stop them, any which way we can and not just for the next 2 years but down the road.

I also think a balanced budget amendment is a good idea. At least it would be a jumping off point. But it CAN'T be part of the current debate over raising the debt limit. A Constitutional Amendment would take months, probably more like years, to get through, and as you say, it could all go up in smoke with a changing of the guard. It's something that should be done by resolution, and within the year taken up (and followed through on) by Congress, regardless how the balance of power falls).
 
Responsible people do not max out their credit cards on stuff they can get by without.
Responsiible governments don't either.

Responsible people do not borow money to gamble with in hopes they will get lucky.
Responsible governments don't either.

Responsible people of limited means go to the store, comparison shop, and get the best bang for their buck when they buy what they need.
Responsible governments of limited means do that too.

Responsible people of limited means spend money on necessities first and then, if there is anything left over they buy things nice to have. But when the money runs out, they stop spending.
Responsible governments do that too.

Responsible people of limited means don't hand over their money to somebody else who will siphon off one to two thirds of it for their own use and too often waste much of the rest.
Yet our government expects the people to do just that, and currently we have a President and some in Congress who think we should hand them over still more money to use in the same way.

Conservatives look at the rich who have trillions of dollars parked off shore lest a huge chunk of it be taxed if they bring it home. They look at the $3 trillion small business is sitting on in this country due to the uncertainty in taxes, interest, and regulation that has been a cornerstone of this administration. Conservatives want policy that will encourage both groups to free up that money and get the economy moving again.

Through onerous regulation, a healthcare plan only a socialist could love, and threats of still more taxes on those in the best position to start growing, expanding, and hiring, the President and some in Congress seem determined to keep all that money sidelined.

It is a spending problem. Not a revenue problem.

Continuing to ignore that we had BOTH a spending AND a revenue problem prior to the election of Barack Obama and the introduction of his health care reform doesn't add a thing to the mathematical facts.

Fiscal FactCheck | FactCheck.org
Summary

Washington's spending has recently been higher as a percentage of the nation's economic output than at any time since World War II. But by the same measure, Washington's revenues are the lowest in more than 60 years.

So does the U.S. have "a spending problem," as Republicans keep repeating in the current debate over how to reduce the nation's record deficits? Or is the problem that taxes are not high enough? Those questions frame a long-running partisan debate, and as usual we won't offer an opinion one way or the other. But for those seeking their own answers, we can offer some fiscal history and factual context.

Some key facts we think are worth considering:

Federal spending ("outlays" in budget jargon) is expected to equal 24.1 percent of the nation's gross domestic product in the current fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30. The figure was 25 percent in fiscal year 2009, highest since 1945.

On the other hand, federal revenues are expected to drop to 14.8 percent of GDP this year, lower even than the 14.9 percent attained in both 2009 and 2010. There has been only one year since World War II when revenues have been as low as in any of these years: 1950, when the figure was 14.4 percent.

These historically high rates of spending and low rates of taxation have combined to produce a chain of deficits that are also the highest since WWII. The deficit was 10.0 percent of GDP in fiscal 2009. It declined to 8.9 percent last year as the economy started to recover, but is projected to go up to over 9 percent this year. Each of these deficits is larger than in any year since 1945, measured as a percentage of GDP.

The U.S. is borrowing about 36 cents of every dollar spent so far this year. It borrowed 37 cents on the dollar last year, and 40 cents in fiscal 2009.

The largest components of federal spending are Social Security and Medicare programs for the elderly (33.5 percent of total outlays in 2010) and national defense (20.1 percent).
Interest payments on the federal debt alone accounted for 5.7 percent of all federal spending, and that percentage is rising.

The federal income tax accounted for 41.5 percent of federal receipts in 2010 (down from 49.6 percent prior to the Bush tax cuts of 2001 – 2003). Corporate taxes brought in only 8.9 percent, also down sharply since the recent recession. Payroll taxes and other "social insurance" payments accounted for 40 percent of total receipts in 2010.

It's easy to argue one side or the other by just citing facts that support a particular view, and omitting others. In the Analysis that follows, we offer some graphics, details and documentation in an attempt to give our readers a quick look at the entire picture — both where the money goes, and where it comes from.

hummm, I have it at 46.9% for outlays ala health care and low-income assistance vs. 23.2 for def. + vet. benefits....:eusa_think:
 
There is absolutely nothing to stop the Fed from engaging in another round of quantitative easing. There is also no logical reason the Fed should be paying interest on excess bank reserves.

I don't understand the process as much as I should, but aren't the feds between a rock and a hard place as they try to keep inflation from marching upward in times of economic distress anyway?

In theory, sure. In practice, inflation is well below the level the Fed defines as stable and has been for several years. We could actually run above that level for several years at this point without doing any real harm, and that's without getting into the idea that we should be targeting a higher rate of inflation anyway.

But wages being at historic lows, high inflation will only add to the misery.
 
So I see you enjoy your Kool Aid blue. Your just like them.
It can also be said with equal "accuracy" that the Democrats would rather default on the national debt than spend one red cent less on runaway entitlements.

That's so not true. The proposal still on the table calls for $4 trillion in cuts, much of which does address runaway entitlements. Once that basic premise is agreed to, then the nuts and bolts of WHERE will be subject to congressional debate. Obviously the entire proposal isn't laid out yet. First things first. But the Republicans still have their feet encased in clay because the $4 trillion also calls for elimination of certain major tax breaks (which, by the way, a majority of people in every single poll says THEY WANT!).

Budget/Taxes

In all due respect, the President and the Congressional Democrats have so far turned thumbs now on EVERY proposal that has addressed entitlements and the one proposal Obama has sent (last February) failed to include any cuts and substantially increased the deficit. Few House Democrats supported it and not a single Democrat Senator voted for it. And THEN his Arrogance had the nerve to go on television to say that if the Republicans continue to be intransigent, that Social Security recipients might not get their checks. I can't imagine anything demonstrating more dishonest demogoguery than that.

I believe the arrogance directed at Republicans at that time had to do with the totally unacceptable proposal of Paul Ryan. So the Dem proposal got shot down, and so did the Republican's proposal. That's how the debate reached this point. You should know enough about how the process works to know that the first proposal by anyone won't even resemble what eventually gets passed.
 
The "Problem" is a recession fueled by a contracting economy which had been bloated with consumer debt and overvaluation of financial instruments.

But out of the two choices, it's a revenue problem. Government revenue (as percent of GDP) is at its lowest point since about 1970. Sorry to all of you who have been taught that Obama is some kind of tax-and-spend machine by unscrupulous sources. It's really just not the case.

hummm...spending to what we are taking in is still very high, the issue is we have baselined our way into a hole becasue of the ongoing prgms that eat up dollars year to year.

yes that drop in revenue is killing us, but, even then, we need to do some heavy editing of prgms etc. that just take on a life of their own. and yes its not a 1 party problem, never has been.

the fact is we have a revolving door of allocators that come and og in congress and wh, thats why we have to cut into the 2012 and 13 budgets, I don't trust this out year cut plan, so much as the immediate cuts, because congress can change and poof, there it goes right out the door.

that is why we need the BB amend. yes I know there are some drawbacks, but we are heading for a cliff Cuyo, we have to stop them, any which way we can and not just for the next 2 years but down the road.

I also think a balanced budget amendment is a good idea. At least it would be a jumping off point. But it CAN'T be part of the current debate over raising the debt limit. A Constitutional Amendment would take months, probably more like years, to get through, and as you say, it could all go up in smoke with a changing of the guard. It's something that should be done by resolution, and within the year taken up (and followed through on) by Congress, regardless how the balance of power falls).

thx. also it appears Mconnell wants to create a commission for debt reduction, heres some sketchy specifics he is planning on introducing;



As has been reported, McConnell is negotiating now with Sen. Harry Reid for a large-scale package that will allow the debt ceiling to rise unless overturned by a two-thirds vote. If a White House debt-ceiling deal comes through with $1.5 trillion of spending cuts, that will be part of the package. Right now, it’s not completed because enforceable spending caps have not been determined.

The key part of the new McConnell package is a joint committee to review entitlements in a massive deficit-reduction package. Unlike the Bowles-Simpson commission, this committee will be mandated to have a legislative outcome — an actual vote — that will occur early next year. No White House members. Evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats. No outsiders. This will be the first time such a study would have an expedited procedure mandated with no amendments permitted. Also, tax reform could be air-dropped into this committee’s report.

Senator McConnell is determined to produce something from this grand-design package. He’s a smart guy. He may be saving the GOP from itself. McConnell believes that debt default must be completely taken off the table. That’s the thinking behind his debt-ceiling proposal, unless overturned by two-thirds of a congressional vote…



more at-
McConnell
 
The facts are this: Republican Presidents have presided over too much spending. Democratic Presidents have presided over too much spending. President Bush with a Republican majority did some very good things for the economy, but instead of reducing the debt and addressing entitlement reform, they increased the deficit and added to entitlements.

So the Republicans were voted out of power in 2006. And the Democrats have performed no better and in many ways worse. So their power was substantially decreased in 2010 and they will likely lose the majority altogether in 2012.

And both the traditional Republicans and the Democrats are refusing to make the hard choices necessary to solve the problem. And both are trashing the few conservatives in either party who have had the guts to propose real reform that will solve the problem.

The Tea Party made up of fiscally responsible Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, and Independents is looking better all the time.

All that is excellent bipartisan thinking, but also ignores the fact that in 2008, the country was facing the worst fiscal crisis ON MAIN STREET since the Great Depression. Had that not occurred, I would be in complete agreement with you.
 
hummm...spending to what we are taking in is still very high, the issue is we have baselined our way into a hole becasue of the ongoing prgms that eat up dollars year to year.

yes that drop in revenue is killing us, but, even then, we need to do some heavy editing of prgms etc. that just take on a life of their own. and yes its not a 1 party problem, never has been.

the fact is we have a revolving door of allocators that come and og in congress and wh, thats why we have to cut into the 2012 and 13 budgets, I don't trust this out year cut plan, so much as the immediate cuts, because congress can change and poof, there it goes right out the door.

that is why we need the BB amend. yes I know there are some drawbacks, but we are heading for a cliff Cuyo, we have to stop them, any which way we can and not just for the next 2 years but down the road.

I also think a balanced budget amendment is a good idea. At least it would be a jumping off point. But it CAN'T be part of the current debate over raising the debt limit. A Constitutional Amendment would take months, probably more like years, to get through, and as you say, it could all go up in smoke with a changing of the guard. It's something that should be done by resolution, and within the year taken up (and followed through on) by Congress, regardless how the balance of power falls).

thx. also it appears Mconnell wants to create a commission for debt reduction, heres some sketchy specifics he is planning on introducing;



As has been reported, McConnell is negotiating now with Sen. Harry Reid for a large-scale package that will allow the debt ceiling to rise unless overturned by a two-thirds vote. If a White House debt-ceiling deal comes through with $1.5 trillion of spending cuts, that will be part of the package. Right now, it’s not completed because enforceable spending caps have not been determined.

The key part of the new McConnell package is a joint committee to review entitlements in a massive deficit-reduction package. Unlike the Bowles-Simpson commission, this committee will be mandated to have a legislative outcome — an actual vote — that will occur early next year. No White House members. Evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats. No outsiders. This will be the first time such a study would have an expedited procedure mandated with no amendments permitted. Also, tax reform could be air-dropped into this committee’s report.

Senator McConnell is determined to produce something from this grand-design package. He’s a smart guy. He may be saving the GOP from itself. McConnell believes that debt default must be completely taken off the table. That’s the thinking behind his debt-ceiling proposal, unless overturned by two-thirds of a congressional vote…



more at-
McConnell

That's the most reasonable approach yet put forth by Republicans, so it won't surprise me if some version isn't what happens soon.
 
The "Problem" is a recession fueled by a contracting economy which had been bloated with consumer debt and overvaluation of financial instruments.

But out of the two choices, it's a revenue problem. Government revenue (as percent of GDP) is at its lowest point since about 1970. Sorry to all of you who have been taught that Obama is some kind of tax-and-spend machine by unscrupulous sources. It's really just not the case.

hummm...spending to what we are taking in is still very high, the issue is we have baselined our way into a hole becasue of the ongoing prgms that eat up dollars year to year.

yes that drop in revenue is killing us, but, even then, we need to do some heavy editing of prgms etc. that just take on a life of their own. and yes its not a 1 party problem, never has been.

the fact is we have a revolving door of allocators that come and og in congress and wh, thats why we have to cut into the 2012 and 13 budgets, I don't trust this out year cut plan, so much as the immediate cuts, because congress can change and poof, there it goes right out the door.

that is why we need the BB amend. yes I know there are some drawbacks, but we are heading for a cliff Cuyo, we have to stop them, any which way we can and not just for the next 2 years but down the road.

I also think a balanced budget amendment is a good idea. At least it would be a jumping off point. But it CAN'T be part of the current debate over raising the debt limit. A Constitutional Amendment would take months, probably more like years, to get through, and as you say, it could all go up in smoke with a changing of the guard. It's something that should be done by resolution, and within the year taken up (and followed through on) by Congress, regardless how the balance of power falls).

A balanced budget amendment is a terrible idea.
 

Forum List

Back
Top