Pay off our debt

[Againsheila]

Here's an idea, let's have a telethon to help pay off our debt. People can volunteer to pay extra, if they can afford it. Once it paid off, everyone currently in office should be fired and not allowed to come back. All new people should be elected with the stipulation that they must balance the budget, any debts from here on out are their responsibility. It's not their money, it's ours.

 

[flacaltenn]

You might be on to something here.

Instead of a telethon (that's for old folk) -- we could have Reps vs Dems on Survivor "the Potomac", with folks PAYING for the next episode via phone tags or call-in. Make those liers and thieves do HONEST work for a change. You could even have pledge-offs where folks donate to their favorite team to get fire or a chicken.. ((Just the thought of a $5M chicken kind fits the cause don't it?) Let them camp in NE DC parks and see truly if there are ANY survivors.

Or how about just a FEDERAL lottery with scratch-offs of your favorite local representative? And a big cash Lottery for which the winner has to pay 60% of the proceeds BACK to the IRS?

 

[Wiseacre]

If it was me, I'd require the increases in gov't spending be capped at 2.5%, which in ten years would balance the budget. No need to immediately balance it, and risk another recession or even a depression. No need to raise taxes either, although if it was me I'd throw out all the tax deductions, exemptions, breaks, and loopholes. And then I'd lower taxes to be more competitive with the rest of the world and stop taxing profits earned overseas like every other advanced economy does.

Can't say as I'm real crazy about lotteries and such. That ain't really the answer, doubtful you could raise enough money that way, or should.

 

[AmyNation]

I would be ok with replacing everyone in congress.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Here's an idea, let's have a telethon to help pay off our debt. People can volunteer to pay extra, if they can afford it. Once it paid off, everyone currently in office should be fired and not allowed to come back. All new people should be elected with the stipulation that they must balance the budget, any debts from here on out are their responsibility. It's not their money, it's ours.

You’re obviously not seeking a serious response to this; it’s merely a pointless fantasy.

 

[Againsheila]

Here's an idea, let's have a telethon to help pay off our debt. People can volunteer to pay extra, if they can afford it. Once it paid off, everyone currently in office should be fired and not allowed to come back. All new people should be elected with the stipulation that they must balance the budget, any debts from here on out are their responsibility. It's not their money, it's ours.

You’re obviously not seeking a serious response to this; it’s merely a pointless fantasy.

Argentina paid for the Fauklands War with a telethon. Why is it unreasonable for us to use the idea?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Here's an idea, let's have a telethon to help pay off our debt. People can volunteer to pay extra, if they can afford it. Once it paid off, everyone currently in office should be fired and not allowed to come back. All new people should be elected with the stipulation that they must balance the budget, any debts from here on out are their responsibility. It's not their money, it's ours.

You’re obviously not seeking a serious response to this; it’s merely a pointless fantasy.

Argentina paid for the Fauklands War with a telethon. Why is it unreasonable for us to use the idea?

Well, for starters:

Once it paid off, everyone currently in office should be fired and not allowed to come back.

What authority will dictate to the many states and their voters whom they’ll send to Congress?

All new people should be elected with the stipulation that they must balance the budget…

Again, by what authority? Even if you could get all 50 states to incorporate such a stipulation into their election laws, how will it be enforced without term limits? That would likely require a Constitutional amendment, which would be a bad idea, for a number of reasons.

I was always under the impression you and other conservatives advocated ‘states’ rights,’ where the Federal government shouldn’t be allowed to dictate to the states on matters reserved for the states, such as election laws.

 

[Againsheila]

You’re obviously not seeking a serious response to this; it’s merely a pointless fantasy.

Argentina paid for the Fauklands War with a telethon. Why is it unreasonable for us to use the idea?

Well, for starters:

Once it paid off, everyone currently in office should be fired and not allowed to come back.

What authority will dictate to the many states and their voters whom they’ll send to Congress?

All new people should be elected with the stipulation that they must balance the budget…

Again, by what authority? Even if you could get all 50 states to incorporate such a stipulation into their election laws, how will it be enforced without term limits? That would likely require a Constitutional amendment, which would be a bad idea, for a number of reasons.

I was always under the impression you and other conservatives advocated ‘states’ rights,’ where the Federal government shouldn’t be allowed to dictate to the states on matters reserved for the states, such as election laws.

I'm not a conservative, I'm a moderate. Now, what do you propose we do to pay off the budget and stop congress from creating a new one?

 

[Wiseacre]

About those telethons to raise money to pay down the debt, until we finally become fiscally responsible to the point where our spending is under control, a telethon is just another way to increase revenue that the free spenders will try to use. I can deal with it, nothing wrong with asking the public at large to contribute, but at this point I'd rather put my money to better and more effective use than give it to a wasteful and corrupt gov't.

 

[Againsheila]

About those telethons to raise money to pay down the debt, until we finally become fiscally responsible to the point where our spending is under control, a telethon is just another way to increase revenue that the free spenders will try to use. I can deal with it, nothing wrong with asking the public at large to contribute, but at this point I'd rather put my money to better and more effective use than give it to a wasteful and corrupt gov't.

The beauty of a telethon is it's voluntary.

 

[Bfgrn]

Here's an idea, let's have a telethon to help pay off our debt. People can volunteer to pay extra, if they can afford it. Once it paid off, everyone currently in office should be fired and not allowed to come back. All new people should be elected with the stipulation that they must balance the budget, any debts from here on out are their responsibility. It's not their money, it's ours.

I know your heart is in the right place, but our debt is not the cause of our economic problems. It is important that we do things to change the trajectory, like Obama has done with healthcare reform and his intent to let the Bush tax cuts expire.

But there is We, the People, the human capital that must always be first and foremost in policy and decisions.

Here is what conservatives won't tell you.

What I learned from hanging out with deficit hawks

A David Walker speech is always worth listening to with care, for Mr. Walker is a reliable and thorough enumerator of popular deficit-scare themes. Three of these in particular caught my attention on Friday.

To my surprise, Walker began on a disarming note: he acknowledged that the level of our national debt is not actually high. In relation to GDP, it is only a bit over half of what it was in 1946. And to give more credit, the number Walker used, 63 percent, refers to debt held by the public, which is the correct construct — not the 90+ percent figure for gross debt, commonly seen in press reports and in comparisons with other countries. The relevant number is today below where it was in the mid-1950s, and comparable to the early 1990s.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yes, compared to Greece or Zimbabwe we are doing great.
Geez, where do they teach this stuff? 1946 was post WW2 and the debt incurred was necessary and limited--once the war ended the need to borrow ended too. This debt is different. It is caused by structural issues in the social spending category that will only grow bigger. This debt has been a drag on the economy, as witnessed by the pitiful growth rate of GDP, coming out of a deep recession.
I disagree we should pay our debt off (and staging bake sales wont do it--the debt is too large for that). But we do need to reduce it to more manageable levels.

 

[editec]

The national debt did not cause this feeble economy.

The obsession about it is a GOP smokescreen for the real problems.

Which is, incidently, the GOP itself.

 

[Bfgrn]

Yes, compared to Greece or Zimbabwe we are doing great.
Geez, where do they teach this stuff? 1946 was post WW2 and the debt incurred was necessary and limited--once the war ended the need to borrow ended too. This debt is different. It is caused by structural issues in the social spending category that will only grow bigger. This debt has been a drag on the economy, as witnessed by the pitiful growth rate of GDP, coming out of a deep recession.
I disagree we should pay our debt off (and staging bake sales wont do it--the debt is too large for that). But we do need to reduce it to more manageable levels.

Greece or Zimbabwe are smaller economies than the STATE of California.

The 'social spending' you refer to are NOT expendable programs. They MUST be funded. They are essential programs for people who truly fit the definition of dependents. They are not 'lazy' Americans, they are OLD Americans, who can no longer compete in the marketplace to generate the kind of income they once did. They cannot sustain cuts to those programs that will raise their out of pocket costs.

So we have to find a way to lower costs without cutting services and raise revenues.

 

[bripat9643]

I would be ok with replacing everyone in congress.

I'd be OK with hanging eveyrone in Congress. Instead of electing new ones we should choose them by lottery.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yes, compared to Greece or Zimbabwe we are doing great.
Geez, where do they teach this stuff? 1946 was post WW2 and the debt incurred was necessary and limited--once the war ended the need to borrow ended too. This debt is different. It is caused by structural issues in the social spending category that will only grow bigger. This debt has been a drag on the economy, as witnessed by the pitiful growth rate of GDP, coming out of a deep recession.
I disagree we should pay our debt off (and staging bake sales wont do it--the debt is too large for that). But we do need to reduce it to more manageable levels.

Greece or Zimbabwe are smaller economies than the STATE of California.

The 'social spending' you refer to are NOT expendable programs. They MUST be funded. They are essential programs for people who truly fit the definition of dependents. They are not 'lazy' Americans, they are OLD Americans, who can no longer compete in the marketplace to generate the kind of income they once did. They cannot sustain cuts to those programs that will raise their out of pocket costs.

So we have to find a way to lower costs without cutting services and raise revenues.

Edited Most of social spending is waste. Most of it is designed to make people dependent on government. More people signed up for disability last month than got jobs. Do you really think hundreds of thousands of people suddenly became unable to work?

 

[Bfgrn]

Yes, compared to Greece or Zimbabwe we are doing great.
Geez, where do they teach this stuff? 1946 was post WW2 and the debt incurred was necessary and limited--once the war ended the need to borrow ended too. This debt is different. It is caused by structural issues in the social spending category that will only grow bigger. This debt has been a drag on the economy, as witnessed by the pitiful growth rate of GDP, coming out of a deep recession.
I disagree we should pay our debt off (and staging bake sales wont do it--the debt is too large for that). But we do need to reduce it to more manageable levels.

Greece or Zimbabwe are smaller economies than the STATE of California.

The 'social spending' you refer to are NOT expendable programs. They MUST be funded. They are essential programs for people who truly fit the definition of dependents. They are not 'lazy' Americans, they are OLD Americans, who can no longer compete in the marketplace to generate the kind of income they once did. They cannot sustain cuts to those programs that will raise their out of pocket costs.

So we have to find a way to lower costs without cutting services and raise revenues.

You're joking,r ight? Most of social spending is waste. Most of it is designed to make people dependent on government. More people signed up for disability last month than got jobs. Do you really think hundreds of thousands of people suddenly became unable to work?

The most costly social program is Medicare. Do people stop growing old? Can old age be cured with your social Darwinism?

 

[The Rabbi]

OK, so you agree that disability is riddled with fraud and waste. And that's what needs to be addressed, not additional funding.
As to Medicare, the program needs to be reformed to empower people to spend their own money on their own healthcare. The issue is not the existence of needy people. The issue is that the program is set up in a way to minimize responsibility and encourage over-spending.

 

[Bfgrn]

OK, so you agree that disability is riddled with fraud and waste. And that's what needs to be addressed, not additional funding.
As to Medicare, the program needs to be reformed to empower people to spend their own money on their own healthcare. The issue is not the existence of needy people. The issue is that the program is set up in a way to minimize responsibility and encourage over-spending.

Edited.

And, I am willing to bet there are a lot more people who should receive disability but are denied. I know 3 people off the top of my head who had legitimate debilitating injuries who applied for disability and 2 were denied. The one that did receive disability took 2 years of fighting with the state. We held numerous benefits for him so he didn't lose his house.

Medicare is much more efficient and cost effective than private insurance. Medicare has a better track record of controlling costs. Beginning in 1997, the growth in Medicare’s cost per beneficiary has been slower than the cost escalation in coverage delivered by private insurers. Between 2002 and 2006, for example, Medicare’s cost per beneficiary rose 5.4 percent, while per capita costs in private insurance rose 7.7 percent, according to MedPAC, an independent agency charged with advising Congress on Medicare issues.

On July 30, 1965, President Lyndon Johnson signed the law creating Medicare.

At the time, about half of the elderly had no health insurance—they were too old and too likely to get sick, so the private market simply wouldn’t insure them. The elderly were the demographic group most likely to live in poverty, and about one in three older Americans were poor. Blacks and other minorities could not receive treatment in whites-only medical facilities, discrimination that was barred by Medicare.

Now the elderly are among the best-insured Americans, with upward of 95 percent covered by Medicare. The rate of poverty among those 65 and older is under 10 percent. The decline in elderly poverty began with the creation of Social Security—but it accelerated, according to Census Bureau data, only after Medicare coverage began.

 

[Intense]

Reminder. This is the CDZ. Keep it Civil. Make Your Point without the Put Downs, Please.