National Debt - Is it a Crisis Yet?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Airtruth wrote:

This is all evident in the rise in US millionaires, as the debt continues to increase. The rich are getting richer the poor are getting poorer.
[/quote]

While the “gap” between the “rich” and the “poor” may be growing, this doesn’t explain what is happeneing to individuals. Individuals and families are changing their own circumstances to move between classes. So the bottom 20% of earners this year will mostly turnover from the bottom 20% of earners in 10 years.

The “gap” is just a nice way of misleading everyone into believing that the poor can’t change their own circumstances when, in fact, they can and very often do.

62

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
“Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter” - Dick Cheney.[/quote]

Did you believe that when he said it? Do you believe it now?

I don’t think anyone is questioning that the republicans had a hand in debt problems, but Obama is making it much, much worse.[/quote]

Think of all that money that we’d have to devote to healthcare without having to support the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Deficits only evidently matter when you’re trying to help Americans, but not when you’re invading other countries, as evidenced by the teabaggers’ non-existence during the Bush years. [/quote]

Nice sidestep of the question.

Either you believe deficits matter or you don’t.[/quote]

They definatly matter , the time to deal with the deficit is when times are good like Clinton did , Bush should had done the same[/quote]

I don’t care what time it is, good or bad, there is plenty of excessive, wasteful government spending to cut.

I agree, Bush spent entirely too much.
[/quote]

We agree that way to much is spent, but rather than starting with programs that may do a small amount of good , let’s start with huge programs that not only do no good but they do a hell of alot of bad

After we cut all the stupid spending I would be interested in cutting social programs . If you don’t do away with stupid spending then you look as though you are just anti poor, which is the way i perceive the Republican Party . [/quote]

These programs do not do a little amount of good, their overall effect is a net negative.

Spending billions of dollars of other people’s money to perpetuate a system of dependence which also lowers the quality of care all American’s receive is not good.

63

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
“Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter” - Dick Cheney.[/quote]

Did you believe that when he said it? Do you believe it now?

I don’t think anyone is questioning that the republicans had a hand in debt problems, but Obama is making it much, much worse.[/quote]

This is an opinion that has two sides, there is the side that says spending will stimulate the economy and there is the side that says it will make it worse.

I think Obama’s approach is new to the YOUNG Republican group because they think if we cut taxes on the most wealthy they will reinvest that money in our economy. And it will trickle down to the little people. And if we do away with all regulations on business they will flourish and the free market will keep them legitimate

Obama’s approach is a little more direct. Cut taxes on the less advantaged and demand honesty and good ethics from business. I have my issues I do not like about Obama.
[/quote]

Cut taxes on the less advantaged? The “less advantaged” don’t even pay taxes. In some cases they receive a “refund” for money they never paid in.

(We’re talking about income taxes, right?)[/quote]

lets say middle class , I got a INCOME TAX tax cut , [/quote]

Or we can cut taxes for everyone and watch those who own businesses reinvest that money into their companies. It’s common sense that business owners will tighten their belts when they are taxed more heavily (because they have less cash) and will invest more frequently with lower tax rates.

64

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
<<< These programs do not do a little amount of good, their overall effect is a net negative. >>>[/quote]
Their overall effect has been a moral, social and economic apocalypse.

65

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
<<< These programs do not do a little amount of good, their overall effect is a net negative. >>>[/quote]
Their overall effect has been a moral, social and economic apocalypse.[/quote]

I guess sometimes I have a talent for understatement. :wink:

Unfortunately that is not how these things play out in the media.

66

One thing people sometimes don’t consider; with each passing year we are demographically less able to cover our debts and obligations. Funding SS and Medicare as the boomers jump aboard is problematic enough. Wait until people wake up to the fact that the tax producing base is going to get smaller and smaller while tax consumer numbers steadily grow. Taxes will have to go up across the board while entitlement programs will have to be reformed to bare bones, lean and mean, for the neediest of the needy, safety nets.

67

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

The death of the unions was the death of middle class. And IMO the death of the union was due to the death of the mafia . They were the power behind the unions [/quote]

So the strength of the middle class is directly tied to the strength of the mafia and organized crime.

Well done. You’ve outdone yourself.

68

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
There are some problems with the old system but insurance companies being greedy wasn’t one of them (have you ever looked at their financial statements?). Expecting insurance companies to cover pre existing conditions is like buying a beat up car and expecting the auto insurance company to pay for the repairs.
[/quote]

Well then let those inferior cars and people just die. Why should anyone be responsible to help them?[/quote]

If my taxes weren’t so damn high I’d be contributing much more than I currently am to private charities.

Surely we can agree private charities are much more efficient than the government, no? They have to be. If they’re not, other charities will be more likely to receive my contributions. The government doesn’t have any incentive to be efficient and I don’t have any choice but to pay my taxes anyway.[/quote]

No. You contribute to private charities, good luck knowing where your money is really going.

And everyone says that- if I was taxed less, I’d contribute more. Forgive me for being too much of a cynic to believe a fuckin word of that (maybe not with you, but I mean in the population generally).

69

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
<<< No. You contribute to private charities, good luck knowing where your money is really going. >>>[/quote]
He didn’t really just say this?!?!?!? I see where our tax money is going. I see the once mightiest industrial capital of planet Earth reduced to a burned down 3rd world warzone. I see the body count every day as the victims of all our enforced compassion continue to kill each other off, but have no fear. Lacking even the vaguest concept of what a responsible loving faithful family looks like they have no problem cranking out new meat for the grinder all the time. Detroit is the ultimate big government atheist paradise. You should be proud.

Given the choice I’d send my money to the mob first. At least they don’t make any pretense to compassion or justice.

70

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
There are some problems with the old system but insurance companies being greedy wasn’t one of them (have you ever looked at their financial statements?). Expecting insurance companies to cover pre existing conditions is like buying a beat up car and expecting the auto insurance company to pay for the repairs.
[/quote]

Well then let those inferior cars and people just die. Why should anyone be responsible to help them?[/quote]

If my taxes weren’t so damn high I’d be contributing much more than I currently am to private charities.

Surely we can agree private charities are much more efficient than the government, no? They have to be. If they’re not, other charities will be more likely to receive my contributions. The government doesn’t have any incentive to be efficient and I don’t have any choice but to pay my taxes anyway.[/quote]

No. You contribute to private charities, good luck knowing where your money is really going.

And everyone says that- if I was taxed less, I’d contribute more. Forgive me for being too much of a cynic to believe a fuckin word of that (maybe not with you, but I mean in the population generally).[/quote]

Charities are required to be audited by independent entities.

71

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
There are some problems with the old system but insurance companies being greedy wasn’t one of them (have you ever looked at their financial statements?). Expecting insurance companies to cover pre existing conditions is like buying a beat up car and expecting the auto insurance company to pay for the repairs.
[/quote]

Well then let those inferior cars and people just die. Why should anyone be responsible to help them?[/quote]

If my taxes weren’t so damn high I’d be contributing much more than I currently am to private charities.

Surely we can agree private charities are much more efficient than the government, no? They have to be. If they’re not, other charities will be more likely to receive my contributions. The government doesn’t have any incentive to be efficient and I don’t have any choice but to pay my taxes anyway.[/quote]

No. You contribute to private charities, good luck knowing where your money is really going.

And everyone says that- if I was taxed less, I’d contribute more. Forgive me for being too much of a cynic to believe a fuckin word of that (maybe not with you, but I mean in the population generally).[/quote]

Charities are required to be audited by independent entities.[/quote]

The IRS requires this for them to keep their 501 (c) 3 designation. With out it they are no longer a Non Profit organization and all money donated is not tax deductible. The nail in the coffin for any Non-Profit.

72

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

No. You contribute to private charities, good luck knowing where your money is really going.

And everyone says that- if I was taxed less, I’d contribute more. Forgive me for being too much of a cynic to believe a fuckin word of that (maybe not with you, but I mean in the population generally).[/quote]

TOTAL BS! having worked in the non-profit world, you’re way off base here. All 501.c.3’s are required to file annual reports (form 990) that are to be on hand and available for public review upon request. They delineate all expenditure lines and successful non-profits give additional detailed accounting to their contributors, because it is only by maintaining that transparency and gift-to-result reporting that they can build successful donor relations . . .

73

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
There are some problems with the old system but insurance companies being greedy wasn’t one of them (have you ever looked at their financial statements?). Expecting insurance companies to cover pre existing conditions is like buying a beat up car and expecting the auto insurance company to pay for the repairs.
[/quote]

Well then let those inferior cars and people just die. Why should anyone be responsible to help them?[/quote]

If my taxes weren’t so damn high I’d be contributing much more than I currently am to private charities.

Surely we can agree private charities are much more efficient than the government, no? They have to be. If they’re not, other charities will be more likely to receive my contributions. The government doesn’t have any incentive to be efficient and I don’t have any choice but to pay my taxes anyway.[/quote]

No. You contribute to private charities, good luck knowing where your money is really going.

And everyone says that- if I was taxed less, I’d contribute more. Forgive me for being too much of a cynic to believe a fuckin word of that (maybe not with you, but I mean in the population generally).[/quote]

Charities are required to be audited by independent entities.[/quote]

The IRS requires this for them to keep their 501 (c) 3 designation. With out it they are no longer a Non Profit organization and all money donated is not tax deductible. The nail in the coffin for any Non-Profit.[/quote]

Yup. I audit a couple non-profit organizations myself (I’m in public accounting).

74

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

Yup. I audit a couple non-profit organizations myself (I’m in public accounting).[/quote]

My sincerest apologies - that can be a thankless job, but man, you guys save our bacon when it comes to federal reporting!

75

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
“Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter” - Dick Cheney.[/quote]

Did you believe that when he said it? Do you believe it now?

I don’t think anyone is questioning that the republicans had a hand in debt problems, but Obama is making it much, much worse.[/quote]

Think of all that money that we’d have to devote to healthcare without having to support the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Deficits only evidently matter when you’re trying to help Americans, but not when you’re invading other countries, as evidenced by the teabaggers’ non-existence during the Bush years. [/quote]

Nice sidestep of the question.

Either you believe deficits matter or you don’t.[/quote]

They definatly matter , the time to deal with the deficit is when times are good like Clinton did , Bush should had done the same[/quote]

I don’t care what time it is, good or bad, there is plenty of excessive, wasteful government spending to cut.

I agree, Bush spent entirely too much.
[/quote]

We agree that way to much is spent, but rather than starting with programs that may do a small amount of good , let’s start with huge programs that not only do no good but they do a hell of alot of bad

After we cut all the stupid spending I would be interested in cutting social programs . If you don’t do away with stupid spending then you look as though you are just anti poor, which is the way i perceive the Republican Party . [/quote]

These programs do not do a little amount of good, their overall effect is a net negative.

Spending billions of dollars of other people’s money to perpetuate a system of dependence which also lowers the quality of care all American’s receive is not good.[/quote]

Lets talk unemployment , No pissing and moanning about pissing away alot on those 3 wars but we have to crack down on those lazy bastards sitting there sucking up unemployment

76

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

The death of the unions was the death of middle class. And IMO the death of the union was due to the death of the mafia . They were the power behind the unions [/quote]

So the strength of the middle class is directly tied to the strength of the mafia and organized crime.

Well done. You’ve outdone yourself.[/quote]

You have to research the beginning of organized labor ,

http://www.americanmafia.com/Crime_And_Labor.html

I just found this I will let you know if it was any good

77

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
you were aware there was a VA Dept, right?[/quote]

I am aware of VA , I’m not sure how they account for their money, I do know in the Bush Admin and probably in everybody’s Admin . they just do not claim everything . They just leave it out and pretend it does not exsist

78

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
you were aware there was a VA Dept, right?[/quote]

I am aware of VA , I’m not sure how they account for their money, I do know in the Bush Admin and probably in everybody’s Admin . they just do not claim everything . They just leave it out and pretend it does not exsist[/quote]

LOL - you obviously do not understand the federal budgeting process . . .

79

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
you were aware there was a VA Dept, right?[/quote]

I am aware of VA , I’m not sure how they account for their money, I do know in the Bush Admin and probably in everybody’s Admin . they just do not claim everything . They just leave it out and pretend it does not exsist[/quote]

LOL - you obviously do not understand the federal budgeting process . . .[/quote]

If it is incomplete , i doubt any one does

80

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
you were aware there was a VA Dept, right?[/quote]

I am aware of VA , I’m not sure how they account for their money, I do know in the Bush Admin and probably in everybody’s Admin . they just do not claim everything . They just leave it out and pretend it does not exsist[/quote]

LOL - you obviously do not understand the federal budgeting process . . .[/quote]

If it is incomplete , i doubt any one does [/quote]

no silly, if they do not claim it in their budget, they cannot get the funds for their budget . . .