What About The Debt?

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]csulli wrote:
Why do people always jump on the “well Reagan did this” or “Bush raised the debt by this much” arguments? If a Republican blows up a bus full of kids does that make it okay for a Democrat as well? Can’t you stand on your own merits? Fuck Bush and fuck Reagan; tell me how Obama isn’t going to keep crushing us under debt.[/quote]

The problem is the hypocrisy of the right who has a problem when the left grows government, but has no problem when they grow government. I don’t remember hearing a bunch of Republicans up in arms when GWB sent us stimulus checks. I don’t remember hearing what about the debt when it came to the Iraq War from the right. Isn’t it weird that the what about the debt talk gets so loud when we have a D in office and not an R? It’s blatant hypocrisy. Republicans run on small government because it’s popular, but govern on big government just in a different manner than the left. Acting as if one side is responsible for the huge growth in government is intellectually dishonest.

22

All your points are moot. You can take every dollar out of circulation and pay off the fed and we would still owe the fed money.

Watch the first 30 minutes or so of this and you’ll understand why debt doesn’t matter and we’re hosed unless we change our monetary system.

23

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:
Why do people always jump on the “well Reagan did this” or “Bush raised the debt by this much” arguments? If a Republican blows up a bus full of kids does that make it okay for a Democrat as well? Can’t you stand on your own merits? Fuck Bush and fuck Reagan; tell me how Obama isn’t going to keep crushing us under debt.[/quote]

The problem is the hypocrisy of the right who has a problem when the left grows government, but has no problem when they grow government. I don’t remember hearing a bunch of Republicans up in arms when GWB sent us stimulus checks. I don’t remember hearing what about the debt when it came to the Iraq War from the right. Isn’t it weird that the what about the debt talk gets so loud when we have a D in office and not an R? It’s blatant hypocrisy. Republicans run on small government because it’s popular, but govern on big government just in a different manner than the left. Acting as if one side is responsible for the huge growth in government is intellectually dishonest. [/quote]

Ah well that makes sense. I can see the hypocrisy of it. Personally though, I am always pissed when someone is saddling me with more debt. I don’t give a shit if it’s the lovechild of Ronald Reagan and Jesus. Don’t spend yourself into a bottomless pit.

24

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:The Marine Corps currently utilizes the F-18 Hornet platform, which is old as shit. The F-35 JSF will replace every aircraft in the Navy and Marine Corps and it’s cheaper than the F-22 Raptor.

We also don’t have bases in every country, you are exaggerating.

I was not for the auto bailout the way it was handled. I do understand and accept there are going to be unemployment issues with spending cuts. I don’t think most people that post, “we need to cut program,” thinks about the consequence though.
[/quote]

We have a TON of bases and you know this. Of course I was exaggerating just like I assume you’re exaggerating when you talk about the F-35 being cheap. Cheaper than some other bloated government weapon that we overspent on? Maybe. Cheap? Yeah right.

What % of our economy should be spent on the military? Are you like Romney and thought we needed to INCREASE defense spending? We spend like 37% of all the dollars spent on defense in the entire world. Don’t think we have any waste there? [/quote]

R&D cost money, how do you think new technology is created. Yes a f-35 is expensive, but what is the alternative. I use to order parts for F-18, do you know how rare certain parts are becoming. Many of the manufactures don’t even exist anymore, that’s how old the platform is. I suppose we could fly on, “Hope,” next time we go to war.

The military needs to trim up like everything else, my point is you need to make sure and take into consideration the ramifications beyond, “just cut gov programs.” Also military spending is one of the few things the fed is supposed to spend money on, per the constitution.

25

“Every month that we do not have an economic recovery package 500 million Americans lose their jobs.” Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House

“We have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt.” Joe Biden, Vice-President

“Paying taxes in America is Voluntary” Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader

26

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:
Why do people always jump on the “well Reagan did this” or “Bush raised the debt by this much” arguments? If a Republican blows up a bus full of kids does that make it okay for a Democrat as well? Can’t you stand on your own merits? Fuck Bush and fuck Reagan; tell me how Obama isn’t going to keep crushing us under debt.[/quote]

The problem is the hypocrisy of the right who has a problem when the left grows government, but has no problem when they grow government. I don’t remember hearing a bunch of Republicans up in arms when GWB sent us stimulus checks. I don’t remember hearing what about the debt when it came to the Iraq War from the right. Isn’t it weird that the what about the debt talk gets so loud when we have a D in office and not an R? It’s blatant hypocrisy. Republicans run on small government because it’s popular, but govern on big government just in a different manner than the left. Acting as if one side is responsible for the huge growth in government is intellectually dishonest. [/quote]

The stimulus was fine just like ARRA. I think many Republican were not happy with the money Bush spent. You do have to look at the times though. Bush presided over a number of bubbles bursting, none of which were his fault and 9/11.

We can debate for 100 years about the merits of going to war. I’m not interested in that. We did and hind sight in 20/20.

I agree if R’s are calling BS now and didn’t before than it is hypocrisy.

27

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:The Marine Corps currently utilizes the F-18 Hornet platform, which is old as shit. The F-35 JSF will replace every aircraft in the Navy and Marine Corps and it’s cheaper than the F-22 Raptor.

We also don’t have bases in every country, you are exaggerating.

I was not for the auto bailout the way it was handled. I do understand and accept there are going to be unemployment issues with spending cuts. I don’t think most people that post, “we need to cut program,” thinks about the consequence though.
[/quote]

We have a TON of bases and you know this. Of course I was exaggerating just like I assume you’re exaggerating when you talk about the F-35 being cheap. Cheaper than some other bloated government weapon that we overspent on? Maybe. Cheap? Yeah right.

What % of our economy should be spent on the military? Are you like Romney and thought we needed to INCREASE defense spending? We spend like 37% of all the dollars spent on defense in the entire world. Don’t think we have any waste there? [/quote]

R&D cost money, how do you think new technology is created. Yes a f-35 is expensive, but what is the alternative. I use to order parts for F-18, do you know how rare certain parts are becoming. Many of the manufactures don’t even exist anymore, that’s how old the platform is. I suppose we could fly on, “Hope,” next time we go to war.

The military needs to trim up like everything else, my point is you need to make sure and take into consideration the ramifications beyond, “just cut gov programs.” Also military spending is one of the few things the fed is supposed to spend money on, per the constitution. [/quote]

I don’t think anybody here is advocating for an emasculated military, but the cuts need to come from everywhere, and we do spend more on defense than the next 10 or so countries combined. The interest on the debt from the last two unfunded wars alone costs somewhere between $150B and $500B (depending on who you believe) each and every year. I gotta believe we could still have a kick-ass military on 90% of what we spend now. Something has got to give.

28

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:The Marine Corps currently utilizes the F-18 Hornet platform, which is old as shit. The F-35 JSF will replace every aircraft in the Navy and Marine Corps and it’s cheaper than the F-22 Raptor.

We also don’t have bases in every country, you are exaggerating.

I was not for the auto bailout the way it was handled. I do understand and accept there are going to be unemployment issues with spending cuts. I don’t think most people that post, “we need to cut program,” thinks about the consequence though.
[/quote]

We have a TON of bases and you know this. Of course I was exaggerating just like I assume you’re exaggerating when you talk about the F-35 being cheap. Cheaper than some other bloated government weapon that we overspent on? Maybe. Cheap? Yeah right.

What % of our economy should be spent on the military? Are you like Romney and thought we needed to INCREASE defense spending? We spend like 37% of all the dollars spent on defense in the entire world. Don’t think we have any waste there? [/quote]

R&D cost money, how do you think new technology is created. Yes a f-35 is expensive, but what is the alternative. I use to order parts for F-18, do you know how rare certain parts are becoming. Many of the manufactures don’t even exist anymore, that’s how old the platform is. I suppose we could fly on, “Hope,” next time we go to war.

The military needs to trim up like everything else, my point is you need to make sure and take into consideration the ramifications beyond, “just cut gov programs.” Also military spending is one of the few things the fed is supposed to spend money on, per the constitution. [/quote]

I don’t think anybody here is advocating for an emasculated military, but the cuts need to come from everywhere, and we do spend more on defense than the next 10 or so countries combined. The interest on the debt from the last two unfunded wars alone costs somewhere between $150B and $500B (depending on who you believe) each and every year. I gotta believe we could still have a kick-ass military on 90% of what we spend now. Something has got to give.

[/quote]

I agree, the military example was just the example used. I don’t think it would ever be suggested or will ever happen. I agree and have said budget cuts need to be across the board, including the military. I never meant to insinuate anything contrary to that.

29

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Reagan raised the debt ceiling 18 times. GWB exploded the debt as well. Neither side has been committed to lowering this. I would love to see it attacked with spending cuts and tax reform. Let’s see if BOTH sides decide it’s time to get serious about it because NEITHER has in the past. Acting as if the national debt is Obama’s to own only is ludicrous.

Here’s a quote from 1952: “The truth of the matter is that we do not know whether we have gone as far as we can go in debt…a lot of people are sure we are bankrupt already.”[/quote]

How would you reform the tax code?

What programs would you cut? [/quote]

This was posed as solely a Democratic problem by the OP.[/quote]

When your guy raised the debt more than the past three Presidents combined I’d say that he’s more responsible.

Stop trying to dodge that fact.

Are republicans also responsible to a degree, yes, absolutely. But Obama is the President of Debt.

I would start with our bloated military considering we spend more than the next 10 biggest spending countries on it. I’d look at Medicare, Social Security, etc. You have to start with the biggest pieces of the pie.

The tax code is 3.8 million words and filled with all sorts of dumb ass loopholes. I’m not an expert on it, but I’m sure anything that large and complicated is filled with opportunities for fraud. Find the fraud, find the BS loopholes and get rid of them. You have to attack both ends to see any success (revenue and spending).

[/quote]

30

I put this in another thread yesterday, but it fits here. I wouldn’t implement it until the recovery has become more robust.

Simpson-Bowles minus the military pension reductions, student loan cuts, and with a refund of the gasoline tax for small businesses and the poor. I would also consider waiving the social security age-increase for the poor, whose life expectancies have actually stalled or even decreased over the course of the past few decades.

Not sure about that last part, but it doesn’t seem right to me that we should raise the retirement because of the increase in life expectancy on a group of people who are actually living shorter lives.

31

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Reagan raised the debt ceiling 18 times. GWB exploded the debt as well. Neither side has been committed to lowering this. I would love to see it attacked with spending cuts and tax reform. Let’s see if BOTH sides decide it’s time to get serious about it because NEITHER has in the past. Acting as if the national debt is Obama’s to own only is ludicrous.

Here’s a quote from 1952: “The truth of the matter is that we do not know whether we have gone as far as we can go in debt…a lot of people are sure we are bankrupt already.”[/quote]

How would you reform the tax code?

What programs would you cut? [/quote]

This was posed as solely a Democratic problem by the OP.[/quote]

When your guy raised the debt more than the past three Presidents combined I’d say that he’s more responsible.

Stop trying to dodge that fact.

Are republicans also responsible to a degree, yes, absolutely. But Obama is the President of Debt.

I would start with our bloated military considering we spend more than the next 10 biggest spending countries on it. I’d look at Medicare, Social Security, etc. You have to start with the biggest pieces of the pie.

The tax code is 3.8 million words and filled with all sorts of dumb ass loopholes. I’m not an expert on it, but I’m sure anything that large and complicated is filled with opportunities for fraud. Find the fraud, find the BS loopholes and get rid of them. You have to attack both ends to see any success (revenue and spending).

[quote]

[quote]

Some more mud for the water…

http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm

32

I would:

  1. Cut the pay to zero of every Congressmen, the top members of the Executive branch, and The Supreme Court as a show of good faith that the economy is the number 1 concern. When unemployment reaches 5%, they can get paid again.

  2. Concentrate on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security solvency. Really think about eliminating them altogether for those of us under the age of 40 (yes that’s me). We (under 40) pay into these programs until the over 40 crowd dies off and never see the benefit. Sucks, but shit has to be done.

3.Look at the major government institutions (IRS, Homeland Security, etc…), look for overlapping duties and areas to tighten up, etc… We should cut jobs that aren’t need, cost that aren’t need, and work on process improvement/streamlining procedures.

  1. Research, experiment, and if possible simplify the tax code. This will hurt the accounting industry (I’m an accountant) and cut jobs at reduce cost for IRS (also cut jobs).

  2. Suspend fines on Obamacare because the IRS will have to expand to take care of it.

6.Cut military spending by focusing on streamlining processes and evolving each branch into smaller, but more highly trained units. Also reduce reserve unit #'s and reserve unit bases. Also look to cut bases in areas of the world where they are not needed or where multiple bases already exist.

  1. Cut corporate tax rates to discourage off shoring. Also work to eliminate red tape involving labor to reduce cost there.

  2. Offer tax incentives to companies that hire displaced workers from gov/military reduction.

  3. Create a more strict requirements to use welfare programs. If you aren’t handicapped you can flip bugers, fuck you lazy people, seriously.

  4. Invest in technology that will save money in the future. Clean energy for one. That will create jobs/new industries. Steel is dead in American let it die. I’m from Baltimore, it suck, that’s life.

  5. Stop giving every person that wants to go to college money to do so. Make them prove they deserve to get it. I don’t care how, require community service, passing a test, or whatever. Just don’t give it away. Not everyone shoudl have a BA or BS. They can be janitors, there’s plenty of honor in that.

Here are a few ideas. Some may be flawed and they may only scratch the surface, but I’m at least trying.

33

[quote]ZEB wrote:When your guy raised the debt more than the past three Presidents combined I’d say that he’s more responsible.

Stop trying to dodge that fact.

Are republicans also responsible to a degree, yes, absolutely. But Obama is the President of Debt./quote]

You should do a bit more reading before throwing out your party cheerleading lines as usual.

Obama started from a much higher base of course and his interest rate on debt inherited is MUCH higher than his predecessors.

This is in no way an attempt to excuse the President for his pathetic handling of growing the government. But when you parrot out your little party phrases to fit the lines that best make your OP fit I’m going to call you out on it. Higher interest plus much lower revenues as a result of the recession is something you’re trying to pin on the president that happened before he assumed the mantle. Obama has plenty of blame to place on him without ignoring the facts of the debt bomb he was handed. He’s continued to grow the debt bomb undoubtedly and should be called out for such.

34

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:
Why do people always jump on the “well Reagan did this” or “Bush raised the debt by this much” arguments? If a Republican blows up a bus full of kids does that make it okay for a Democrat as well? Can’t you stand on your own merits? Fuck Bush and fuck Reagan; tell me how Obama isn’t going to keep crushing us under debt.[/quote]

The problem is the hypocrisy of the right who has a problem when the left grows government, but has no problem when they grow government. I don’t remember hearing a bunch of Republicans up in arms when GWB sent us stimulus checks. I don’t remember hearing what about the debt when it came to the Iraq War from the right. Isn’t it weird that the what about the debt talk gets so loud when we have a D in office and not an R? It’s blatant hypocrisy. Republicans run on small government because it’s popular, but govern on big government just in a different manner than the left. Acting as if one side is responsible for the huge growth in government is intellectually dishonest. [/quote]

The stimulus was fine just like ARRA. I think many Republican were not happy with the money Bush spent. You do have to look at the times though. Bush presided over a number of bubbles bursting, none of which were his fault and 9/11.

We can debate for 100 years about the merits of going to war. I’m not interested in that. We did and hind sight in 20/20.

I agree if R’s are calling BS now and didn’t before than it is hypocrisy.
[/quote]

And Obama inherited an absolute debt bomb–two ongoing wars in the midst of a back breaking recession and housing crisis, neither of which were his fault. Both sides can point the finger pretty well, but that doesn’t really get us anywhere which is why I had such a problem with the OP. It’s been an American leadership problem from BOTH sides, we don’t need to try and figure out who is most to blame we need to figure out what to do about it. And that doesn’t start by saying now that we elected YOUR guy who’s RESPONSIBLE for this.

It’s intellectually dishonest for one and counterproductive for another.

35

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Reagan raised the debt ceiling 18 times. GWB exploded the debt as well. Neither side has been committed to lowering this. I would love to see it attacked with spending cuts and tax reform. Let’s see if BOTH sides decide it’s time to get serious about it because NEITHER has in the past. Acting as if the national debt is Obama’s to own only is ludicrous.

Here’s a quote from 1952: “The truth of the matter is that we do not know whether we have gone as far as we can go in debt…a lot of people are sure we are bankrupt already.”[/quote]

How would you reform the tax code?

What programs would you cut? [/quote]

This was posed as solely a Democratic problem by the OP.[/quote]

When your guy raised the debt more than the past three Presidents combined I’d say that he’s more responsible.

Stop trying to dodge that fact.

Are republicans also responsible to a degree, yes, absolutely. But Obama is the President of Debt.

I would start with our bloated military considering we spend more than the next 10 biggest spending countries on it. I’d look at Medicare, Social Security, etc. You have to start with the biggest pieces of the pie.

The tax code is 3.8 million words and filled with all sorts of dumb ass loopholes. I’m not an expert on it, but I’m sure anything that large and complicated is filled with opportunities for fraud. Find the fraud, find the BS loopholes and get rid of them. You have to attack both ends to see any success (revenue and spending).

[quote]

[quote]

Some more mud for the water…

http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm[/quote]

35% of GDP to over 100%, wtf…

36

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:
Why do people always jump on the “well Reagan did this” or “Bush raised the debt by this much” arguments? If a Republican blows up a bus full of kids does that make it okay for a Democrat as well? Can’t you stand on your own merits? Fuck Bush and fuck Reagan; tell me how Obama isn’t going to keep crushing us under debt.[/quote]

The problem is the hypocrisy of the right who has a problem when the left grows government, but has no problem when they grow government. I don’t remember hearing a bunch of Republicans up in arms when GWB sent us stimulus checks. I don’t remember hearing what about the debt when it came to the Iraq War from the right. Isn’t it weird that the what about the debt talk gets so loud when we have a D in office and not an R? It’s blatant hypocrisy. Republicans run on small government because it’s popular, but govern on big government just in a different manner than the left. Acting as if one side is responsible for the huge growth in government is intellectually dishonest. [/quote]

The stimulus was fine just like ARRA. I think many Republican were not happy with the money Bush spent. You do have to look at the times though. Bush presided over a number of bubbles bursting, none of which were his fault and 9/11.

We can debate for 100 years about the merits of going to war. I’m not interested in that. We did and hind sight in 20/20.

I agree if R’s are calling BS now and didn’t before than it is hypocrisy.
[/quote]

And Obama inherited an absolute debt bomb–two ongoing wars in the midst of a back breaking recession and housing crisis, neither of which were his fault. Both sides can point the finger pretty well, but that doesn’t really get us anywhere which is why I had such a problem with the OP. It’s been an American leadership problem from BOTH sides, we don’t need to try and figure out who is most to blame we need to figure out what to do about it. And that doesn’t start by saying now that we elected YOUR guy who’s RESPONSIBLE for this.
[/quote]

Agree, I’m not into the blame game. Bush spent a lot of money. I think some a lot of it was justified, but I’m NOT getting into that argument.

37

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

Some more mud for the water…

http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.html

35% of GDP to over 100%, wtf…[/quote]

The percent changes under President Reagan, Bush 2, and Obama are all shocking.

38

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

Some more mud for the water…

http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.html

35% of GDP to over 100%, wtf…[/quote]

The percent changes under President Reagan, Bush 2, and Obama are all shocking. [/quote]

Ya that’s what I’m saying. It’s an eye opener for sure.

39

It just doesn’t get us anywhere is the thing. Yeah the right wants to blame Obama and I get that, but how many Presidents have rode into office with what he rode in with? Two of the longest running wars in American history, a massive housing crisis, a financial system that “needed” billions of dollars to be maintained, an auto industry in shambles, etc. All of this on top of an interest rate on the national debt that was already massive…and we want to blame HIM for everything? Bullshit. Obama has been bad because he hasn’t been any different than the person who was in before him. He just continued the already failed policies of decline.

Blame him and every other leader in the past 30 years and blame ourselves. We are all culpable. Leave it to America to point the fingers everywhere else when we should point them squarely out ourselves.

40

[quote]H factor wrote:

It just doesn’t get us anywhere is the thing. Yeah the right wants to blame Obama and I get that, but how many Presidents have rode into office with what he rode in with? Two of the longest running wars in American history, a massive housing crisis, a financial system that “needed” billions of dollars to be maintained, an auto industry in shambles, etc. All of this on top of an interest rate on the national debt that was already massive…and we want to blame HIM for everything? Bullshit. Obama has been bad because he hasn’t been any different than the person who was in before him. He just continued the already failed policies of decline.

Blame him and every other leader in the past 30 years and blame ourselves. We are all culpable. Leave it to America to point the fingers everywhere else when we should point them squarely out ourselves.

[/quote]

The thing is, and maybe I’m an idealist, but hes THE PRESIDENT. He’s supposed to be able to handle what’s thrown at him. He’s supposed to be the best America has to offer.

Obama faced circumstance out of his control when he took office. My biggest problem with him is that he didn’t address those problems, but his own agenda.

ARRA, as far as I know, was already in the works. He just had to sign it. Don’t ask don’t tell could have been a second term issue. Obamacare should have been a second term issue.

His primary concern should have been the economy and he did very little except talk. Unemployment barely moved during his 1200+ days in office.

Again, I think most rational people don’t want to blame him for everything, but for what he actually did. He actually double the debt. He actually let unemployment remain stagnant. He actually signed into law a huge unfunded obligation in Obamacare. He actually allowed U.S. citizen to die in Libya without even an explanation. He actually took millions in funds for his campaign from Wall Steet.

He did not close Gitmo. He did not balance the budget. He did not bring change to DC politics. He did not reform immigration. He did not increase transparency.

These are all just off the top of my head.