Tick. Tick. Tick........

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Exactly right, ain't that the truth!

As I said in another thread, we've had politicians telling us for many years that we can have all the free ice cream we want, and that the fat kid down the street will eat our broccoli for us.

I think it's interesting that although the deficit challenges we faced in 1992 were miniscule compared with today's looming train wreck, Ross Perot gained quite a following after announcing that, as a nation, we needed to do a fair amount of broccoli-eating.



Huh??

The truth is that approximately $5 trillion in new debt has been accumulated over the last four years.

And no one is making anything remotely approaching a serious decision to reverse the trendline. You're OK with that?
If someone tried that today, another glib politician from either of our free-lunch parties would eat his lunch.

huh back ...


http://www.skymachines.com/US-Nation...ental-Term.htm


I voted for Perot

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by CJ7

anyone want to adjust $1.4788 trillion dollars for inflation and compare that figure to the amount the current president has raised the public debt?

$1.5 trillion in the 1980s, adjusted for inflation, would probably be equivalent to something in the $3-3.5 trillion range in 2012 dollars, depending on exactly how you calculated it. But are you really going to suggest to us that the extreme fiscal irresponsibilty of the last 10 years can be excused because other presidents presided over big deficits in the past? Additionally, the path to fiscal sustainability was relatively easy two decades ago. Now it isn't.

Originally Posted by CJ7

huh back ...


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

Non sequitur.

I'm not sure what your point is. You seem to be attempting to twist yourself into a pretzel in order to paint a happy face on today's fiscal mess.

It isn't working very well.

[CJ7]

Non sequitur ?


its completely logical in this particular argument.


the point being, the debt grows with every president. The interest as a percent of gdp has been lower since Obama took office than it was when Bush left office. FACT.

as for spending, a spending bill originates in the house, the debt since the repiblicans got a house majority is SHARED ... no budget approvals, but debt limit increases were passed through both chambers before the prez could sign them. FACT.


Im no Obama fan, btw.

Fiscal mess indeed, but not the end of the world. The sooner the republican politicians understand that the better off we are. There will come a time when we are forced to do what needs to be done right or left be damned. Apparently the right isnt really worried about fixing the deficit or they wold do the right thing long before they are forced to.

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by CJ7

Non sequitur ?


its completely logical in this particular argument.


the point being, the debt grows with every president.

Yes, but far, far more rapidly under some than others! The current one and his predecessor are manifestly the two worst in history, especially with regards to establishing an unsustainable trajectory.

Originally Posted by CJ7

The interest as a percent of gdp has been lower since Obama took office than it was when Bush left office. FACT.

True, but completely immaterial. The reason is quite obvious -- interest rates (along the entire yield curve) are near historic lows. Much of our borrowing is short (less than 7 years) and will soon have to be rolled over. Interest rates will eventually "normalize", and all the current money-printing raises the specter that they could shoot well beyond long-term averages during the coming years. If that happens, the deficit outlook will be much worse.

Originally Posted by CJ7

The sooner the republican politicians understand that the better off we are.

The sooner politicians of both our dysfunctional parties act responsibly, the better off we'll be in the long run. Do you see anyone in a position of power in either party who seems willing to make any difficult decisions?

Originally Posted by CJ7

Apparently the right isnt really worried about fixing the deficit or they wold do the right thing long before they are forced to.

And just what do you think is the "right thing?" Please don't answer with something like, "Pass the Buffett Rule." (That's not a serious answer.)

Both political parties are solidly dug in. The Democrats refuse to make even the slightest concession on Medicare or other entitlement reforms, and both parties refuse to do anything of any consequence regarding tax reform, the defence budget, or much of anything else.

Bowles-Simpson offers a rather modest set of proposals, but even it is a non-starter given today's politcal climate. I think it should at least be a starting point for debate on the issue.

So for the foreseeable future, I'm afraid that we'll remain a country flapping in the wind, adrift with no serious leadership.

[CJ7]

the right thing IMO

roll taxes back to pre Bush
get the hell out of the mid east
lock box SS/medicare
close all offshore corporate tax loopholes
eliminate all prok from legislation

for a start

````````````````````

The sooner politicians of both our dysfunctional parties act responsibly, the better off we'll be in the long run. Do you see anyone in a position of power in either party who seems willing to make any difficult decisions?

Hell no. But one in particular developes a rash when anyone even mentions increase revenue ... the lil pledge thing has them by the sack.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by WTF

And yet even a modest proposal would not make it through the WH nor Congress!

The GOP does not want to cut Defense spending and the Dems do not want to cut Social spending. Our form of government is outdated IMHO. That is why we are getting our ass kicked around the world, that and high oil prices and cheap labor. Hard to compete in that kind of business enviorment.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-mone...bowles-simpson

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Thursday explained why President Obama never fully embraced the 2010 report of his fiscal commission, headed by former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.) and Erskine Bowles.

Geithner, under heavy fire from the Senate Budget Committee, said the Obama administration “did not feel” it could embrace it because the cuts to defense were too deep and the reforms to Social Security relied too much on benefit cuts.




Really? Which politician will get elected cutting Defense, SS and Medicare?

Name me one muther fuc'er that would get elected on that platform.

Ron Paul sure hasn't even come close in the God Damn GOP primary! ...where all the Tea Fuc'ers are supposed to be!

Simpson Bowles (at least you finally spelled it right) is a band aid. We need to turn the train around before it reaches the cliff. Obama isn't doing that. Boehner isn't doing that. Sure, you can say that no one with a real plan can get elected, but the consequences of not doing so are disastrous. So are you just going to watch the coming economic collapse with your cute little girl arguments and spelling? Or are you going to take some action, even a little, to avert the disaster? You are such a pompous buffoon. There is enough air in your head to fill three Steiger Tractor tires.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Simpson Bowles (at least you finally spelled it right) is a band aid. We need to turn the train around before it reaches the cliff. Obama isn't doing that. Boehner isn't doing that. Sure, you can say that no one with a real plan can get elected, but the consequences of not doing so are disastrous. So are you just going to watch the coming economic collapse with your cute little girl arguments and spelling? Or are you going to take some action, even a little, to avert the disaster? You are such a pompous buffoon. There is enough air in your head to fill three Steiger Tractor tires.

You are correct sir!

[WTF]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Simpson Bowles (at least you finally spelled it right) is a band aid. We need to turn the train around before it reaches the cliff. Obama isn't doing that. Boehner isn't doing that. Sure, you can say that no one with a real plan can get elected, but the consequences of not doing so are disastrous. So are you just going to watch the coming economic collapse with your cute little girl arguments and spelling? Or are you going to take some action, even a little, to avert the disaster? You are such a pompous buffoon. There is enough air in your head to fill three Steiger Tractor tires.

Just because I am not a CSOB does not mean that I do not understand how our form of government works.

It only gets big things done in crisis mode.I have been saying for years that IMHO it is outdated But that is how it has always worked here in this country. Will there be a so called Black Swan in that way of thinking? Yes but there is nothing you can do about it. This is not a Bruce Willis movie where you can saddle up and go shoot down the comet headed for earth. Enjoy the ride and try and keep the whining down for those of us that actually enjoy life.

.

Ketchup lil tomato head.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

You are correct sir!

Parroting a monkey is not the smartest way to showcase your brainpower.

[CJ7]

selective cuts do not represent serious measures

if the woebegone knuckledraggers are serious about saving the certain demise of their country, why not insist everyone do their part?


stand by, the talking points handbook is about to grow a voice.

[CuteOldGuy]

WAM. So you're going to watch and do nothing. Ok. At least we know where you stand. The rest of us will try to save the country for you.

Monkey? Are you serious? You really are childish!

[Laz]

Originally Posted by CJ7

the right thing IMO

roll taxes back to pre Bush Raising taxes reduces economic activity which just makes the problem worse.
get the hell out of the mid east And Japan, Germany, Korea, etc.
lock box SS/medicare To late. There is no longer a surplus and congress already stole all the money we have been overpaying to avoid this problem,
close all offshore corporate tax loopholes No more bandaids. Overhaul the tax code.
eliminate all prok from legislation Yes

for a start

````````````````````

The sooner politicians of both our dysfunctional parties act responsibly, the better off we'll be in the long run. Do you see anyone in a position of power in either party who seems willing to make any difficult decisions?

Hell no. But one in particular developes a rash when anyone even mentions increase revenue ... the lil pledge thing has them by the sack.

Anyone trying to address the problem is vilified by the left. Paul Ryan's proposals are not adequate but look at how he is demonized.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by Laz

Anyone trying to address the problem is vilified by the left. Paul Ryan's proposals are not adequate but look at how he is demonized.

ryan is selective making himself inadequate

one pay, all pay

Release the DEMONS

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by CJ7

the right thing IMO

roll taxes back to pre Bush
get the hell out of the mid east
lock box SS/medicare
close all offshore corporate tax loopholes
eliminate all prok from legislation

for a start

````````````````````

The sooner politicians of both our dysfunctional parties act responsibly, the better off we'll be in the long run. Do you see anyone in a position of power in either party who seems willing to make any difficult decisions?

Hell no. But one in particular developes a rash when anyone even mentions increase revenue ... the lil pledge thing has them by the sack.

Just to be clear, do you support ending the Bush-era tax cuts for all taxpayers, or just those in the top 2% of the income strata (roughly corresponding to households with incomes over $250K), as many Democrats propose. (Rescission of the tax cuts only for the top 2% wouldn't raise much additional revenue.)

Yes, almost all Republicans pledged fealty to Norquist's anti-tax organization, but you will note that Democrats have pretty much painted themselves into a corner, too, by promising to not raise taxes on anyone whose income is less than $250K/year.

With regards to the overall budget and the deficit, there isn't much difference between those two positions. The "Buffett Rule" is one of the silliest political gimmicks I've seen in a long time.

I favor fundamental tax reform. We need a tax system that looks like it was designed on purpose, not junked up with more crap every year for 25 years.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

So for the foreseeable future, I'm afraid that we'll remain a country flapping in the wind, adrift with no serious leadership.

The system we have set up only allows for leadership in crisis mode. That is when they will do what Reagan did, which is tinker with SS by raising the age limit and increasing the taxes. Nobody is willing to cut Defense Spending. Neither party. Without that any discussion is useless, along with SS reforms. As you know , those two take up the majority of spending.

I am going to be the best student of Adam Smith until that time!