The national debt

[applepansy]

In the case for health and security, especially for older people, the younger generation is going to have to be willing take it out of government hands and will have to be willing to dip into their own pockets to pay for their parents care in some form or another. Unfortunately I don't think there are enough willing to do so at this time (and would rather leave it up to the gov), so we're ending up in a death spiral. Right now good choices can prolong it, and hope we can get good enough elsewhere to cover it, but i don't really see that happening soon.

I completely agree.

I am not against cuts in Social Security or Medicare IF the cuts are made first in Congressional salary and benefits. Its bigger than you think. Not as big as Social Security and Medicare but its big. It needs to happen first so that there is some basis of faith in the people who are going to make the cuts.

The people who sold us out need to pay it back. They got wealthy on the backs of their constituents.

Edited February 17, 2011 by applepansy

[Just_A_Guy]

That's just it, JAG - Obama can either surrender the ideals he has and that he was voted in to office for(In which case he would be painted as a flip-flopper) or he can stick to his guns and cut programs he feels are non-essential. If he's making cuts and Congress says 'No', it's really Congress' fault.

Obama is making cuts until the next election because he knows that hard cuts have to be made.

If nothing had happened since the campaign rhetoric about reining in the deficit, I'd agree with you. But I cannot, in reality, ignore the fact that the President has been a key player in adding $3 trillion to our national debt over the past three years.

This man, almost literally, spent the last two years taking the country on a fiscal joyride by selling my family into indentured servitude to the tune of $50,000 (our per capita share of $3 trillion). And now he wants me to believe that not only does he want a balanced budget, but he's willing to alienate some of his core constituencies to do it?

No. The President's playing games, pure and simple.

Bush did the same with his temporary tax cuts.

FWIW - Bush wanted them to be permanent. The 2010 sunset provisions were inserted because it was the only way they could get enough Senate Democrats to go along with the plan.

I think people need to grow up: If they don't like Obama's budget, make a full budget proposal of your own and submit it through their local congressman.

I'll just pitch this idea out there--will probably get carved to pieces--but may spark some interesting discussion.

Projected spending this year is $3.7 trillion. Projected revenue is about $2.6 trillion.

Cut spending across the board 50%, with cabinet secretaries free to allocate their respective department budgets as they see fit.

The money we save should pay off the federal deficit by October of 2029. Faster, if we can simultaneously nudge up tax rates and increase tax revenue without slowing the economy.

Edited February 17, 2011 by Just_A_Guy

[unixknight]

The money we save should pay off the federal deficit by October of 2029. Faster, if we can simultaneously nudge up tax rates and increase tax revenue without slowing the economy.

I agree with everything you said except this last part. If you want to raise tax revenue, raising the tax rate may not be the best way. In the '80s, the tax rate was lowered yet IRS revenue went up. (I don't have the specifics in front of me.)

How can this be?

Because with lower taxes, more money circulated. That meant more consumer goods purchased (more sales tax collected) businesses expanded to hire more people (more employed people paying into the income tax system) Profits went up (profit tax revenues rose) etc etc etc.

There's probably a graph somewhere laying out the tax rate vs. revenue taken in, and there's a sweet spot where revenues are maximized at a certain rate before it falls lower as the tax rate increases. I'm pretty sure we're beyond that point now.

This is mostly my own theorizing so take it for what it's worth. I'm a software developer not a tax accountant, but this is what I've read.

[Dravin]

(more sales tax collected)

A nitpick: Are there any Federal sales taxes? Because if there isn't that's a moot point for IRS revenue (though would certainly apply to most states). Expanded wages and more employees is however entirely relevant.

[unixknight]

A nitpick: Are there any Federal sales taxes? Because if there isn't that's a moot point for IRS revenue (though would certainly apply to most states). Expanded wages and more employees is however entirely relevant.

No there's no Federal sales tax (yet) I was lumping State and Federal together in that. Sorry for being vague. :)

[Matthew0059]

The debt is too large to pay off now- with the major changes coming in the next few years to the world's financial system and the coming natural calamities that will rock the entire world, our debt will never really be paid off (not in a sense that we'll have a clean slate with the our debtors and the people will have a functioning, autocratic government left). America began down this dark road as soon as the Church was established and then driven into the wilderness, methinks.

The best thing to do now is really, really focus on food preparation and provident living. If you haven't yet started, it's not yet too late if you listen to the Spirit and act!!

[HoosierGuy]

Social Security is a poorly planned program.

I'll stick with Bernie Sanders view of Social Security -

"one of the great success stories of the United States of America."

Critics of Social Security have argued that 70 million baby boomers will strain the program, or perhaps even bust it. But Sanders maintains the program "can pay out benefits for everyone for the next 27 years." It can pay out 80 percent of benefits thereafter, he said.

Sanders caucus defends Social Security - Newsroom: U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Vermont)

All this bashing Social Security is foolish and once again playing into the hands of the ultra wealthy. Throw off the mind control and start fighting for your right to a good Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness.

[Just_A_Guy]

There's probably a graph somewhere laying out the tax rate vs. revenue taken in, and there's a sweet spot where revenues are maximized at a certain rate before it falls lower as the tax rate increases. I'm pretty sure we're beyond that point now.

Yeah, it's called the "Laffer Curve". Trouble is, the estimates differ wildly as to where that "sweet spot" is--anywhere from 32% to 70%, as per Wikipedia.

I'll stick with Bernie Sanders view of Social Security -

"one of the great success stories of the United States of America." . . .

"[social Security] can pay out benefits for everyone for the next 27 years." It can pay out 80 percent of benefits thereafter, he said.

First: that assumes that the "trust fund" at some point has assets more substantial than $3.25 trillion in IOUs from a federal government that is deeply in debt.

Second: it assumes that a retirement plan whose value diminishes by 20% by the time you need it, can be honestly labeled a "success story".

Bernie Sanders sounds an awful lot like Bernie Madoff.

[bytebear]

We are going to have to slaughter the sacred cow of government worker benefits. We need to break up public worker unions, roll back pensions and convert them to 401Ks, make them have the same health care coverage as the rest of us and pass laws that public sector jobs must pay equal or less than private sector equivalents.

The states are doing it already. God bless Wisconsin Republicans.

If you really want to hear the hard cold truth, do a YouTube search on New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. He is my hero.

[FunkyTown]

We are going to have to slaughter the sacred cow of government worker benefits.

Which government workers are those? New York Cops? Firemen? Soldiers? IRS agents? Child Tax Benefit workers? Welfare Case Workers? Sewer workers? Senators? Customs and Excise agents? Coast Guard?

I'm unsure which government workers you're referring to and don't want to have a discussion on something you're not actually saying.

[FunkyTown]

FWIW - Bush wanted them to be permanent. The 2010 sunset provisions were inserted because it was the only way they could get enough Senate Democrats to go along with the plan.

So when Bush puts through laws the Democrats don't generally like, he's compromising, but when Obama pushes laws the Republicans don't generally like, he's playing political games? JAG - If things need to be cut, things need to be cut. Don't demonize the man for doing exactly what you want him to do. As it is, what it sounds like is:

"Obama spends way too much!"

(Obama begins spending cuts)

"Obama is playing political games!"

Doesn't really sound like he can do anything anyone wants.

I'll just pitch this idea out there--will probably get carved to pieces--but may spark some interesting discussion.

Projected spending this year is $3.7 trillion. Projected revenue is about $2.6 trillion.

Cut spending across the board 50%, with cabinet secretaries free to allocate their respective department budgets as they see fit.

The money we save should pay off the federal deficit by October of 2029. Faster, if we can simultaneously nudge up tax rates and increase tax revenue without slowing the economy.

So Obama puts through this plan and half of the military budget is cut, along with half the budget for VA hospitals and half the budget for paying military vets who were hurt. You can say you don't want to cut that, but the truth is... If the budget is cut in half, everyone is going to demonize Obama exactly the same way you are right now.

If he's doing the right thing, then just say 'Well done, Mr. President'. Don't come up with reasons why he's playing a political game.

[Just_A_Guy]

So when Bush puts through laws the Democrats don't generally like, he's compromising, but when Obama pushes laws the Republicans don't generally like, he's playing political games? JAG - If things need to be cut, things need to be cut. Don't demonize the man for doing exactly what you want him to do. As it is, what it sounds like is:

"Obama spends way too much!"

(Obama begins spending cuts)

"Obama is playing political games!"

Doesn't really sound like he can do anything anyone wants.

Well, not quite. My position is that he's (ostensibly) pushing cuts he really doesn't want to see passed.

Remember, the Republicans are on-record supporting cuts at least as deep as bringing us back to 2008 levels. So it's not like he's compromising (a la Bush) with the opposing party.

So Obama puts through this plan and half of the military budget is cut, along with half the budget for VA hospitals and half the budget for paying military vets who were hurt. You can say you don't want to cut that, but the truth is... If the budget is cut in half, everyone is going to demonize Obama exactly the same way you are right now.

I think the current cuts are calculated to make people want to demonize someone; it's just a matter of the White House spin machine (and their allies) making the Republicans bear the brunt of that.

I realize people will howl if my ideas are implemented. My response is: We can make these cuts now, on our own terms; or we can make them later because we have to and with a lot less flexibility. One would hope that a president--Republican or Democrat--would recognize that, and have the political courage to go forward.

(Or we could just default, I suppose.)

[Dravin]

Which government workers are those? New York Cops? Firemen? Soldiers? IRS agents? Child Tax Benefit workers? Welfare Case Workers? Sewer workers? Senators? Customs and Excise agents? Coast Guard?

I'm unsure which government workers you're referring to and don't want to have a discussion on something you're not actually saying.

Maybe the military? Though I'm fairly sure that wages aren't the main cost there.

I sincerely hoping you're not saying you believe in Euthanasia for anyone over 70-75. (if so, stop reading and move to Sweden)

Not sure I agree with him but say, not providing dialysis or not providing housing and nursing care isn't the same as euthanasia.

Edited February 18, 2011 by Dravin

[bytebear]

Which government workers are those? New York Cops? Firemen? Soldiers? IRS agents? Child Tax Benefit workers? Welfare Case Workers? Sewer workers? Senators? Customs and Excise agents? Coast Guard?

I'm unsure which government workers you're referring to and don't want to have a discussion on something you're not actually saying.

As I said in my previous post "public sector jobs must pay equal or less than private sector equivalents" So we need to look at what the market demands, and not what the rolling raises dictate. While 1 out of every 8 private citizens now has no job, and the rest have lost 10 to 20% of their income, the government refuses to do layoffs or salary reductions. And that doesn't even go into pensions or health benefits. So, if you want to use inherently dangerous jobs to represent cubicle workers, then so be it, but you are just painting the cow with a very broad sacred brush. It's funny how whenever a budget needs to be cut, the first thing they do is threaten to cut the number of police and firemen. Time to get real, my friend..

Edited February 18, 2011 by bytebear

[unixknight]

One of the big barriers to reducing the pay rate of Government employees is unions. My mom had a government job until she retired and union membership where she worked was mandatory. As it is, unions push for ever better compensation while ignoring worker accountability. Think they're going to just smile and give in if the Government comes to them and says "Ok well to make budget we have to cut pay and benefits across the board."

Good luck with that.

[bcguy]

If congress did not deregulate the banking industry, with president bush wiping out all regulations, the Us would not be in such a mess as it is today. This same scenario happened just before the stock market crash of 1929. But instead of banks and real estate being deregulated, it was the stock market that was deregulated. Same effect but different financial instruments involved.

If most people were to be frugal, saved money and invested wisely and try to buy American if possible, the us would be in much better shape. Also, NAFTA had a big role in lost of federal tax dollars being lost when factories were gutted in the US and went overseas.

AMERICANS MUST LEARN TO LIVE WITHIN THERE MEANS.

Has anyone seen how Warren Buffet lives? He still lived in the same modest house I think its a average home that is around 2 thousand square feet. Drives a 10 year old Chevy suv that has hail damage. And yet, he is one of the richest billionaires in the world. I watched his documentary and he is very thrifty with his money! He is a prime example of the way people should live. No you may not become rich, but his principles will help Americans to structure there finances so not to depend on loans to get a head.

Warren Buffett - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edited February 18, 2011 by bcguy

[HoosierGuy]

If things keep going they way they are I really see things becoming survival of the fittest, proving Darwin was right. Do you all really want to go back to the dark ages with man against man and might makes right? This assault on teachers and unions is ridiculous.

Robert Reich knows the score and the reality.

Robert Reich

The Republican strategy is to split the vast middle and working class – pitting unionized workers against non-unionized, public-sector workers against non-public, older workers within sight of Medicare and Social Security against younger workers who don’t believe these programs will be there for them, and the poor against the working middle class.

[HoosierGuy]

AMERICANS MUST LEARN TO LIVE WITHIN THERE MEANS.

Warren Buffett - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ok then, but that should mean all Americans. If so, then we will have to regulate the electric companies and force them to lower their prices. It means the cell phone companies will have to be regulated to lower their prices. It means the hospitals and doctors will have to be regulated to lower their prices. Americans can live within their means but only if they are protected from being take advantage of and price gouging.

[prophetofdoom]

Why should way pay off this "debt"? Are you talking about paying the private Federal Reserve which controls the issuance of our currency? Anytime a dollar is created by the Federal Reserve, the Federal Reserve "loans" the bill to the government with an attached amount of interest. This debt based system can never be payed back. It is designed to be a never-ending debt creation bubble.

Should we eliminate all government services to pay off interest on the debt? That sounds like enslaving the population to me... The answer.. I am sorry to have to say this.. the US is going to have to default. It is mathematically impossible to pay off the debt black hole that has been created.

[Just_A_Guy]

This assault on teachers and unions is ridiculous.

To say nothing of the assault on our form of government. Imagine--deliberately stopping a vote, because you know you'll lose!

The Republican strategy is to split the vast middle and working class – pitting unionized workers against non-unionized, public-sector workers against non-public, older workers within sight of Medicare and Social Security against younger workers who don’t believe these programs will be there for them, and the poor against the working middle class.

I'm sorry--who was it that was calling for American workers to rise up the same way those in Egypt did?

Ok then, but that should mean all Americans. If so, then we will have to regulate the electric companies and force them to lower their prices. It means the cell phone companies will have to be regulated to lower their prices. It means the hospitals and doctors will have to be regulated to lower their prices. Americans can live within their means but only if they are protected from being take advantage of and price gouging.

We've been over this before. Other than a limited number of executives whose combined salary won't really make a difference in ultimate sale price, "corporate profit" is really nothing more than 401(k) retirement income for thousands of Americans.

It's one thing to hate the rich. That's at least understandable, coming as it does from the universal human emotion of envy.

But a manifest hatred for, and attempt to undermine, the middle class suggests something far more bizarre.

Edited February 19, 2011 by Just_A_Guy

[rameumptom]

Which government workers are those? New York Cops? Firemen? Soldiers? IRS agents? Child Tax Benefit workers? Welfare Case Workers? Sewer workers? Senators? Customs and Excise agents? Coast Guard?

I'm unsure which government workers you're referring to and don't want to have a discussion on something you're not actually saying.

Defined benefits need to be changed to defined contribution into 401Ks. And yes, do it for all of them, even military. I believe that had the military given me a defined contribution for my retirement, instead of defined benefit, my retirement amount right now would be more than I am receiving. I would have benefited from the stock boom of the 80s-90s, and would probably have millions in a 401K right now doing it in that manner.

What is really sad is that US Postal workers have a better retirement than military, because they are unionized. Military get their retirement until 65, and then get Social Security as a portion of that retirement. Postal workers get both in their entirety. Why is that fair or good for our nation to benefit postal workers more than military? Drop the Postal workers and all others to equal or lesser benefits than those who risk their lives for our nation.

[FunkyTown]

As I said in my previous post "public sector jobs must pay equal or less than private sector equivalents" So we need to look at what the market demands, and not what the rolling raises dictate. While 1 out of every 8 private citizens now has no job, and the rest have lost 10 to 20% of their income, the government refuses to do layoffs or salary reductions. And that doesn't even go into pensions or health benefits. So, if you want to use inherently dangerous jobs to represent cubicle workers, then so be it, but you are just painting the cow with a very broad sacred brush. It's funny how whenever a budget needs to be cut, the first thing they do is threaten to cut the number of police and firemen. Time to get real, my friend..

Okay - So I assume based on that you're not discussing those public sector jobs.

What, then? Meter maids? IRS agents? ATF agents? Secret Service? US Senators?

Give me specifics as to which jobs you're referring to. Heck, I have immediate families who worked for Canada Customs and Revenue Agency in Investigations, so I know how dangerous even the most innocuous jobs can be.

If, on the other hand, you're talking about lowering Senate wages and their golden parachute, I cautiously agree. The argument that lowering wages means a lower quality of senator would apply for the job is, I think, a red herring. It's not like the current representatives are bastions of dignity and incorruptibility. Maybe lowering the wage would force those with a desire for public service to join rather than those with a desire for a job they don't have to actually show up for to join.

[ThatLDSKiD]

Paying off the national debt would be simple if the bankers didn't control everything.

1) Nationalize the Federal Reserve

2) Print money without interest attached to it via the Federal Reserve

3) Print, Print, Print..hyper-inflate and pay off the bankers

4) As more money enters circulation... raise the reserve requirements of fractional reserve banks.. this would off set the inflation caused by the printing.

That is called Socialism which is the WORST thing possible for America to follow. Even our own prophets have condemned Communism and said America is heading towards it. Look up Communis or Socialism on LDS.org and you will see.

I would explain what is wrong with each step and give examples of where they went wrong, but i would be writing a 20 page essay so I'm sorry but you can do your own research.

Maybe some suggestions to research (matching the quoted solutions):

1-South America, especially Cuba

2-Great Depression

3-WW1, nowadays Europe

4-Europe

[prophetofdoom]

That is called Socialism which is the WORST thing possible for America to follow. Even our own prophets have condemned Communism and said America is heading towards it. Look up Communis or Socialism on LDS.org and you will see.

I would explain what is wrong with each step and give examples of where they went wrong, but i would be writing a 20 page essay so I'm sorry but you can do your own research.

Maybe some suggestions to research (matching the quoted solutions):

1-South America, especially Cuba

2-Great Depression

3-WW1, nowadays Europe

4-Europe

Nationalizing the Federal Reserve isn't "socialism" in the sense that you describe it. The constitution clearly spells out that congress is in charge of the issuing of our currency. The Federal Reserve System was started in 1913..the same year the income tax was created... see the connection? Private Bankers took over the issuing of our currency and had created a bailout mechanism with the help of the US taxpayer.. this is socialism... Private Bankers being able to socialize their debt and bad choices on the rest of society.

The fiat paper scheme that the bankers started is coming to an end. Sooner or later, the public is going to wake up and realize that all this "debt" is fictitious and simply paper. Yes, the debt is literally paper with nothing of any substance to back it up.

The national debt can never be paid off. We are already in the phase where debt is being used to pay interest on the debt. This is when the debt begins to pyramid until we hit hyperinflation. Many conservatives will tell you that we need to cut government services and begin to pay off the debt... this is impossible! You can cut all the pensions you want and not make a ding on the debt or deficits. What are we going to do? Cut ALL government services and use the money to pay off the bankers who created their fiat currency out of thin air?

[mnn727]

A few elections back Paul Tsongas (now deceased) ran for President, he was going to make the massive cuts needed (or at least said he would) one of his slogans was "I'm not Santa Claus" meaning you can't keep giving and giving and make everyone happy.

How did it work or for him? -- well I sure don't remember any 'President Tsongas" ever getting elected or even getting past the primaries.

To quote a famous author "Once a nation learns they can vote themselves Bread and Circuses - that nation will fall"

Its coming folks, I hope you've all got your years storage.

Edited February 24, 2011 by mnn727