Debt prevents us from realizing either side's vision

[fmw]

I find it curious that the tea party people see no problem with this type of ridiculous spending.

What percentage of "tea party people" approve of it? Or are you suggesting all of them do?

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Yes, well the programs were designed to have a person on average pay into the system over their career what they would probably draw out.. but this isn't even close to the case. We have 2-3 workers paying for 1 retired person's SS and Medicare with costs still rising. Obviously this isn't sustainable. It isn't something that can be ignored just because it is still technically fully funded at this very moment.

And what exactly does that have to do with today's debt problem? The poster I was responding to was being misleading by making it look like mandated programs were the largest problem to the federal budget. The fact is that we do pay out large sums of money to cover entitlements but the omitted fact was that most of that is paid via payroll taxes *currently*. Okay, I starred currently because your point is that in the future these entitlement programs will cost us if we don't reform them. Okay, fair statement. Let's talk about reform but it is not where are problems are *today*. Two separate issues that should not be combined. Every single time I pick up an article that tries to pin point today's debt problems on entitlement programs I want to gag. That is not the problem nor the solution to our problems for *today's debt* so it's time to seek out real solutions that won't hurt the very people who have put away large sums of money into a system in the hopes to draw a simple retirement check each month when they go to retire.

Another big reason that is not a fair or wise solution to today's issues is because if these policy people, who want to take away part of our retirement to pay down debt, have it their way it ends up becoming the largest regressive tax on the working and middle class people in this country. These policy people are crazy if they think all of us are that stupid to be led into such a trap.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Again, they want to say "entitlement" spending alone contributes to the debt. Trillions of dollars spent in foreign wars over the last decade is just a sneeze.

You bet! The reason they want it to look like it is a entitlement issue is because they think it may be easier to come up with harmful solutions like take away part of that entitlement because afterall if people believe this is the problem they may be scared into thinking they need to sacrifice more while those who make these policies sit back and pay less (same policy people who push lower capital gains taxes). The spending toward wars is a large part of our current debt. Defense spending needs to be cut or we will have to pay higher taxes to cover it.

 

[vash1012]

And what exactly does that have to do with today's debt problem? The poster I was responding to was being misleading by making it look like mandated programs were the largest problem to the federal budget. The fact is that we do pay out large sums of money to cover entitlements but the omitted fact was that most of that is paid via payroll taxes *currently*. Okay, I starred currently because your point is that in the future these entitlement programs will cost us if we don't reform them. Okay, fair statement. Let's talk about reform but it is not where are problems are *today*. Two separate issues that should not be combined. Every single time I pick up an article that tries to pin point today's debt problems on entitlement programs I want to gag. That is not the problem nor the solution to our problems for *today's debt* so it's time to seek out real solutions that won't hurt the very people who have put away large sums of money into a system in the hopes to draw a simple retirement check each month when they go to retire.

Another big reason that is not a fair or wise solution to today's issues is because if these policy people, who want to take away part of our retirement to pay down debt, have it their way it ends up becoming the largest regressive tax on the working and middle class people in this country. These policy people are crazy if they think all of us are that stupid to be led into such a trap.

Some fair points for sure, but the article in the OP explains why the two issues are correlated. We are currently funding our deficit partially with funds from other government agency trusts. At some point in the next decade (the article suggests 2018), Medicare and/or SS will have to stop loaning them money and may even need to start calling in some of their debt. Deficits then increase. SS/Medicare are definitely not why we have the debt we have though, as you point out. The original point of this article was if we could pay off our debt and progress our country to either sides view of how things should be. In that view, they are certainly correlated.

 

[vash1012]

You bet! The reason they want it to look like it is a entitlement issue is because they think it may be easier to come up with harmful solutions like take away part of that entitlement because afterall if people believe this is the problem they may be scared into thinking they need to sacrifice more while those who make these policies sit back and pay less (same policy people who push lower capital gains taxes). The spending toward wars is a large part of our current debt. Defense spending needs to be cut or we will have to pay higher taxes to cover it.

I say we have make a constitutional amendment like Germany has where we can't go to war unless we are attacked.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Some fair points for sure, but the article in the OP explains why the two issues are correlated.

Vash, I'm going to have to politely agree to disagree with you about the OP of this article. I don't think he has any interest in seeing any "other side" but his own which is pretty severe. I say this with certainty after reading one of his so called "plausible" solutions which was to default on selected government treasuries. That is not a good faith solution as really most of his other solutions. He has an agenda. Of course, that is just my humble opinion, but that is what I got from his article. Anyway, that puts into question if debt is what is keeping us from realizing other's visions or just plain old ideology. I didn't get that same feeling from your post though.

 

[vash1012]

Vash, I'm going to have to politely agree to disagree with you about the OP of this article. I don't think he has any interest in seeing any "other side" but his own which is pretty severe. I say this with certainty after reading one of his so called "plausible" solutions which was to default on selected government treasuries. That is not a good faith solution as really most of his other solutions. He has an agenda. Of course, that is just my humble opinion, but that is what I got from his article. Anyway, that puts into question if debt is what is keeping us from realizing other's visions or just plain old ideology. I didn't get that same feeling from your post though.

Interesting. I didn't feel that way about this comments. I took them as him listing anything that is a possible option, not actually suggesting that we do that. I could be wrong though. Its all in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Vash, I'm going to have to politely agree to disagree with you about the OP of this article. I don't think he has any interest in seeing any "other side" but his own which is pretty severe. I say this with certainty after reading one of his so called "plausible" solutions which was to default on selected government treasuries. That is not a good faith solution as really most of his other solutions. He has an agenda. Of course, that is just my humble opinion, but that is what I got from his article. Anyway, that puts into question if debt is what is keeping us from realizing other's visions or just plain old ideology. I didn't get that same feeling from your post though.

Not only is not good faith, it is illegal for the US (Congress) to default on US securities.

 

[vash1012]

Again, I really do not believe the guy was actually suggesting we default on our debt.. he was just saying that those were the options we had if we plan on not having debt > GDP for the next few decades. I would not condone us defaulting on any debt nor would most people in this country. The issue still exists that we have a ton of debt that is still growing, no political will to raise taxes except on the super rich, no political will to make any drastic changes to our government expenditures, and major areas of need like infrastructure that are probably going to be neglected because we've been living beyond our means for the last 3 decades. As a 28 year old man, this is a very important issue for me since my generation and probably the next will be paying for all of this.

 

[blaxshep]

Not only is not good faith, it is illegal for the US (Congress) to default on US securities.

Yea, well since the entire Nanny State entitlement system is not provided for in the 18 enumerated Federal powers of the constitution so is it.

End the illegal unconstitutional Nanny State and pay our bills, no more debt.

 

[fmw]

I find it curious that the tea party people see no problem with this type of ridiculous spending.

I would also find it curious if it is true. If anything the "tead party people" want less spending. What makes you think this?

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Again, I really do not believe the guy was actually suggesting we default on our debt.. he was just saying that those were the options we had if we plan on not having debt > GDP for the next few decades. I would not condone us defaulting on any debt nor would most people in this country. The issue still exists that we have a ton of debt that is still growing, no political will to raise taxes except on the super rich, no political will to make any drastic changes to our government expenditures, and major areas of need like infrastructure that are probably going to be neglected because we've been living beyond our means for the last 3 decades. As a 28 year old man, this is a very important issue for me since my generation and probably the next will be paying for all of this.

Well Vash herein lies the rub, there is more ways than cutting spending on "entitlements" or defaulting on treasuries or any of his other (rather predictable) plans to grow GDP. He does not acknowledge one of them (other POV). If he presented more than his "austerity" POV, I would say he was at least not just pushing an agenda. And, I don't think it's wise to raise taxes for anyone's wage income at this time. I do think its wise to raise investment taxes on capital gains at this time. It should be a no brainer IMHO if we want to give consumers more money to spend which is the largest portion of GDP growth in this country and growth is the best way out of debt during a recession. As I mentioned before in my other posts, we can tweak entitlement programs rather easy. I would vote for anyone that suggest to raise the cap on SS. Too bad Bernie wasn't running for president. We usually end up with who was vetted through our ruling party but I digress.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Yea, well since the entire Nanny State entitlement system is not provided for in the 18 enumerated Federal powers of the constitution so is it.

End the illegal unconstitutional Nanny State and pay our bills, no more debt.

Anyone who knows how the economy works knows that it is impossible not have debt. The question is how do we grow GDP so the ratio to debt is healthy? If you think using future assets to pay down today's debt, I say good luck with that....you will just grow much more debt in the future. Retirement and health care are necessary assets not to be depleted to 'lower' that ratio because it won't work the way you think. Taking those assets today will not take away the absolute need to have assets available for people when they are no longer part of the economy. You will just grow much more debt with zero assets left after people have paid into those assets for their entire working life and are left destitute but I don't think you really want to get rid of that kind of safety net. It's just fun to say.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

I would also find it curious if it is true. If anything the "tead party people" want less spending. What makes you think this?

What exactly would these people want less spending on? I'm curious to know because they never really say. In many of my conversations with some Tea Party supporters, I know personally, they often think the economy is run like a household which instantly stops the conversation. Or.... at least having a plausible one.

 

[fmw]

What exactly would these people want less spending on? I'm curious to know because they never really say. In many of my conversations with some Tea Party supporters, I know personally, they often think the economy is run like a household which instantly stops the conversation. Or.... at least having a plausible one.

I don't know but I can tell you I believe we could cut the government in half and wind up with a much better government. I'd be content with cutting everything in half but I think there would be smarter ways to do it.

 

[DA60]

It's so ridiculous.

Dems won't cut their precious social programs.

Reps won't cut their precious military programs.

And then they keep blaming the other for the debt that keeps rising and rising and rising...when it's both their faults.


Why don't you both cut your 'precious' by 5% and see if the poor start dropping dead or another country threatens to invade.

If neither happens...then how about 5% more.

And then 5% more...and so on.


It's like taking the ring from Smeagol.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

I don't know but I can tell you I believe we could cut the government in half and wind up with a much better government. I'd be content with cutting everything in half but I think there would be smarter ways to do it.

So you don't know what you specifically want less spending on? Just cutting the budget in half would make our economy healthy? Remember a healthy economy is growing GDP which is not synonymous with cutting spending btw. It's where you cut it, it can be positive or negative to the economy.

 

[fmw]

So you don't know what you specifically want less spending on? Just cutting the budget in half would make our economy healthy? Remember a healthy economy is growing GDP which is not synonymous with cutting spending btw. It's where you cut it, it can be positive or negative to the economy.

Yes I know exactly what I would cut. But I don't have the motivation to spend the time to make a list for you. It's a very big government. I agree that where you cut is important.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Yes I know exactly what I would cut. But I don't have the motivation to spend the time to make a list for you. It's a very big government. I agree that where you cut is important.

Fair enough