The deficit this year is already at 314 billion. Add 200 billion more for Hurricane Katrina recovery, on top of a several hundred billion dollar trade deficit, and it doesn't take a genius to figure out we're in trouble.
The government continues to borrow more and more money from foriegn lenders. Every year spending is on the rise. This is the first time in history we've fought a war and not raised taxes to help pay for it, hell, we even LOWERED taxes.
Few in the government seem genuinely concerned about spending. Bush says to cut unnecesary spending, but didn't veto the gargantuan Highway Bill that was chock full of wasted money for pet projects. I'm led to believe, that as he has also never vetoed any spending bill, that he isn't serious about fiscal discipline.
Congress too seems to be unable to stop spending. We're living in an age where everyone thinks that since we're the richest nation on the earth, we have an unlimited supply of money.
We might be headed for tough times in the next decade, money wise. I would think any layman could tell you that it would be prudent to go into that economic downturn with less debt, and maybe even a surplus in our coffers, rather than staggering debt. If we don't solve this now, how will we ever figure out how to pay for Social Security, and the health care crisis that is sure to appear when the next generation of Americans grows old and retires?
And when will people finally start holding the government accountable for spending?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
They should. I am an idiot and even I cannot see the wisdom in cutting taxes during a war.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I was kind of hoping that the disaster in New Orleans would awaken us to the fact that spending also affects the future ability to spend when things are really necessary.
We simply don't have the money to do all the things that need doing. So...we borrow.
But if you are borrowing to pay for stuff that doesn't build for the future, you're essentially forcing the future citizens to pay back the loans for things that didn't benefit them.
I think borrowing for capital investments (building things) is usually a fine idea -- you pay for the thing out of the economic benefit it fosters.
But borrowing for stuff that's here today, gone today is a horrible way to do things.
We just have to decide, as a nation, what we care most about and put our money there.
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
I think it's so ironic that the USA is considered one of the wealthiest nations around. If we had to actually pay off our debt right now, we'd be broke like a #2 pencil after the last SAT you ever have to take.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
We are considered one of the wealthiest nations because the citizens of America have such a high standard of living.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Originally posted by Princess Leah: I think it's so ironic that the USA is considered one of the wealthiest nations around. If we had to actually pay off our debt right now, we'd be broke like a #2 pencil after the last SAT you ever have to take.
Also, this isn't really irony. It's more "unfortunately coincindental."
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
If we could just get rid of all the social programs and let private charities do it (as they have shown they are more efficient at it) we wouldn't have a problem.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I disagree, Pixiest. The reason we have things like Social Security is because the "safety net" broke the last time we had massive poverty and unemployment.
I'm not really sure which programs you are referring to, so it's a bit tough to formulate a more cogent reply.
Perhaps you could pick a decade where you thought things ran better or at least tell us which things the government should stay out of.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think part of the reason why Social Security is going to become so troublesome over the next few decades, is people are complaining that they can't live off the small Social Security payments they are getting, and that costs are always rising.
The basic problem with that is they aren't supposed to be living off their Social Security, and the system is getting worse, not better. Savings accounts and retirement funds are at an all time low. Americans are running up higher credit card debt, and putting less and less money away for a rainy day, or for retirement. It's not just the national economy that is facing crisis, its the personal economy of the majority of Americans. It seems that no one knows what fiscal discipline is, at the national or the personal level.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Pixiest: the government had significantly fewer social programs before a certain point this past century. When huge government social programs were initiated, private charity contributions did not have any particular decrease (in real dollars), strongly suggesting that removing those government programs won't lead to a rush of charity spending.
In fact, much of the money spent on those "government" social programs you so deride goes to independent charities, as a major source of funding. Charities exist on a mix of private donors, government funding, and fees for services, the mix varying widely from charity to charity.
Plus, there is no good data suggesting private charities are better at providing service than the government, just a significant number of case studies which come down all over the place, sometimes with the government leading, sometimes with charities. For you to take the superiority of private charity as a given is hardly sound practical economics.
The general take by political economists is that there are various healthy mixes of government, non-profit, and commercial endeavors in a society that provides for the needy.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
On the contrary, SocialSecurity and Medicare were both set up so people could live on it.
Part of the problem is that people came to expect to be able to live it up on SocialSecurity&Medicare, to treat SS&M as part of their retirement benefits package rather than as a social safety net*.
But the bigger part is that politicians raised taxes on 90+% of workers via Reagan's doubling of the SS&M taxes -- collected on all income below a set amount: ie no deductions or credits on income below that set amount, and no SS&M taxes on income above that set amount -- from ~6% to ~12% with the promise that the excess/surplus SS&Mtaxes-paid would create an SS&M trustfund which could be treated by the taxpayer as an investment for retirement income. Then immediately used the SS&M money raised to fund general governmental expenses, as substitute for general-fund taxes to give a lowered tax-rate and even more government subsidies and tax deductions&credits to the most parasiticly worthless of the wealthy.
*However if SS&M were to return to the original intent via means testing, then LasVegas, horsetracks, all the various other gambling venues, cruise lines, tourist resorts, etc would end up broke. And while a majority of politicians might well be willing to ignore the older voters, a majority ain't gonna risk displeasing the recreation industry's lobbyists-with-bribes.
** The SS&M tax rate has since climbed to ~15% of workers' wages. And no, employers don't pay half. If workers aren't generating more than enough profit to pay for the "employer's half", the employees are fired or laid off. Except for executives who make so much money that they are exempted from paying the full SS&M tax-rate imposed on workers. They can be nothing more than a drain on company profits as long as they do the job they were hired for: screwing over workers, customers, and naive investors; backslapping and generating useless paperwork to make each other feel important; and using contacts and contributing to Political Action Committees to bribe politicians.
[ September 18, 2005, 05:05 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Federal Surpluses and Deficits. Add another $100billion or more for Dubya's continuing IraqWar deficit, and another $100billion or two for Dubya's NewOrleans/GulfCoast deficit, and far more if Dubya and his Republican-controlled Congress manage to extend his tax cuts to his favored "wealthy&wealthier" beyond the ten-years already provided.
That decrease in deficit spending during the last of the Reagan years is strictly from the SS&M tax-increase on the American worker. Contrary to the BS tossed about by neo"conservative"s and trickle-down"economist"s, general fund overspending in comparison to general fund revenues continued to run up the huge deficit -- admittedly IOUed against the SS&M"trust"fund -- caused by Regan's tax cut for the "welfare queen" wealthy.
Billions for trustfund babies, and not one cent for the SS&M trustfund already paid for and earned by workers. In fact, Dubya and the Republican-controlled Congress added an extra $90billion in debt to the SS&M"trust"fund beyond spending all of the SS&M surplus/"investment" revenues.
[ September 18, 2005, 12:54 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
BTW: That's minor compared to the increased debt of the UStrade deficit caused by Dubya and the Republican-controlled Congress and Judiciary encouraging&subsidizing energy&resource waste and outsourcing of US manufacturing, and retarding technological innovation via encouragement&subsidization of wasteful&polluting and monopolistic practices.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Don't forget my great-aunt's gout.
So we have a Republican-controlled judiciary now! Ah. That explains the legality of partial-birth abortion.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Will just showed us the internet equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and singing "lalalala I'm not listening lalalala".
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
For what was promised to the voting public, I think we'd have to say the Republicans/conservatives have proven to be abject failures.
Fiscal responsibility? None to be seen. Debt skyrocketing.
National Security? I'm not feeling any safer.
Reduced taxes? I'm not feeling the effects, are you?
Overturning Roe v. Wade? Not seeing any real movement there.
Protecting the rights of individuals? You mean I could be in a prison camp in Cuba because I had dinner with a "suspected terrorist"? Yeah, land of the free, home of the brave...
I can't believe we, the country, fell for this. After the Republicans renigged on the Contract with America, we must have forgotten the long list of blown promises. Maybe we should just call them lies from now on.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:On the contrary, SocialSecurity and Medicare were both set up so people could live on it.
Actually, no they weren't, they were intended to supplement already existing pension plans for the majority of the work force, but employers phased those out over the past 50 years.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
When SocialSecurity was passed, most people had no pension plan. And of those who did have a pension, most didn't have a pension large enough to keep them out of poverty, unless they were supported by family. Now, do you want to pay for your parents' retirement? Or have your parents move in with you?
When Medicare was passed, most people had no retirement-benefit medical coverage. Do you want to pay for your parents' medical bills? Or watch them die because you don't have the money to pay for medical testing, surgery, nursing care, and medication?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
quote:On the contrary, SocialSecurity and Medicare were both set up so people could live on it.
Actually, no they weren't, they were intended to supplement already existing pension plans for the majority of the work force, but employers phased those out over the past 50 years.
Really?
Since the SS system, as originally designed, only paind a families primary worker, and it was a lump sum one time payment, how is that?
The very first worker to recieve a payment recived a total of $.17.
Now I realize that %.17 went a lot further...but don't try to make me believe that he was suppost to live on tha forever.
Do a little reasearch next time, ok? I am fine with wild, unsubstanciated claims...they are you usual modus operandi after all ....but at least make is somewhat believable next time, Ok?
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
It appears for the shrinking "bush is always right" right, as long as he fights gays, abortion and Iraqi nationals, he can do no wrong, ever in anyway.
Personally, I think his economic policies are down right evil and to sell them under the banner of Christianity and Jesus is satanic.
The #1 campaign contributor to W is Citibank.
They are now allowed to charge people up to 30% interest on their floating credit card debts.
Wonderful. 30% interest on a nation that has $3 TRILLION dollars in credit card debt.
An Economic Atom Bomb.
...but hey, as long as Bush keeps taking money from oil companies to fight for unborn babies, many in America will put him on par with Jesus.
He's a horrible president.
Posted by Fusiachi (Member # 7376) on :
So, let's quit giving out welfare checks.
(/troll)
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
(of couse, the first guy only paid into it for a very short time... )
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Inre the "$0.17 man" On 31January1940, the first person to receive a SocialSecurity pension check was a woman:
quote:Ida Mae Fuller, a retired law clerk, had contributed $22* in premiums when she retired. Her first check was for $22.54, and she received around $22,000 over the course of her life.
* The exact numbers skip around a tiny bit between various articles. Her lifetime contribution into the SocialSecurity system could have been $24.75 in taxes, with her first pension check being $22.75 toward a lifetime return of $22,888.92
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
And it isn't a welfare check, it's payment from a federally-mandated insurance policy.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Read again.
You really didn't read it all, did you?
The first person to recieve a check was a man, who got exactally $.17 total, in a one time payment.
She was teh first to recieve a recurring check, a full two year later, one the program had morphed.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:December 1939, the SSA only made one-time, lump-sum payments. According to SSA historians, Ernest Ackerman was the first recipient of Social Security benefits -- 17 cents, paid to him in January 1937.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
A "depends on what 'sex' means"?
BTW: A thousand dollars per year in 1965 could pay the mortgage on a new 3bedroom, 2bath, dining room, 2car garage house with real oak-plank flooring on a quarter acre of good property surrounded by a 6foot redwood fence in a nice California suburb. Without an already-built house, it could have bought you oceanside property in an upscale neighborhood like LaJolla, or a large oceanview property in the Malibu hills. Admittedly, there was a huge mortgage interest hike beginning in 1974, the year before Ida Mae Walker died.
[ September 18, 2005, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
quote:Will just showed us the internet equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and singing "lalalala I'm not listening lalalala".
No, I just showed you the Internet equivalent of saying, "This post is so crazy I don't have time to refute every error; so I'll just pick one."
"Lalala" would be more like what jebus did: ignore the refutation, and change the subject.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Right, o king of misinformation...she collected for how many years?
Devide her checks by that nay...she was NOT rich.
The guy with the $.17 one time payment, though...
HE musta been loaded, right? Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:No, I just showed you the Internet equivalent of saying, "This post is so crazy I don't have time to refute every error; so I'll just pick one."
Funny, it looked like you were the first one to mention abortion in this conversation...
Silly us for not noticing how they connect, it is just so obvious now!
Thanks!
[ September 26, 2005, 11:38 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Regardless of what Social Security was originally invented for, everyone should realize that no one should be expected to live off of the SS payments. We can't afford to make them high enough to make that feasible.
So we look at the reality we have. SS payments can't go up, we can't afford that. The government needs to get the people ready for a world in which they will have to provide more of their own financial security.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
President Bush wants to cut taxes for the wealthy in an attempt to spur investment and increase the US economic engine.
He's run into trouble with that from Democrats, Economists, and even Fiscal Conservatives who are really upset about the budget deficit.
So now he is into massive payments to the wealthy via major public works projects. While on one hand he cuts the guaranteed wages of those working in the wake of Katrina, on the other hand he promises major rebuilding and reconstruction of the area. I predict that most of those funds will be channeled through major corporations who's wealthy board members will see this as a backhanded tax cut.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
The funds "set aside" for Social Security have long been lumped in with the rest of the federal budget to be plundered at will. I, for one, tend to think those nice letters I get telling me about the Social Security benefits I've earned are a baldfaced lie. The Baby Boomers are going to retire, the system is going to go broke, and I better have my own retirement plan in place. I'm not especially bitter about it, but I wish they'd stop lying to me.
Cutting taxes for the wealthy and assuming the money will be fed back into the economy while continuing to facilitate the transfer of manufacturing and even IT and R&D functions across borders is a losing game. And the removal of the estate tax alone is estimated to cost $1 trillion over ten years. It's difficult no to see this less as a viable economic theory than as cronyism.
Does anyone else find lauding the saving of $50 billion over several years from closing military bases ironic while we continue to spend over $80 billion a year to finance operations in Iraq?...
Partial-birth abortion is still legal because it's hard to define, a law banning it would be hard to enforce and put undue pressure on both law-enforcement and the medical community, and banning it in a country that still, according to most polls, favors legalized abortion would be political suicide and legally questionable. I can easily give examples where the judiciary does swing right, especially in the Supreme Court, including the 2000 election recount and the recent "eminent domain" decision. Kindly don't try to derail discussion with irrelivancies just because you dislike criticism of President Bush, Will...
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: ...but hey, as long as Bush keeps taking money from oil companies to fight for unborn babies, many in America will put him on par with Jesus.
I suppose that this is relevant critiscm?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: The funds "set aside" for Social Security have long been lumped in with the rest of the federal budget to be plundered at will. I, for one, tend to think those nice letters I get telling me about the Social Security benefits I've earned are a baldfaced lie. The Baby Boomers are going to retire, the system is going to go broke, and I better have my own retirement plan in place. I'm not especially bitter about it, but I wish they'd stop lying to me.
The Democrats have said so repeatedly. There is no SS crisis. It's doing fine and we shouldn't worry about it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It isn't a crisis per se, but it certainly is an issue to be looking at now, rather than later. Even when the fund goes bankrupt in the 42', there will still be money coming in to make the payments, but that's the point when a plan should have already been in place to prepare for it.
If no changes are made by the 20's and 30's, we're in a heap of trouble. Better to start thinking of viable solutions now rather than later.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
What would everyone say to a 1% national sales tax, and all the money goes to paying down the debt?
You could include provisions to allow exemptions for the very poor, so they won't have to pay on the basic necessities or on home purchases. 1% isn't going to do any individual that much damage, but the revenue is needed. More than 2% of the budget every year goes to pay the interest on our debt. JUST the interest!
Imagine the billions we'd save over the years as the debt decreased, just from reduced interest payments. Debt is not good for the economy. Especially with Katrina and Rita rebuilding, how do we keep the economy afloat with crippling debt?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I predict there will be a major split in the Republican Party leading up to the 2008 election. On the one hand will be the backers of Bush-style neoconservativism, which has taken a policy of borrow-and-spend so that it can promise to "stop at nothing" to fight all the good fights while simultaneously cutting taxes and helping business. On the other hand will be traditional conservatives, who voted for Bush only because they thought Kerry was worse, and who favor real fiscal discipline and traditional small government and states rights policies. Which side gets their candidate into the nominee position will go a long way towards reshaping that party. Truthfully, I think there is almost more difference between these groups than there is between the Democrats and the Republicans.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I suppose that this is relevant critiscm?
While it's hyperbole, I'm afraid it's relevant. Several people on this board alone have admitted to voting for Bush only because he was a pro-life candidate.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: What would everyone say to a 1% national sales tax, and all the money goes to paying down the debt?
I would say it is a really bad idea. What would you say to giving your cousin Eddie, who has run up credit card debt equivalent to nearly his yearly salary, some more money in the hope that he will use it to pay off his debt?
The issue is simple, absurdly so. Spending more than you earn is not sustainable. Bringing in more money while sustaining the same habits is even worse.
I think that those who bitch about the tax cuts as the source, or even a contributing factor to our fiscal insolvency are missing the obvious point:
No matter how much our government taxes us, our expenditures will always exceed our income unless the government is forced to do otherwise. Our political system guarantees that this will be so, especially in our current political situation.
Instead of making tough decisions about which programs to keep and which to cut, our representatives want to have their cake and eat it too. Take a look at the absurdity in the wake of Katrina. The talk is of spending 200 billion dollars to rebuild New Orleans- enough money to give every inhabitant of the city a check for $200,000. What happens if anyone questions this grand idea? That person is a racist poor-hater.
The easiest way to avoid all criticism in the political arena is to let the decisions make themselves with no regard for future consequences, and that is exactly what we are seeing now. If these policies continue we will absolutely push ourselves into a "Great Depression" if our economy skids for a year or two.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Jacare, NO brings in more than that in revenue each year, and not rebuilding it isn't really an option...it is too significant a port.
There does have to be some sort of restraint on spending, but the tax cuts are a part of the problem, and resusing to see that is part of the reason I didn't vote for Bush.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Good, then NewOrleans can pay for rebuilding.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
Kwea- not rebuilding NO is clearly an option. Perhaps it is an option no one is considering, but it is an option. Rebuilding in a slightly more prudent site is also an option. Partially rebuilding is an option.
I do not understand why no one is discussing these things, as if our only choice is to double the federal deficit for this year by going whole hog with no forethought. A Louisiana commission today announced that they are going to ask for 250 BILLLION in federal dollars for rebuilding, plus a lot of pork thrown in just because, and all of this with special provisions which ensure that federal taxpayers will foot the whole bill with no matching from the state.
Sound fiscal policy at its best.
Posted by Parsimony (Member # 8140) on :
The money they asked for today is absolutely ridiculous. As usual in politics, they asked for way more money than each project should cost, while at the same time asking for funding for projects that are unnecessary or just plain bad ideas. They threw in every pork project that had been turned down in the last 30 years as if they were neccessary. If it is approved, I give up on the economic future of this country.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
There _is_ pork involved in politics, but let's be honest here. The electorate is as guilty as the ones they put in power. No one is campaigning on a platform of ending road repair, getting the military spending out of town, losing the contract for the new jetliner, shortening school hours, or closing the local libraries.
Of course, there are _plenty_ of people campaigning on cutting taxes. The rise of the asinine idea that not being willing to put money back into your community is some sort of civic virtue is one of the most unfortunate developments of the last twenty years, and _that_ is what I'm afraid is going to be the death of us all.
Oh, and while we're on the subject of pork and New Orleans, how about the new round of no-bid contracts for the rebuild? [sarcasm]I, for one, love how directly my money goes into the pockets of lobbyists.[/sarcasm]
As far as Social Security goes, I think the Democrats are wrong on this one. But then, the Bush plan is free money for stock brokerages. You can spin the current numbers such that things will look all right for right now, but forty years up the line?... Not a chance.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Can't it be made into law, without loopholes, that the money taken from a 1% NST MUST be held for a specific purpose?
Either way, Republican leadership recently said that all the fat has been cut from the budget, and that we need to lower taxes again. We need increased revenue, there's no sign of decreased spending in the near future, and we're reaching a boiling point.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
....but at least make is somewhat believable next time, Ok?
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)