Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
2.2 trillion over 10 years. Don't you think Congress will just run that number right back up again without significant reforms? I'm not confident that our elected whores will have the backbone to risk their political lives to actually do concrete changes that will enable our country to pay for the onslought of baby boomers that will enter into Medicare and Social Security; the millions of people added to Medicaid rolls via Obamacare; the trillions continuing to be spent on war in 3 different fronts now; the billions spent for the reprocussions of illegal aliens (Medicaid, schooling, etc), and the fact that almost half of our population do not contribute to Federal Income tax.
Unfortunately it might take a default or temporary default to wake up people into seeing what a large hole our leaders have dug ours country into. People always think there is an easy way out of a situation. Guess what? there isn't. There will be significant pain involved, but we must take control of our long term financial health. Raising the deficit ceiling without significant structural reform will enable the politicians to once again kick this can down to the next generation, compounding them with so much debt that a Greece type calamity is sure to happen.
Do you understand that the Reid proposal will only save $220 billion next year. The House is talking in trillion numbers for next year and Reid propses just 2 billion? Very sorry you don't understand that annual is not the same as 10 years. Try to understand.
Just for laugh and giggles. How much again will Boehners plan save?
Cut, Cap and Balance sits there on Reid's table and it is the only decent proposal so far. Both Boehner and Reid are failing and that is part of the reason the Tea Party members in the House are calling for the throwing out of Boehner. The problem is that none of those with the power to be Speaker are any less corrupt than he is.
Ugh and Boehner had it all in the palm of his hands. What a waste.
2.2 Trillion ain't bad, but I still like the bi-partisan plan from last December which would cut 4 trillion.
Bi-partisan is a dirty word amoung the righties these days, if ya hadn't noticed, better to go down in flames than to do anything bi-partisan. Good thing is we all know who will get the blame for this mess if it goes all the way to default, it will not be the Dems or Obama.
Casper
Cut, Cap and Balance sits there on Reid's table and it is the only decent proposal so far. Both Boehner and Reid are failing and that is part of the reason the Tea Party members in the House are calling for the throwing out of Boehner. The problem is that none of those with the power to be Speaker are any less corrupt than he is.
Why is that the only decent plan? The plan from December is decent, and could be put into effect right away. To amend the constitution would take 8-10 years, so I dont' think it is such a great plan for now. Long term maybe, but we need to do something now.
Haven't you people learned yet that the CBO "thumbs up" is totally bogus ?
Haven't we learned that yet ?
Don't even mention CBO analysis as Congress just keeps feeding them random numbers til the CBO spits out "yeah..that will work" and then those numbers get tossed to the side.
That's 37 billion a year for the math challenged. What a twit.
Yesterday, we roasted Boehner over his proposed deficit-cutting plan after it was discovered that it cut about $250 billion less than had been promised. Now it is time to do the same to Harry Reid, after the CBO has just released its analysis of his so-called "plan", which has double the credibility, and dollar, hole: per the CBO the plan will only generate $2.2 trillion in savings, half a trillion short of the promised $2.7 trillion. But wait, it gets far, far more idiotic. Per the CBO "The caps on appropriations of new budget authority excluding war-related funding start at $1,045 billion in 2012 and reach $1,228 billion in 2021" - that's right: savings from not fighting future wars - a cool trillion. But why stop there - savings from not declaring war on Mars: $1 quadrillion; savings from not paradropping suitcases full of $1 billion dollar bills for every US citizen: $333 quadrillion, and so forth. But wait: there's more: "The legislation also would impose caps of $127 billion for 2012 and $450 billion over the 2013-2021 period on budget authority for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq and for similar activities." But wait, there' even more: "Savings in discretionary spending would amount to nearly $1.8 trillion, mandatory spending would be reduced by $41 billion, and the savings in interest on the public debt because of the lower deficits would come to $375 billion." Gotta love the circularity: less interest payments are part of the actual deficit cuts! So, here's the math: of the $2.2 trillion in "savings" strip away non-savings from non-authorized "wars" and you get... $750 billion... and take out the $375 billion in, no really, interest savings, and you get... $375 billion. OVER TEN YEARS! Is there a wonder why with idiotic leaders like this the true US rating is CCC at best?
[MOD CUT]
Neither save enough or offer any real change. They are both token efforts to get the ceiling raised right now. After that, Congress will continue to load on debt. When you continue to spend far more than you take in, at some point you're screwed. It's simple math. What happened to the good ol' days of pay-go?
Last edited by Ibginnie; 07-27-2011 at 01:39 PM..
Reason: deleted quoted post and reply
Here ya go.
Neither save enough or offer any real change. They are both token efforts to get the ceiling raised right now. After that, Congress will continue to load on debt. When you continue to spend far more than you take in, at some point you're screwed. It's simple math. What happened to the good ol' days of pay-go?
If we default, and I said "if", and our interest rates on our debt goes up, how much will that cost us over the long run? I realize that the variables make this a difficult question, that it's somewhat subjective, but I think that it has to be a consideration as well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
