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.
Agreed. And while politicians certainly deserve most of the blame, the American public has to stop freaking out when their favorite programs has to see cuts. Budget cuts are a great idea...until they eye your Medicare!
it's been this way for decades. benefits promised at the same time as tax cuts promised. everyone wants someone else's program cut, and no one wants to pay up the taxes they owe. gotta love how they are screwing the younger population. but, the younger population sits on their arses and doesn't show up to vote. so really, we get what we deserve....it's those of us that care and are involved that are stuck in the trap.
we being the younger folks. the older folks are riding this debt wagon to their grave, and then leaving it for us to be taxed on. gotta love it. but they are the ones that vote. so why shouldn't politicians pander to them?
its an interesting situation. but i dont think the seniors will make it out unscathed. this train is coming soon. s&p already downgraded america's debt.
its an interesting situation. but i dont think the seniors will make it out unscathed. this train is coming soon. s&p already downgraded america's debt.
S&P is such a great rating agency too. How'd they do over the past few years with their ratings? lol.
but it does matter. i still don't think the seniors will suffer much at all. if anything, it'll be 55 and younger. people like my dad, who is 54, will get completely screwed.
S&P is such a great rating agency too. How'd they do over the past few years with their ratings? lol.
but it does matter. i still don't think the seniors will suffer much at all. if anything, it'll be 55 and younger. people like my dad, who is 54, will get completely screwed.
well, the problem is it will make debt more expensive. im guessing they wont be the only one to have an issue with our debt. its just growing too fast and tax revenues arent growing.
its hard to tell right now if it will hit the seniors. i think so. paul ryans plan is supposed to spare seniors above a certain age. but i dont think we are going to be able to postpone this problem like that. we dont have the debt capacity required, our dollar cant hold up its value while the fed keeps printing it and the economy isnt going to grow as fast as our elected jerks like to predict in their forecasts.
well, the problem is it will make debt more expensive. im guessing they wont be the only one to have an issue with our debt. its just growing too fast and tax revenues arent growing.
its hard to tell right now if it will hit the seniors. i think so. paul ryans plan is supposed to spare seniors above a certain age. but i dont think we are going to be able to postpone this problem like that. we dont have the debt capacity required, our dollar cant hold up its value while the fed keeps printing it and the economy isnt going to grow as fast as our elected jerks like to predict in their forecasts.
paul ryan's plan for medicare, if that's what you're referring to, changes medicare for everyone under 55.
paul ryan's plan for medicare, if that's what you're referring to, changes medicare for everyone under 55.
exactly, because he is afraid of the 55+ vote. so he didnt touch them. but i dont think we are going to be able to get away with not touching the 55+ crowd.
i am absolutely not ok with his plan. i believe he claims about $6 trillion in cuts over 10 years, i want to see closer to $15 trillion over 10 years. we need to get break even with revenue and spending. then we need to get in the green so we can actually reduce the debtload.
that is what i want, but i understand that may be too painful and i have no idea what that will do to our economy. i at least want it understood that we need to eliminate the deficit spending and pay off our debt in the future and account for zero economic growth in any projections.
its kind of funny that we already allow politicians to use debt to fund their excessive spending. yeah, its low cost borrowing but we are the ones paying for it now and into the never ending future.
Last edited by CaptainNJ; 04-27-2011 at 02:32 PM..
exactly, because he is afraid of the 55+ vote. so he didnt touch them. but i dont think we are going to be able to get away with not touching the 55+ crowd.
i am absolutely not ok with his plan. i believe he claims about $6 trillion in cuts over 10 years, i want to see closer to $15 trillion over 10 years. we need to get break even with revenue and spending. then we need to get in the green so we can actually reduce the debtload.
that is what i want, but i understand that may be too painful and i have no idea what that will do to our economy. i at least want it understood that we need to eliminate the deficit spending and pay off our debt in the future and account for zero economic growth in any projections.
its kind of funny that we already allow politicians to use debt to fund their excessive spending. yeah, its low cost borrowing but we are the ones paying for it now and into the never ending future.
i don't know that i think they need to pay off all debt. generally speaking though, i do agree the current national debt is too high, and we continue to spend more than we take in. they need to address the deficit obviously. and i just think it's humerous how they do it. by chipping away at little expenditures, such as planned parenthood or npr. maybe they need to go also, but it's funny that that's where we start. i do think logically speaking $15 trillion over the next 10 years is not going to happen without having a significant impact on our economy. but at the same time, $1.5T per year isn't an impossible amount to achieve by any means.
i understand what you mean about economic growth in predictions. i don't think they need to go to zero prediction, but i think they need a mechanism for adjusting spending in years of slow growth or no growth for sure.
also, as you pointed out, it is very low cost debt. i don't think the fear of countries cutting off lending to us is really a worthwhile fear. many of the countries need us as a group of consumers and as producers. i don't believe they will cut us off, as some of the alarmist talk tries to convince us. but i do think we should balance the budget. we need to figure out what spending can be cut, then we need to figure out how to bring revenue in line with that agreed-upon spending.
it's basic math, but we need to help our politicians learn to count.
also, as you pointed out, it is very low cost debt. i don't think the fear of countries cutting off lending to us is really a worthwhile fear. many of the countries need us as a group of consumers and as producers. i don't believe they will cut us off, as some of the alarmist talk tries to convince us. but i do think we should balance the budget. we need to figure out what spending can be cut, then we need to figure out how to bring revenue in line with that agreed-upon spending.
it's basic math, but we need to help our politicians learn to count.
i think its important to note that the largest holder of our debt is the federal reserve. so we are going to keep printing our dollars into worthlessness.
while its low cost debt, i think it should only be used for annual shortfalls and made up or emergency war situations (domestic defense not nation building). otherwise its just a tax on taxpayers that they sneak through the system to avoid actually raising taxes.
so far, all of obama's predictions have been ridiculously off partly due to the growth rate he has used. so i say use zero and if you come out ahead of the game thats great.
i agree, those little items arent going to amount to a huge difference. but they need to go sooner or later.
i think its important to note that the largest holder of our debt is the federal reserve. so we are going to keep printing our dollars into worthlessness.
while its low cost debt, i think it should only be used for annual shortfalls and made up or emergency war situations (domestic defense not nation building). otherwise its just a tax on taxpayers that they sneak through the system to avoid actually raising taxes.
so far, all of obama's predictions have been ridiculously off partly due to the growth rate he has used. so i say use zero and if you come out ahead of the game thats great.
i agree, those little items arent going to amount to a huge difference. but they need to go sooner or later.
bigger items need to go sooner, smaller items later. but politicians will stand on their soapboxes hawking $500M cuts in spending. it's like the special olympics of budgeting.
bigger items need to go sooner, smaller items later. but politicians will stand on their soapboxes hawking $500M cuts in spending. it's like the special olympics of budgeting.
i think you have to at least get rid of the lightining rod small items along with the bigger items. otherwise you are "slashing" social security and making grandma eat cat food but still funding PBS and planned parenthood. i dont know if they fund conservative non-profits, but if they do that should go as well. but im guessing we wont find much of that.
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.
