Obama Says U.S. Long-Term Debt Load ?Unsustainable?

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: child of wonder
If the economy is under control and the debt is still increasing, then we all have something to bitch about.

We definitely have something to bitch about - look at the tax and spending figures for the past 40 years. Deficits are the rule, not the exception, regardless of which party is in charge of either the White House or Congress.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Evan
List the programs to cut first with explanations as to why they're necessary to cut and who they'll hurt/help.

Medicare and social security. They are necessary to cut since they are unsustainable long term debt loads. Cutting them will hurt the elderly who vote in droves. So, this is political suicide. Lets see if Obama has the guts to do so; it'll hurt him. Cutting medicare and social security will also hurt people with elderly parents since it'll diminish their inheritance. Indirectly it'll hurt businesses since the elderly/their heirs will have less to spend. It will help taxpayers since it'll reduce our long term debt load.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Evan
List the programs to cut first with explanations as to why they're necessary to cut and who they'll hurt/help.

What about just freezing everything until revenues catch up with spending?

Freezing spending is a fringe nutbag idea. When you freeze spending you're essentially destroying vital functions the U.S. carries out every day. Billions in funding for boatloads of legitimate programs get canned because other unrelated industries need bailouts. It's insane. Like scientific R&D (including NASA funding) or funding for the mentally handicapped and disabled. Freezing spending is crazy and McCain was crazy for even suggesting during the campaign. Might as well just say you're freezing any and all progress for a few years.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Evan
List the programs to cut first with explanations as to why they're necessary to cut and who they'll hurt/help.

Medicare and social security. They are necessary to cut since they are unsustainable long term debt loads. Cutting them will hurt the elderly who vote in droves. So, this is political suicide. Lets see if Obama has the guts to do so; it'll hurt him. Cutting medicare and social security will also hurt people with elderly parents since it'll diminish their inheritance. Indirectly it'll hurt businesses since the elderly/their heirs will have less to spend. It will help taxpayers since it'll reduce our long term debt load.

Of course it's a long term debt load, but fact is you're putting millions of people on the streets by cutting those two programs. That's a far worse scenario than forcing people to pay slightly higher taxes.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Evan
List the programs to cut first with explanations as to why they're necessary to cut and who they'll hurt/help.

What about just freezing everything until revenues catch up with spending?

Freezing spending is a fringe nutbag idea. When you freeze spending you're essentially destroying vital functions the U.S. carries out every day. Billions in funding for boatloads of legitimate programs get canned because other unrelated industries need bailouts. It's insane. Like scientific R&D (including NASA funding) or funding for the mentally handicapped and disabled. Freezing spending is crazy and McCain was crazy for even suggesting during the campaign. Might as well just say you're freezing any and all progress for a few years.

It's easy to be a critic. What's your suggestion?

 

[Svnla]

Originally posted by: dullard
Watch the campaign again. Obama made it very clear that he wanted increased short term spending and decreased long term spending. The only possible way to do that is to slash medicare / medicaid / social security. If he can do that, he'll be the Republican's hero. I don't really think he can though.

Agree with the bold part but that would be political suicidal for BO and Congress. The AARP and anyone that benefit from the status quote won't allow any significant changes.

It is sad that our great nation is slowly eroding.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: dullard
Medicare and social security. They are necessary to cut since they are unsustainable long term debt loads. Cutting them will hurt the elderly who vote in droves. So, this is political suicide. Lets see if Obama has the guts to do so; it'll hurt him.

NO politician has the guts to do that, especially a Democrat. Look at what happened to Bush when he proposed any sort of change to SS.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Evan
Of course it's a long term debt load, but fact is you're putting millions of people on the streets by cutting those two programs. That's a far worse scenario than forcing people to pay slightly higher taxes.

Reducing those two programs a bit won't put anyone on the streets. In general, the people receiving those programs are quite wealthy. Medicaid (for the poor) may have to be increased a bit.

It isn't like we need to end the programs altogether. We just need to cut benefits by 20% to make them sustainable for decades. As it is now, Medicare will run out of money and be forced to borrow in 8 years.

 

[StageLeft]

The thing is a joke.

Recently, in the same vein, the NY Governor was saying how they need more transparency and no more closed door budget sessions. AND YET THIS FVCKER AND ONLY TWO OTHER PEOPLE ORCHESTRATED A 10% BUDGET INCREASE FOR A VERY FINANCIALLY RED STATE FOR NEXT YEAR!

I was screaming, my caps lock was broken. Nothing like a politician doing something and then saying immediately after that what they just did is terrible. Obama can suck it.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Evan
List the programs to cut first with explanations as to why they're necessary to cut and who they'll hurt/help.

What about just freezing everything until revenues catch up with spending?

Freezing spending is a fringe nutbag idea. When you freeze spending you're essentially destroying vital functions the U.S. carries out every day. Billions in funding for boatloads of legitimate programs get canned because other unrelated industries need bailouts. It's insane. Like scientific R&D (including NASA funding) or funding for the mentally handicapped and disabled. Freezing spending is crazy and McCain was crazy for even suggesting during the campaign. Might as well just say you're freezing any and all progress for a few years.

It's easy to be a critic. What's your suggestion?

Biggest and most obvious way to do it is provide every reasonable incentive possible to jumpstart the economy so more revenue comes in to pay for the programs that can't/shouldn't be cut (and there are lots of them). Cut out the unnecessary ones in the process, which is obvious. And raise taxes and close loopholes on the rich so we don't see Warren Buffet paying a lower % in taxes than his secretary making $60,000 a year, which we saw under Bush.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Evan
Of course it's a long term debt load, but fact is you're putting millions of people on the streets by cutting those two programs. That's a far worse scenario than forcing people to pay slightly higher taxes.

Reducing those two programs a bit won't put anyone on the streets. In general, the people receiving those programs are quite wealthy. Medicaid (for the poor) may have to be increased a bit.

It isn't like we need to end the programs altogether. We just need to cut benefits by 20% to make them sustainable for decades. As it is now, Medicare will run out of money and be forced to borrow in 8 years.

Ah, OK, I thought you meant completely. Yeah, I have no problem intelligently reducing those benefits if there are other alternatives older citizens can utilize. I wouldn't say medicare patients are rich though, that varies widely and especially so for many SS recipients.

In terms of medicare running out of money in 8 years, that's only if we do nothing. It's not nearly as dire as that and is quite fixable.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Evan
In terms of medicare running out of money in 8 years, that's only if we do nothing. It's not nearly as dire as that and is quite fixable.

That will be Obama's biggest legacy. It just needs a little tweak, and it better be soon. But if he does so, he'll save trillions of dollars long term. Far more than what he spent on the stimulus.

If he does that, I'll call him a great leader. A great leader is someone who tries to fix the difficult problems even if it means political suicide. If not, he'll likely be a history has-been.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Evan
Biggest and most obvious way to do it is provide every reasonable incentive possible to jumpstart the economy so more revenue comes in to pay for the programs that can't/shouldn't be cut (and there are lots of them). Cut out the unnecessary ones in the process, which is obvious. And raise taxes and close loopholes on the rich so we don't see Warren Buffet paying a lower % in taxes than his secretary making $60,000 a year, which we saw under Bush.

Good luck cutting anything, and good luck controlling spending growth if revenues start to climb. I don't see either party doing any of those things. If dieting were as easy to do as it is to say, we'd all be thin.

 

[ZeGermans]

you can't save your way out of a depression.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: misle
Obama Says U.S. Long-Term Debt Load ?Unsustainable?

Does President Obama care to explain what he is going to do about it?

Why don't you find out and get back to us, since the Bloomberg article did not elaborate?

It's easy to identify a problem - as Ayabe pointed out, Obama has talked about the debt and the deficit since he won. It was one of the first things he mentioned when he sat down with Wash. Post editors following the election in Nov. However, Obama's hardly the first politician to recognize the issue - Perot made it a major part of his campaign in '92. Talk is cheap though, and it's time for action.

Non sequitur du jour..

 

[ericlp]

I think he's looking for that reset button!

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: misle
Obama Says U.S. Long-Term Debt Load ?Unsustainable?

Does President Obama care to explain what he is going to do about it?

Why don't you find out and get back to us, since the Bloomberg article did not elaborate?

It's easy to identify a problem - as Ayabe pointed out, Obama has talked about the debt and the deficit since he won. It was one of the first things he mentioned when he sat down with Wash. Post editors following the election in Nov. However, Obama's hardly the first politician to recognize the issue - Perot made it a major part of his campaign in '92. Talk is cheap though, and it's time for action.

Non sequitur du jour..

Maybe sierrita will jump in and help us out.

 

[JS80]

Obama is an effin genius.
1. Plan a $11 trillion 10 year deficit, blame bush for it
2. Come out and say US debt not sustainable
3. Cut the "deficit" in half to $6 trillion, point to how much he cut
4. Re-election in 2012 for fiscal responsibility, after all he cut $5 trillion in government spending
5. Raises taxes in second term.

mother effin genius.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: JS80
Obama is an effin genius.
1. Plan a $11 trillion 10 year deficit, blame bush for it
2. Come out and say US debt not sustainable
3. Cut the "deficit" in half to $6 trillion, point to how much he cut
4. Re-election in 2012 for fiscal responsibility, after all he cut $5 trillion in government spending
5. Raises taxes in second term.

mother effin genius.

:laugh:

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: misle
Obama Says U.S. Long-Term Debt Load ?Unsustainable?

Does President Obama care to explain what he is going to do about it?

One of the first things he did was present an honest budget summary.

The recovery act cut payroll taxes $397 billion dollars.

Individual and corporate tax receipts this fiscal year are equal to the revenue received in FY2000 and are at the lowest percentage of GDP since the late 1950s.

If he can slowly recover the economy without creating a bubble over the next ten years the deficit may not entirely vanish but it will come close.

The 'worst case' projection for the US GDP over the next 10 years is around $175 trillion - by 2019 GDP will be $22.5 trillion a year. I'll take $300 billion of debt that year - maybe a little more - just as long as it's not spent on elective wars and tax cuts for the uber-wealthy.

If the US Gov't sez we need a butt-load of debt to avoid a global catastrophe I don't like it but it sure beats the crap out of the alternative.

The White House's own budget projections show the deficit holding at about 5% of GDP until 2019. It seems pretty obvious to me Obama has no intention of eliminating budget deficits, much less chipping away at our public debt. As far as I'm concerned his statements are nothing more than lip service until he actually does something meaningful to deal with our debt.

 

[alchemize]

Way to go, B!

Is this guy fucking serious? Taking a page out of the dub's playbook? Mission Accompished!

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Way to go, B!

Is this guy fucking serious? Taking a page out of the dub's playbook? Mission Accompished!

404 Change Not Found

(an oldie, but applicable)

 

[Corn]

This quote originated in a thread some time back:

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Genx87
Well luckily for the OP the democrats are crafting the next budget. And chances are high there will be a democrat president with a rubber stamp democrat congress so deficits should be a thing of the past within the next couple of year!

Well since the last repub president with a rubber stamp congress spent a few trillion, I think the dems should get a turn next.

Oh but whatever will the OP do then?

This is what the OP say's today:

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
If the US Gov't sez we need a butt-load of debt to avoid a global catastrophe I don't like it but it sure beats the crap out of the alternative.

I know, it's the little things that amuse me, but I wonder, if Bush had only stated back then that the deficits were needed to stave off global catrastophe would heyheybooboo simply accepted it as fact as he does today? I'd bet "no" on that.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: ZeGermans
you can't save your way out of a depression.

Spend, borrow, tax, inflate and lie your way out of it.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: ericlp
I think he's looking for that reset button!

He should go to Staples and get the "easy" button, then again he might confuse that with that other button, rookie mistakes...