Our nation's debt and spending our childrens' money

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: techs
Rudy Guiliani as President would be like throwing gasoline on a burning building.

How do you NOT understand that voting for Clinton is the same thing?

Blinded by partisanship.

Even Pabster and Prof John realize there are no good candidates on either side of the election. Techs and Senseamp still seem doggedly loyal to their Democrat masters.

Pabst has been quite vocal in his support of Obama actually. Haven't seen much of PJ lately. Must be on, ahem, sabbatical.

Pabster is pro-Bush. The only reason I can imagine him supporting Obama is so that if Obama does get elected he can proudly say that he supported him. And in the event that some dipshit Republican like Giuliani, Huckabee, Romney, McCain or Thomspon wins, he can say "Yeah, but I supported Obama."

Pabster's Obama support is nothing more than ass covering.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: bamacre
As our nation's debt grows and grows, there is no doubt that we are leaving massive expenditures for those who are not yet of age to vote, even those not yet born into the world.

Is this fair to them? They have no voice, no representation, no choice. Children are born in this country already in debt, as long as they decide to stay in the USA, and decide to work for a living, they will owe money on expenditures decided upon before they ever had a vote.

This isn't just unfair, this is immoral. This goes against the very principles upon which this country was founded. "No taxation without representation." Have we forgot what that means? If it is impossible for future American taxpayers to have representation, it should be impossible for us to spend their money.

Perhaps if all people would follow the rules society sets for them, we wouldn't have to discuss it. You know, like having a small business and avoiding taxes by not reporting. Like selling stuff for profit and not collecting sales tax. Like having income from small business and not paying social security. The list goes on and on. I recall reading somewhere that this costs federal coffers 350 to 500 billion in direct receipts each year.

If people start small businesses to avoid taxes, then they are following the rules. If you don't like it, change the rules.

Personally, I'd rather not have the rules in the first place. The more complex the tax laws, the easier it is to find loopholes. Some of us understand that the only way to take the corruption out of government is to make it smaller and more understandable, not by adding more and more laws on top.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
How is it that NONE of the candidates are talking REAL fiscal responsibility?

Because it isn't a populist idea. People are so caught up in the idea of "free" health care, baby bonds, retirement, and now "Recession Rebates". Who in their right mind would turn down all that free money? :roll:

Of course, some of the candidates are talking about fiscal responsibility. Fred Thompson, for example.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Pabster is pro-Bush. The only reason I can imagine him supporting Obama is so that if Obama does get elected he can proudly say that he supported him. And in the event that some dipshit Republican like Giuliani, Huckabee, Romney, McCain or Thomspon wins, he can say "Yeah, but I supported Obama."

Pabster's Obama support is nothing more than ass covering.

Yes, because one can't possibly agree with something from the former and the latter. :roll:

Take your crystal ball and find a repair shop. It's badly broken.

I've said time and time again that I disagree on many issues with Obama, but find him to be a decent man who has run a decent campaign. And, in fact, he may well get my vote in November. Some of us aren't blind party loyalists.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Pabster is pro-Bush. The only reason I can imagine him supporting Obama is so that if Obama does get elected he can proudly say that he supported him. And in the event that some dipshit Republican like Giuliani, Huckabee, Romney, McCain or Thomspon wins, he can say "Yeah, but I supported Obama."

Pabster's Obama support is nothing more than ass covering.

Yes, because one can't possibly agree with something from the former and the latter. :roll:

Take your crystal ball and find a repair shop. It's badly broken.

I've said time and time again that I disagree on many issues with Obama, but find him to be a decent man who has run a decent campaign. And, in fact, he may well get my vote in November. Some of us aren't blind party loyalists.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

That is f'ing hilarious. It's going in my sig.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
How is it that NONE of the candidates are talking REAL fiscal responsibility?

Because it isn't a populist idea. People are so caught up in the idea of "free" health care, baby bonds, retirement, and now "Recession Rebates". Who in their right mind would turn down all that free money? :roll:

Of course, some of the candidates are talking about fiscal responsibility. Fred Thompson, for example.

Republicans did not mind and even said it was great when Bush did that his first term.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

That is f'ing hilarious. It's going in my sig.

I'm honored. :laugh:

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: Svnla
Entitlement programs = largest federal outlays.

How to fix it? Spend less but everyone know it won't happend.

Entitlement.. oh like the big ones Defense/military and Social Security. Mind you the SS is what people paid into so its more of a return then a entitlement.

Medicare trumps both Defense and SS.

Fact of the matter is the Department of Health and Human Services(which houses both MediCare and SS), is the single biggest budgetary item equaling 40% of the federal budget. The precentage of the budget increases drastically over the next 20-30 years.

Wrong on the medicare.
It only made up 14% in 2007. Defense was 19% with SS just a hair above at 20%. by the chart on Wiki

On Washington Post (says it came from OPM) Defense and SS both were at 21% and medicare was 12%
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...5/AR2007020501552.html


So either way I am not sure where you got your medicare numbers from.

And SS revenue from payroll taxes had a multi billion dollar surplus (acutally, hundreds of billions). Not sure of the medicare tax. I see no war tax so I know how that's doing on budget.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Pabster is pro-Bush. The only reason I can imagine him supporting Obama is so that if Obama does get elected he can proudly say that he supported him. And in the event that some dipshit Republican like Giuliani, Huckabee, Romney, McCain or Thomspon wins, he can say "Yeah, but I supported Obama."

Pabster's Obama support is nothing more than ass covering.

Yes, because one can't possibly agree with something from the former and the latter. :roll:

Take your crystal ball and find a repair shop. It's badly broken.

I've said time and time again that I disagree on many issues with Obama, but find him to be a decent man who has run a decent campaign. And, in fact, he may well get my vote in November. Some of us aren't blind party loyalists.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

That is f'ing hilarious. It's going in my sig.

I know one thing....you call it pretty much like you see it .... on both sides! True bipartisanship! :laugh:


As far as debt goes, you have so many in Congress that believe that as long as you grow the economy and your ability to pay the ever rising debt, who gives a shit about it? In many ways, it's true, but the problem could lie in the huge increases in SS/Medicare in the near future. Makes one wonder if the good ole DC boys want legal immegration for all just to get the numbers up and pay for the future mess....hmmmm...

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Pabster is pro-Bush. The only reason I can imagine him supporting Obama is so that if Obama does get elected he can proudly say that he supported him. And in the event that some dipshit Republican like Giuliani, Huckabee, Romney, McCain or Thomspon wins, he can say "Yeah, but I supported Obama."

Pabster's Obama support is nothing more than ass covering.

Yes, because one can't possibly agree with something from the former and the latter. :roll:

Take your crystal ball and find a repair shop. It's badly broken.

I've said time and time again that I disagree on many issues with Obama, but find him to be a decent man who has run a decent campaign. And, in fact, he may well get my vote in November. Some of us aren't blind party loyalists.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

That is f'ing hilarious. It's going in my sig.

I know one thing....you call it pretty much like you see it .... on both sides! True bipartisanship! :laugh:


As far as debt goes, you have so many in Congress that believe that as long as you grow the economy and your ability to pay the ever rising debt, who gives a shit about it? In many ways, it's true, but the problem could lie in the huge increases in SS/Medicare in the near future. Makes one wonder if the good ole DC boys want legal immegration for all just to get the numbers up and pay for the future mess....hmmmm...

If only the citizens of this country learned to vote. It could allll be changed in two election cycles.

/sigh

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: GenHoth

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: Wreckem
Medicare trumps both Defense and SS.

Fact of the matter is the Department of Health and Human Services(which houses both MediCare and SS), is the single biggest budgetary item equaling 40% of the federal budget. The precentage of the budget increases drastically over the next 20-30 years.

Wrong on the medicare.
It only made up 14% in 2007. Defense was 19% with SS just a hair above at 20%. by the chart on Wiki

On Washington Post (says it came from OPM) Defense and SS both were at 21% and medicare was 12%
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...5/AR2007020501552.html


So either way I am not sure where you got your medicare numbers from.

You'll notice he said that medicare and SS make up 40% of the budget, from your numbers they make up 34% Which isn't that big a difference!

And you notice he said "Medicare trumps both Defense and SS" which I stated is false, because it is.


But none the less it all needs to be brought down but most people only think on single dumb issues that seem to require more money so polticans say what will get them the votes and do what they need to do to get reelected.

One I said DHHS is 40% of the budget. DHHS is SS + Medicare + Foodstamps + schip + etc etc. Most on the first two.

Two look at the long term numbers on medicare. Its has between $30-60trillion in liabilities over the next several decades. As demographics change medicare+ss will be 70% of the budget if we dont further increase the size of the budget. Medicares longterm libabilities puts ANY other spending to shame.

 

[Legend]

The Greatest Generation my ass. More like the ME, ME, ME!!!! Generation.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: bamacre
As our nation's debt grows and grows, there is no doubt that we are leaving massive expenditures for those who are not yet of age to vote, even those not yet born into the world.

Is this fair to them? They have no voice, no representation, no choice. Children are born in this country already in debt, as long as they decide to stay in the USA, and decide to work for a living, they will owe money on expenditures decided upon before they ever had a vote.

This isn't just unfair, this is immoral. This goes against the very principles upon which this country was founded. "No taxation without representation." Have we forgot what that means? If it is impossible for future American taxpayers to have representation, it should be impossible for us to spend their money.

Perhaps if all people would follow the rules society sets for them, we wouldn't have to discuss it. You know, like having a small business and avoiding taxes by not reporting. Like selling stuff for profit and not collecting sales tax. Like having income from small business and not paying social security. The list goes on and on. I recall reading somewhere that this costs federal coffers 350 to 500 billion in direct receipts each year.

If people start small businesses to avoid taxes, then they are following the rules. If you don't like it, change the rules.

Personally, I'd rather not have the rules in the first place. The more complex the tax laws, the easier it is to find loopholes. Some of us understand that the only way to take the corruption out of government is to make it smaller and more understandable, not by adding more and more laws on top.

I am not talking about legal business, but people that fly under the radar to avoid the rules.

 

[senseamp]

It IS immoral, which is why I would never vote for a Republican.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: Svnla
Entitlement programs = largest federal outlays.

How to fix it? Spend less but everyone know it won't happend.

The President's actual budget for 2007 totals $2.8 trillion. Percentages in parentheses indicate percentage change compared to 2006. This budget request is broken down by the following expenditures:

$586.1 billion (+7.0%) - Social Security
$548.8 billion (+9.0%) - Defense[2]
$394.5 billion (+12.4%) - Medicare
$367.0 billion (+2.0%) - Unemployment and welfare
$276.4 billion (+2.9%) - Medicaid and other health related
$243.7 billion (+13.4%) - Interest on debt
$89.9 billion (+1.3%) - Education and training
$76.9 billion (+8.1%) - Transportation
$72.6 billion (+5.8%) - Veterans' benefits
$43.5 billion (+9.2%) - Administration of justice
$33.1 billion (+5.7%) - Natural resources and environment
$32.5 billion (+15.4%) - Foreign affairs
$27.0 billion (+3.7%) - Agriculture
$26.8 billion (+28.7%) - Community and regional development
$25.0 billion (+4.0%) - Science and technology
$23.5 billion (+0.0%) - Energy
$20.1 billion (+11.4%) - General government
Much of the costs of the Iraq war and the Afghanistan war until FY2008 have been funded through supplemental appropriations or emergency supplemental appropriations, which are treated differently than regular appropriations bills. Senior congressional leaders have contended that those war costs, as much as possible, should go through the regular budget process, which provides for greater transparency. Determining the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is complex. CBO has estimated that "war-related defense activities" in 2007 were "roughly $115 billion." (CBO, The Budget and Economic Outlook: An Update, August 2007, Box 1-1, available at <http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=8565&type=0&gt See Below for total defense spending

 

[kranky]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
How is it that NONE of the candidates are talking REAL fiscal responsibility?

Because candidates have found the way to win elections is to promise handing out tax money to as many people as possible. The people who want smaller government and less taxes are simply being outvoted by the people who want "free money" from the government.

 

[brxndxn]

I think when our generation comes into power (Millennials), we'll just simply cut off the promises that the previous generation made to themselves.. After all, we had no part in the process - and since we get to make and repeal laws - we'll just change them so the debt has to be paid off by those that incurred it.

I hope the Baby-boomers like the idea of spending their golden greeting people at Walmart.

When the alternative is responsible people suffering, I have no qualms seeing irresponsible people suffer.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: brxndxn
I think when our generation comes into power (Millennials), we'll just simply cut off the promises that the previous generation made to themselves.. After all, we had no part in the process - and since we get to make and repeal laws - we'll just change them so the debt has to be paid off by those that incurred it.

I hope the Baby-boomers like the idea of spending their golden greeting people at Walmart.

When the alternative is responsible people suffering, I have no qualms seeing irresponsible people suffer.

Yeah they/we were irresponsible. We raised an ungrateful generation of egocentric puppies by spoiling them with more than anyone else in history had. Now they're afraid they won't have as many toys as we gave them.

We obviously wasted our money and should have kept it. Millenials? Try Spoiled Ungrateful Brats.

It's entirely our fault that yours is the first generation that begrudges it's elders.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
How is it that NONE of the candidates are talking REAL fiscal responsibility?

Because most of America's bread-and-circuses serve the gerontocracy. Look at the holy grails: social security, medicare, defense, etc. What do the youth gain from those? Nothing but the bill.
Old folks get a pension and health care. Middle-aged men get tidy paychecks building state-of-the-art weaponary. Criminals are housed in techological marvel prisons. Children go to run-down schools where they share textbooks. Welcome to America, pass the UHC... the baby boomers are retiring...

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: brxndxn
I think when our generation comes into power (Millennials), we'll just simply cut off the promises that the previous generation made to themselves.. After all, we had no part in the process - and since we get to make and repeal laws - we'll just change them so the debt has to be paid off by those that incurred it.

I hope the Baby-boomers like the idea of spending their golden greeting people at Walmart.

When the alternative is responsible people suffering, I have no qualms seeing irresponsible people suffer.

Yeah they/we were irresponsible. We raised an ungrateful generation of egocentric puppies by spoiling them with more than anyone else in history had. Now they're afraid they won't have as many toys as we gave them.

We obviously wasted our money and should have kept it. Millenials? Try Spoiled Ungrateful Brats.

It's entirely our fault that yours is the first generation that begrudges it's elders.

Is this sarcasm?...

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: brxndxn
I think when our generation comes into power (Millennials), we'll just simply cut off the promises that the previous generation made to themselves.. After all, we had no part in the process - and since we get to make and repeal laws - we'll just change them so the debt has to be paid off by those that incurred it.

I hope the Baby-boomers like the idea of spending their golden greeting people at Walmart.

When the alternative is responsible people suffering, I have no qualms seeing irresponsible people suffer.

Yeah they/we were irresponsible. We raised an ungrateful generation of egocentric puppies by spoiling them with more than anyone else in history had. Now they're afraid they won't have as many toys as we gave them.

We obviously wasted our money and should have kept it. Millenials? Try Spoiled Ungrateful Brats.

It's entirely our fault that yours is the first generation that begrudges it's elders.

Is this sarcasm?...

I certainly hope so.

And I would ask Winston to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn?t really mean that.

 

[Slew Foot]

The funny part about the boomers is that even though they trashed America's future with their social programs, they dont realize it.

 

[jonks]

Andrew Sullivan, who I can't stand lately, fires off a nice zinger:

"He kind of sidled up to me and said, Can I come and see you? We were sitting outside the presidential cabin here, and he professed his love for Jenna and said, would I mind if he married her? And I said, Got a deal. [Laughter] And I?m of the school, once you make the sale, move on. But he had some other points he wanted [to make]. He wanted to talk about how he would be financially responsible," - George W. Bush on Henry Hager's proposal of marriage to his daughter, Jenna. I think the president just lost interest when fiscal responsibility came up.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
The funny part about the boomers is that even though they trashed America's future with their social programs, they dont realize it.

Get back to me when you pay back the $4+ Trillion you owe those social programs ...

 

[conehead433]

It's not moral at all, but our lawmakers succeeded in abandoning anything resembling morality ages ago.