Posted on 05/17/2010 5:32:07 AM PDT by reaganaut1
You might think that Europe's economic turmoil would inject a note of urgency into America's budget debate. After all, high government deficits and debt are the roots of Europe's problems, and these same problems afflict the United States. But no. Most Americans, starting with the nation's political leaders, dismiss what's happening in Europe as a continental drama with little relevance to them.
What Americans resolutely avoid is a realistic debate about the desirable role of government. How big should it be? Should it favor the old or the young? Will social spending crowd out defense spending? Will larger government dampen economic growth through higher deficits or taxes? No one engages this debate, because if rigorously conducted, it would disappoint both liberals and conservatives.
Confronted with huge spending increases -- reflecting an aging population and soaring health costs -- liberals would have to concede that benefits and spending ought to be reduced. Seeing that total government spending would rise even after these cuts (more people would receive benefits, even if benefit levels fell), conservatives would have to concede the need for higher taxes. On both left and right, true believers would howl.
The lack of seriousness is defined by three missing words: "balance the budget." These words are taboo. In February, President Obama created a National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (call it the Deficit Commission). Its charge is to propose measures that would reduce the deficit to the level of "interest payments on the debt" by 2015 so as "to stabilize the debt-to-GDP ratio at an acceptable level."
Understand? No? Well, you're not supposed to. All the mumbo jumbo about stabilizing "debt to GDP" and according special treatment to interest payments are examples of budget-speak.
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
That would be abstract, Krugman wants us to follow Greece.
Balancing the budget was a primary Republican/conservative goal of 1994, but neither side is interested that now. Both want to play “Run up the debt and blame the other party” with democrats in the lead with most of the wasteful spending. Obama would love to dump this problem on the next congress and claim he played no part in creating it(as silly as it sounds) .
The Dems have controlled Congress since 2007.
The House anyway, the Senate was pretty well split with 51D-49R (I think) requiring 60 to pass anything.
And Dems did a great job working with the President and RINOs to pass the first stimulus package 300B, bailouts and TARP 1. They tried to pass amnesty but that one died fortunately. Unfortunately the President calling for much of the spending in the bills he signed was Republican.
Democrats will be using that fact again in 2012 when Obama shows his debt commission report that claims he inherited all his problems. This is why we need new conservative republicans elected and a new party leadership that voted against TARP to confront him, since he (Obama) voted for TARP himself.
Why "think" when you can check? It was 49-49 with two independents, Sanders and Lieberman, caucusing with the Dems. So the Dems did control the Senate. The Reps have only had 60 senators twice since 1855: 1869-71 and 1907-1909. the Dems have had it numerous times including recently until Scott Brown came on the scene. The fact that the Dems controlled the House and the Senate is very relevant since they could have stopped any excessive spending. Blaming it all on Bush just doesn't wash.
Under certain circumstances, the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 provides for a process called "reconciliation" by which Congress can pass bills related to the budget without those bills being subject to a filibuster. This is accomplished by limiting all Senate floor debate to 20 hours.
And Dems did a great job working with the President and RINOs to pass the first stimulus package 300B, bailouts and TARP 1.
And Obama voted for all of them.
They tried to pass amnesty but that one died fortunately. Unfortunately the President calling for much of the spending in the bills he signed was Republican.
Actually, an amnesty passed the Rep controlled Senate in 2006 (Hagel-Martinez). The Rep controlled House stopped it. The Dems under Obama have put spending into overdrive. They have passed budgets with deficits triple those under Bush and we will have $trillion annual deficits for the next decade at least.
Democrats will be using that fact again in 2012 when Obama shows his debt commission report that claims he inherited all his problems. This is why we need new conservative republicans elected and a new party leadership that voted against TARP to confront him, since he (Obama) voted for TARP himself.
The "inherited routine" may work with fools and the radical Left in 2012, but Obama's record will speak for itself no matter how much lipstick he puts on that pig. Obama has made our problems far worse by adding another huge entitlement program and making 9% unemployment the new norm. The almost trillion dollar porkulus bill didn't work. By 2012 or before, Obama will be calling for new taxes, including the VAT. And there must be reductions in the entitlement programs to make any appreciable difference in spending. Does anyone see Obama campaigning on that platform?
10,000 baby boomers are retiring daily and will continue to do so for the next 20 years. By 2030, one in five residents of this country will be 65 or older, twice what it is today. And there will be only two workers for every retiree compared to 3.3 today and 16 in 1950. We are already cashing in the HI Trust fund bonds since 2008 (Medicare Part A) and by 2014, 45% of all Medicare expenditures will come from the General Fund. SS, a pay as you go system, is in the red now and will go permanently in the red in 2016. This country is facing a fiscal train wreck and Obama has been speeding up the train.
I did a bit of a RANT on that subject on Saturday. Feel free to post agreements/disagreements.
Why 2010 should be the year of the conservative, and to dump the RINOS
The 2010 train has almost left the station. Many primaries have been held and the remaining ones already have the field set. The objective in 2010 is to take over one house in Congress to slow down the Obama agenda. Whatever Rep emerges from the primary must be supported if we want to achieve that objective. The definition of a RINO depends on what area of the country we are in. Is Scott Brown a RINO?
We need to start looking now for conservative candidates for the 2012 elections. By the way, who are you supporting in MD for governor and the House seats. What are you personally doing to get conservative candidates in the primary? Who is your Congressman?
Nearly $700 Billion in New Taxes and No Congressional Budget
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2494415/posts
The Congressional Budget Office [CBO] reports the President’s budget — the only budget there is at the moment — drives debt to an alarming 90 percent of the economy by 2020.
- Compared with 2008, when it was $5.8 trillion, debt held by the public under the President’s budget more than doubles in 5 years, and more than triples over 10 years, CBO reports.
- The budget pushes the debt to $9.2 trillion this year, 63.2 percent of gross domestic product [GDP], the largest debt in history and the largest debt as a share of the U.S. conomy in 59 years.
- The President’s 2020 debt of 90 percent of GDP approaches levels of the 1940s. It is ithin sight of the high-water mark of 108.7 percent of GDP set in 1946; and the debt eyond 2020 rises sharply.
The President’s budget also pushes spending to a new record of $3.8 trillion in fiscal year 2011, widens the deficit to a new record of $1.5 trillion this year, and raises taxes by $1.8 trillion through 2020.
As a share of the economy, the President’s 2010 deficit is 10.3 percent of GDP – the largest rate of excess spending since World War II. Going forward, deficits in the President’s budget never fall below $724 billion, and never below 4.1 percent of GDP — levels his own Budget Director has termed “unsustainable.”
We continue to give impunity to our leaders as being of good intentions.
WRONG! Their intention is to bring America down.
Simply look with clear eyes, it is evident all around. No mistakes made: only Intentional decisions to hamstring America and it’s people.
We must realize it for what it is. Do not be blinded by ideas from the past of well meaning leaders. Look at what they are doing all over the place. Including our Congress going along on legislation they know the majority of the people are against.
Cut the entitlements, stop the spending on any new legislation. Cut waste especially ear marks. etc. etc.
God help us in our day, in Jesus name. amen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.