David- I'm not going to get into a political debate, I won't do that. Every day or so you come back on this thread with some rant, and we have a rule of no politics on the board. Leon and company have allowed some leeway here but there's little to no discussion, just you airing out your grievances

And please try not to confuse facts with opinions.

Then we agree, no political debate. No, I am not ranting. I am pointing out facts (not opinions) that are germane to the topic of this thread.

It's a FACT that Obama said unemployment wouldn't rise above 8% if we passed the stimulus. We passed it and it rose to 10%.

It's a FACT that Obama called Bush "unpatriotic" for adding $4 Trillion in debt in his 8 years in office, somthing Obama managed to do in only two and a half years.

It's a FACT that Obama, Reid and others voted not to increase the debt limit when Bush was president, but then blasted the republicans for doing the same thing when Obama was president.

Last, it's a FACT (although not related to this thread) that a video game in which the objective is to kill members of a political party is sick and disgusting.

to get back on topic, they have raised the debt limit and hopefully are working on a plan to balance the budget so in a few years we won't reach the new debt limit and be stuck at the same crossroads.

At some point, Congress has to reign in the unlimited, and almost entirely unrestricted, military and intelligence spending they've allowed over the past 10 years. None of the budget talks that led up to the raising of the debt limit made much noise over the enormous $$$ being thrown into that particular black hole, with very little accountability. As with all budget talks, the first things the politicians go after are the hot button items like heath care and education.

Not surprisingly, those are the exact same things that politicians immediately attack when talking about DoD speding cuts. The first thing they want to talk about cutting is funding for body armor, health care for service personnel and the G.I. bill. What about the hundreds of billions of dollars thrown at contractors that disappears, without a trace, with nearly zero return? Why is it Congress can't have a realistic discussion about budget without immediately resorting to hyperbole?

When it comes to actually balancing the budget, the first thing much of Congress wants to talk about, in the rare event of a "projected budget surplus", is HOW TO SPEND THE PROJECTED BUDGET SURPLUS. First of all, it's a "projected" number. It isn't real. It's like having maxed out your credit cards, but then blowing your income tax return on a new TV. That's the mentality that has to change in Washington. As far as I'm concerned any true budget surplus shouldn't even be given back to the taxpayers, it should be applied directly to the national debt.

Until candidates like Ron Paul stop being cast as "extreme" because they advocate a realistic approach to government and finance, as opposed to promoting more of the same and relentlessly attacking their opponents (notice the bulk of Paul's speeches are policy related, not constant attacks on political opponents), nothing will change. Also, the media and the public have to acknowledge that the President of the United States has no power to arbitrarily enact universal health care any more than he has the power to arbitrarily eliminate Social Security. Obama isn't solely responsible for the health care act that passed. That was Congress. Much like Bush wasn't solely responsible for the US being tied up in two wars over seas. There were better than 55% of the 535 members of Congress who were in some way complicit in both actions. It is those individuals who should be held responsible for what is placed in front of the President for his signature.

I think as long as the people who got us into the current mess are still allowed to keep their jobs, all the while ineptly fiddling with the economy, looking for some magic switch to turn it all around, we're not going to see any financial progress any time soon. At the very least, the first thing Congress should implement is no NEW spending programs. Deal with what is already on the table, and trim some of that first.

As far as raising the debt limit goes, you have little choice but to pay your debts. Raising the debt limit was about paying debts due. Whether you're person, company or country, defaulting on loans is bad news for your future credit and financial viability ... I agree that not getting into debt is the ideal thing, but defaulting on money you owe to others is a highly unsound choice-- and most probably illegal, even if you are the U.S. of A.

DaClyde-

Just wanted to say this is an excellent post- I agree 100%. Thank you for posting.

Sincerely, Clayton

*edit to add link : http://endoftheamericandream.com/arc...ith-each-other

Raising the debt ceiling isn't the long term answer. It's like putting a band aid over cancer. It doesn't solve the problem. The real answer it to reduce spending, entitlement reform and for the government to get the Hell out of the way so America can do what it does. That's the only way we'll ever get out of this mess.

Props to Michingan for signing into law new legislation that put a lifetime limit on cash welfare benefits of four years. They say 41,000 people will loose their welfare benefits on October 1st. "F" them!

keep it civil
 

I let this one thread go and so far so good. What I don't want is political debate falling into other threads and I will put a stop to it if it goes there.

I truly believe that in order to curb the debt problem it does have to be a many pronged approach. We MUST cut out the fraud in the system. We MUST cut out the subsidies to people that make a lifetime of using the system. Some of them work harder at not working and letting the govt. support them than if they were to go get a job. It makes me sick.

As most know I do volunteering every week at the Salvation Army. I teach life skills to homeless veterans. My new angle for them is NOT letting them use the perennial crutch of "I can't work or my XXXX entitlement will go away".....whether they think they are disabled, underprivileged, or whatever. Just because they are in some stupid program *(not the one they are in at the Salvation Army, but the one they hope to get money from) doesn't mean they have to stay in it. Just because a quack doctor says they can't work, doesn't always mean they can't. I make sure I am not giving them bad advice but just another way of thinking about things. Not one of them has ever prospered while being "in" the system. You have to get out of the system to prosper. Cut out all of the waste, and the losers that don't want to work, and you probably cut entitlements by 30% or more. Then we need to cut the loopholes for the richest Americans. When Warren Buffet says he pays less percentage of his taxes than his office workers it should make the idiots in Washington take notice. I doubt it does. Also, we should really look at helping other countries less until we get our house in order. Let's take care of ourselves before we take care of others. There are some of my rants......

Leon, props to you for your volunteer work. I think you chose a great group of people to help. I'm very selective of the charities I donate to, but one of my favorites is the DAV (Disabled American Veterans). Those are the guys that put their lives on the line to protect our freedom and are really deserving of our help.

I have no problem with entitlements when they're used to help people, not support them for the duration of their lifetime. I'm tired of hearing about these second, third, etc generation welfare recipients. I really expect to see more states follow suite to Michigan’s new law. I don’t see where they really have a choice in the matter. There’s just no more money.

Tax loopholes do need to be closed. However, anybody that believes that idiot Warren Buffet should wipe the Kool Aid from their chin before it dribbles down their shirt. Buffet pays capital gains taxes. His secretary pays federal income tax. Two different taxes. He’s a typical liberal that likes to spin things to make it sound like he wants you to hear it. Besides, if he really wants to pay more taxes, he can simply stroke a check to the government. Has he ever done that? No. He would rather spin it to push his liberal agenda.

I agree with this completely, and this is also where almost all of the congressional budget talks collapse. Someone will make the point that cutting or reforming social program X will "only" save the taxpayers a few million dollars over the next 4-10 years. And somehow that "only" statement seems to contain the implied "so we shouldn't bother with it" tacked onto the end. Instead, all parties either do nothing or "compromise" on a plan that includes almost no actual cuts, but results in more spending.

If they were to follow through and reform, or end, those programs that "only" save a few million here and there, they would ultimately be saving hundreds of millions, if not billions, of taxpayer dollars. In a few short years, they wouldn't need to worry about raising the debt limit again.