U.S Government Debt Crisis !!!

[Jsunu]

Originally Posted by Death2Theft

Curious how long they plan on subsidizing corn now that it takes more energy to make than it produces.

That's the real concern with a corn based economy. Corn is in EVERYTHING and is less efficient/health damaging as a result. Unfortuniately it is deeply ingrained into the USA economy it will be hard to transfer out of the dependance of corn (like foreign oil ).

[mikemhg]

Originally Posted by taylor192

I use catch phrases cause they are funny, I definitely know more about what's going on than you do.

Obama is forcing everyone to buy a policy - then offering a government subsidized policy to buy. This does nothing to address the reason health care is unaffordable, the 20% administrative overhead of the policies. It only creates more policy BS, and mismanages it in government.

Yet that's just one part of why Obama is racking up trillions of debt, so you're partially correct in that its not the only thing racking up the huge deficit. His stupid infrastructure spending, handing out money to peple to buy cars and homes, .... and various other entitlement programs where people are essentially given money by the government are the big problems... yet you'd know that - right?

Pretty sure you don't. I work for a trust fund that handles major Goverment Pension and Health Care Policy Groups.

You are changing the argument now because you were wrong. This argument isn't about whether or not Obama's plan is the best idea. I have always felt he should have gone further and implemented a Universal Plan, that all citizens are forced to pay into accordingly. A larger pool is always the best solution when balance with those that are not taking from the pool itself (younger, healthier contributors).

Your argument was that Obama's healthcare plan is why the US is in major financial debt. That claim is completely incorrect, that is the only point we were discussing. The point was never about whether the plan was the best solution or not.

Infrastructure spending? What are you talking about exactly, give me specific points, as State Infrastructure spending varies from state to state. That was a stupid point to make anyways, as most economists argree that Government Infrastructure does boost the economy through job growth, which is deadly required in the US, as un-employment numbers are not budging for the better.


"handing out money to peple to buy cars and homes, .... and various other entitlement programs where people are essentially given money by the government are the big problems"

I am actually shocked that you used this point to pin on Obama, you right there show you have no idea what you are talking about here.

This also a Republican idea, enacted by GW. It was 2002 when Bush started pushing programs to get minorities, and low-income families to purchase homes, and vehicles they simply could not afford, thus beginning this sub-prime catastrophe we are seeing today.

This deficit issue is complicated, but not one same person can deny where it started. Two un-funded wars, un-funded tax cuts to the wealthy, and a major drug prescription program (also started by GW).

[Nightwalker]

I'm hoping for the best for them, if things get worse I could be out of a job. Most of the money my company takes in is from American customers.

[iEatClams]

Originally Posted by taylor192

They have more options than that. Cuts to entitlement programs, tax reforms, and military strategy change. Just no-one wants to make any of those decisions cause they are hard, or someone's hand is in the cookie jar.

Your right, the options are clear, but money always gets in the way of things.

I'm on the side that thinks all 3 is the answer.

Expenditure cuts : reduces expenses
Tax Reforms : raises revenue
reduce military spending: reduces expenses

Edit: Don't like the term entitlement as I feel a country where the top 10% own 70% of the wealth can afford to provide certain basic social programs.

[J____]

so how's this gonna affect the market in three next 2 years?
Posted via RS Mobile

[FerrariEnzo]

get Bill Gates to pay off the Debt.. haha

then it would be called
United States of Microsoft

[Death2Theft]

Bill Gates is too busy paying someone to invent a new toilet.

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by FerrariEnzo

get Bill Gates to pay off the Debt.. haha

then it would be called
United States of Microsoft

LOL he has only $40B, while the US is in debt $14T and has unfunded liabilities of ~$100T.

[FerrariEnzo]

Originally Posted by taylor192

LOL he has only $40B, while the US is in debt $14T and has unfunded liabilities of ~$100T.

He probably has more he's hiding from the IRS.... How you ask.... IRS is using windows aren't they... Lol nuff said....

Haha maybe if China paid it off.... Wow that would be rough... World domination... After buy U.S. its Japan....

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by mikemhg

Pretty sure you don't. I work for a trust fund that handles major Goverment Pension and Health Care Policy Groups.

Hopefully your company doesn't read this, cause you're about to look very silly.

PS I work for a US healthcare company that makes financial and healthcare software... yet lets get to the facts rather than compare that my balls are bigger.

Originally Posted by mikemhg

You are changing the argument now because you were wrong.

I admitted to using catch phrases to make a sarcastic point - the only thing that is wrong is you cannot let it go and feel you have some asinine point to make.

Originally Posted by mikemhg

Your argument was that Obama's healthcare plan is why the US is in major financial debt.

My sarcastic argument was that his plan is one of many things that has racked up a couple $T in debt. I understand you need to nit-pick to make your asinine point, yet please, get over it.

Do you know the details of ObamaCare? The increases to Mediaid, Medicare, subsidies to family above the poverty line...? Its not the insurance reforms that are costing trillions, its the handouts and subsidies - which you have no experience with at your trust fund job, so you should just really stop talking.

Originally Posted by mikemhg

Infrastructure spending? What are you talking about exactly, give me specific points

Gladly, yet you're about to look really silly.

Did you know Obama signed nearly a $T of infrastructure spending in his first year? and where are the jobs that spending was supposed to create? The latest jobs numbers are dismal, and for the past couple years the only industry showing job growth is... wait for it... government. The massive spending has not created the many private sector jobs it was supposed to.

Worse, what's going to happen when the taps get turned off? The economy has not picked up, and the government can nolonger afford to keep spending to prop it up.... more on that next.

Originally Posted by mikemhg

That was a stupid point to make anyways, as most economists argree that Government Infrastructure does boost the economy through job growth, which is deadly required in the US, as un-employment numbers are not budging for the better.

Keynesian economists to be exact, cause not all agree this is the best approach. My favourite economist vehemently disagrees with this approach.

This type of economics only works if you can inflate your way out of the problem. Like in the 80s and 90s, following recessions the economy took off. So lets take a look at how the US is doing 5 years after all this mess started.... did all that spending get the economy rolling again? Nope. Now they are deeper in debt with no sign of an upward swing on the horizon. Keynesian economics is not going to work this time.

Originally Posted by mikemhg

"handing out money to peple to buy cars and homes, .... and various other entitlement programs where people are essentially given money by the government are the big problems"

I am actually shocked that you used this point to pin on Obama, you right there show you have no idea what you are talking about here.

Have you heard of "cash for clunkers"? If not please stop now, cause you don't know shit. It was one of the most popular programs to get people spending money... wait for it... with BIG handouts from the government.

Care to guess who signed this into law? I'll give you a hint: it wasn't Bush.

Would you like me to highlight some of the real estate programs Obama signed into law as well? or have I made you look silly enough? Let me know.

Originally Posted by mikemhg

This also a Republican idea, enacted by GW. It was 2002 when Bush started pushing programs to get minorities, and low-income families to purchase homes, and vehicles they simply could not afford, thus beginning this sub-prime catastrophe we are seeing today.

This deficit issue is complicated, but not one same person can deny where it started. Two un-funded wars, un-funded tax cuts to the wealthy, and a major drug prescription program (also started by GW).

I don't deny where it started, so you can stop the bipartisan crap. I don't care who started it, I care who continues it and who is finally going to end it. Perhaps you missed that in your asinine nit-picking.

Bush racked up huge debt, and Obama is doing the same. So much for "change we can believe in". At least the Republicans are finally saying "no". Maybe for the wrong reasons, yet it is about time.

Stop, before you hit reply please don't come back with "Bush started it" BS. I'm not your mom, I don't care if your brother broke your toy. Stop crying and fix it.

[will068]

Originally Posted by taylor192

They have more options than that. Cuts to entitlement programs, tax reforms, and military strategy change. Just no-one wants to make any of those decisions cause they are hard, or someone's hand is in the cookie jar.

Ron Paul 2012

[Meowjin]

social programs are good and people just need to be taxed accordingly.

Sorry taylor that you have such a grim look on people that you would deny people basic human lives.

edit: Might as well add that the usa needs serious legal and law reforms, electoral reforms (bring in vote subsidy) and the banning of contributions to politicians.

Politicians are suppose to be a representative of the people and most politicians are millionaires

[Graeme S]

The use of jargon to express those kinds of programs do very little than to cause more division, or to frame peoples' thoughts in a certain way. Saying that you're using them sarcastically is very similar to the Hipster kids who wear Che Guevara shirts that were bought for $50+ and say that they're wearing them as an ironic statement for who does and doesn't belong; it's just hot air. The difference between a sniper and a sharpshooter? On Fox News, it's whether you're an Enemy Combatant (sniper) or an American Soldier (sharpshooter). Sharpshooter has a "better feel" to it for the average American Fox News viewer.

To me, when I hear the word "entitlement", I think of "something someone feels they should get regardless of what they do or do not do". While getting something for nothing (like through welfare or food stamps) does qualify under that definition, those kinds of things are necessities. They are things people need to live, and survive. "Necessities programs" would be a better way to express it, for me. Things that would qualify as "entitlements" for me would be a lack of inheritance tax for anything under $5,000,000(!), a lower tax rate on dividends and investments than on conventional income, and programs like that. These qualify as entitlements to me because it rewards people only for having more than others do. These people feel they are "entitled" to more because they already have it. Makes no sense to me.

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by MajinHurricane

social programs are good and people just need to be taxed accordingly.

Sorry taylor that you have such a grim look on people that you would deny people basic human lives.

I'm sorry you've been brain washed by Disney.

Disney changed society for the worse when they retold "The Ant and The Grasshopper" by having the Ant help the Grasshopper out despite the Grasshopper being lazy and not taking care of himself. Now society expects everyone to do the "right" (aka moral) thing and take care of others, even if they are not taking care of themselves.

In the original story the Grasshopper dies.

---

I am not denying anyone basic human rights. Everyone has the same freedom to live, work wherever they want. If they cannot save enough where they are, they are free to move and find a better job or somewhere their dollar goes further. They are not free to stick out their hand and ask me to subsidize their lifestyle cause they appear to have no choice - they have choice, and must suffer the consequences of poor choices - as the Grasshopper originally did.

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by Graeme S

To me, when I hear the word "entitlement", I think of "something someone feels they should get regardless of what they do or do not do". While getting something for nothing (like through welfare or food stamps) does qualify under that definition, those kinds of things are necessities. They are things people need to live, and survive. "Necessities programs" would be a better way to express it, for me.

Fair enough, I accept your explanation even if I disagree with it.

Food stamps are a funny thing. Foods stamp usage in the US has climbed 5% from ~10% to ~15% in the past 3 years. Meanwhile house ownership has fallen from ~70% to ~65%. Coincidence? How did all these Americans lining up to buy homes suddenly become dependent on food stamps? Oh ya, they were a bunch of Grasshoppers not saving for a rainy day, and now they want me, the Ant, to bail them out with subsidies - no thanks.

Low income housing would fall into your "necessities" category too. I used to live across from low income housing in Ottawa. The house across from me had a 50" flat screen TV, while I was still watching a tube TV -and this was when flat screen TVs cost > $3K. Since when did a $3K flat screen TV become a "necessity"? If they can afford that, they don't need my tax dollar subsidizing their housing.

That's what happens when you mix up "necessities" and "entitlements", the system gets abused.

Originally Posted by Graeme S

Things that would qualify as "entitlements" for me would be a lack of inheritance tax for anything under $5,000,000(!), a lower tax rate on dividends and investments than on conventional income, and programs like that. These qualify as entitlements to me because it rewards people only for having more than others do. These people feel they are "entitled" to more because they already have it. Makes no sense to me.

I agree tax reforms are necessary. I understand why dividends and capital gains taxes are lower, to encourage reinvestment, yet the system is broken and needs to be fixed.

Flat tax, no entitlements. Easy, done, fixed.

[TheNewGirl]

In the states the Republicans recently started forcing a bill that will restrict tax payer funded abortions, previously given to women who were raped or the victims of incest. Now they've defined rape as only being rape if it involves physical violence, no longer the threat there of, or other forms of cohersion (so if you get drugged and raped.. that's no longer rape you have to have the baby. If you're 13 and he's 30... that's stat rape but you have to have the baby any how).

The basis for this is theoretically a cost saving measure to limit government funded procedures. They cost about $900 a procedure.

Additionally, funding to plan parenthood has been almost entirely extinguished because American politicians would have you feel PP is a big abortion warehouse. When actually they're the largest supplier of free, easily accessed birth control to young people.

Anyone read much Gladwell? He has a wonderful article on the correlation between increase in crime and reduced availablility abortion (and birth control), as well as increased strain on the foster system. This makes sense doesn't it... unwanted kids = neglected kids = increase in foster kids or criminals.

That cut funding to the $900 abortion, down the road becomes $2000/month for a foster child or $3000/month for juvie.

There's several really interesting studies as well on how providing free homes for homeless people decreases the cost and strain on health care and other emergency services. That tracked the mounting costs for emergency treatment for persons with no coverage against the costs if they'd had access to basic living needs and preventative medical care and found that interventions were exponentially cheaper.

This is true in mental health as well with early access and basic funding preventing much larger scale burdens in the future.

A lot of those things you dismissively call "entitlement" actually make economic sense. But you know, it's easy when you're sitting here in Canada where you can go to the doctor when ever you want, where your school is free and safe, where the economy is mostly stable to sneer at people who don't have any of that and go 'suck it up princess that's a waste of money get a better job if you want health care or food'.

It's also a VERY short term and narrow way of looking at the world.

There ARE ways to pay for this stuff with out breaking the bank. We do it here in our own country.

[zulutango]

One of pPlanned parenthood's biggest sources of income is from the abortions and income has not been extinguished..

Planned Parenthood’s Latest Annual Report:
Abortions at America’s Billion-Dollar Abortion Chain
Nearly Double in Past 10 Years
BY Randall K. O'Bannon, Ph.D.

According to its latest annual report, clinics affiliated with the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) performed 305,310 abortions in 2007, an all-time record for the nation’s largest abortion provider. While the number of abortions in the U.S. has dropped nearly every year since the 1990 peak of 1.6 million, they have consistently been on the increase at PPFA. In fact, they have nearly doubled in the last 10 years from 165,174 in 1997.

Today, Planned Parenthood is responsible for more than a quarter of all abortions performed annually in the United States. While Planned Parenthood tries to minimize the centrality of abortion to its mission, the 2007–08 report clearly shows that the promotion and performance of abortion remains at the core of Planned Parenthood’s business and mission.

Abortion as Only 3% of PPFA Services?

An increasingly common PPFA response is to say that abortion represents only 3% of all the services they provided in 2007. Technically, one can say this if every packet of pills, every test, every exam a client receives is counted as a separate service. But looked at in a more normal way, trying to see what percentage of Planned Parenthood’s customers receive abortions, we get a figure closer to 10.1%. Even that doesn’t capture the full impact.

Abortion is quite often bundled with a number of those other services (the abortion patient often receives and pays for a number of connected services, such as Rh testing, ultrasound, STD testing, the HPV vaccine, a take-home pack of contraceptives). Thus, abortion and abortion-related services account for a much, much bigger piece of the pie than 3% or even 10%.

Consider PPFA’s $374.7 million clinic income for the fiscal year ending June 2008.

Funding the Abortion Agenda

PPFA took in over $1 billion in revenues from all sources in the fiscal year running July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008. Over a third, nearly $350 million, came in the form of “Government Grants and Contracts”—your tax dollars and mine.

Private donors were responsible for nearly a quarter with “Contributions and Bequests” totaling $244.9 million. “Health Center Income” was the biggest source of revenue (see above) with “Other” bringing in an additional $68.9 million.Planned Parenthood not only takes in a great deal of money from abortion, it also spends a great deal of money, time, and energy perfecting, promoting, and defending it.

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by TheNewGirl

blah blah blah ... abortions ... blah blah blah

My GF works for BC's version of Planned Parenthood, so I am very aware of the debate, and of how its funded.

I wouldn't call abortions an entitlement program, yet I wouldn't call them a necessity either. They cost between a couple dollars for the pills or ~$500 for the surgery, not beyond the reach of most people if they really want it done. Its not like most of us don't have a support group if we need it - we'd just rather reach into the nameless government cookie jar than dare ask family/friends for the money.

I've read all of Gladwell's books, and everything is very logical, yet look at how many here are arguing "morals" or "rights" to justify their programs - yet then are going to give me hell over my morals: hard work, take care of yourself, cleanup your own mess. It is logical to give clean needles to junkies, yet my morals will never stand condoning open drug use to that degree.

[TheNewGirl]

I'm just using that as an example though of one of the ways some of the "cost cutting measures" are actually costing more in the long run.

I look at things from a financial perspective and I think in the state that the US is in they can't afford to be taking the moral high ground on issues that ultimately are going to bankrupt them further. And really that's exactly what's going on right now.

It's about the $$$s. But like I said, a lot of people are using the $ as an excuse to enforce their morality on people to greater ultimate cost.

I think it's INSANE that they have so many American families on food stamps for example, but that's a symptom of a greater problem. Cutting the food stamp budget will just shift that cost to crime or health care because just saying 'your budget is reduced by half' doesn't magically solve the problem.

Even looking at the junkie debate. I am ALL for insite and needle exchange. I don't agree with hard core drug use. But I would rather a small portion of my tax dollars go to clean needles then a larger portion go to caring for junkie HIV drug cocktails. I accept that some of my tax dollars though are going to have to go to dealing with junkies. And that being the case I want it to be firstly efficient, secondly cost effective and if possible, thirdly, doing something to reduce or aid in the problem.

[cressydrift]

[Great68]

It sucks that in society, the financially responsible people have to buck up for the irresponsible, but I'd rather someone get a welfare check to pay for food than my TV which they just broke into my house to steal.

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by Great68

It sucks that in society, the financially responsible people have to buck up for the irresponsible, but I'd rather someone get a welfare check to pay for food than my TV which they just broke into my house to steal.

I used to think that way, now I just want a higher fence and a gun...

[Death2Theft]

I'd much rather have gov pay for the abortions than risk even one child being raised by a parent milking the system for 18 years.

[Gt-R R34]

You guys are getting off-topic with the abortions.

Freaknomics for the rest of you.

[PhilosophyMajor]

am i missing something here? obama is offering 4 trillion in spending cuts and the republicans are basically rejecting any and every offer he's trying to make. how screwed up has american politics gotten that one party is basically unwilling to take a single compromise and is seemingly holding the US and world economy hostage to score political points?