The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Oct 9, 2008 8:48:47 GMT -5
This is a pretty incredible sign of the times: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7660409.stm"The US government's debts have ballooned so badly the National Debt Clock in New York has run out of digits to record the spiraling figure." This is one thing that neither candidate is prepared to fix.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Oct 9, 2008 8:53:10 GMT -5
I've heard that debts don't matter. Unfortunately, when I tried telling that to Sallie Mae, they didn't seem to agree.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,457
|
Post by TC on Oct 9, 2008 9:31:45 GMT -5
This is one thing that neither candidate is prepared to fix. Can we at least be somewhat realistic in what we expect from the next President? Our national debt is roughly equivalent to our GDP. How on earth would any President fix that in four years?
|
|
jgalt
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,380
|
Post by jgalt on Oct 9, 2008 9:39:12 GMT -5
This is one thing that neither candidate is prepared to fix. Can we at least be somewhat realistic in what we expect from the next President? Our national debt is roughly equivalent to our GDP. How on earth would any President fix that in four years? They dont have to fix it, but they should at least recognize how much they add to it every day. Neither of them seems to have any working knowledge of basic economics and they arent off to a good start (where do you think that 700B just went?)
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Oct 9, 2008 11:20:38 GMT -5
This is one thing that neither candidate is prepared to fix. Can we at least be somewhat realistic in what we expect from the next President? Our national debt is roughly equivalent to our GDP. How on earth would any President fix that in four years? I didn't mean to say that they can eliminate the debt. That's clearly impossible right now. However, they can make progress on it. The first step would be reducing the deficit, which is very possible, although neither candidate is really talking about doing it. The second step would be to turn the deficit into a surplus. That's probably impossible for this next term, but they could set the stage for a surplus in a potential second term. Remember, we're only a decade removed from record surpluses. Things have obviously changed a lot since then, but it's not an impossible goal.
|
|
rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
Post by rosslynhoya on Oct 9, 2008 12:09:00 GMT -5
The biggest change is that there used to be a couple hundred members of Congress who at least sensed that spending should be kept under control. Now, aided and abetted by a grotesquely irresponsible administration, everyone accepts that the sole function of the federal government is to spend money as quickly as it can be printed (and then to print some more if we run out).
The focus on earmarks trivializes the overall wastefulness. The "Bridge to Nowhere" only made headlines because it was an earmark. A block grant from the USDOT to the AK DOT could have been blown on ten Bridges to Nowhere and no one would be the wiser. I like to think each time the vitally important annual highway bill comes up, what would happen if we took a year off from federal road construction? Could we just knock a half trillion off the debt, and maybe make it to our summer vacation destinations a couple hours quicker?
|
|
mchoya
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 376
|
Post by mchoya on Oct 9, 2008 15:10:52 GMT -5
Rosslyn, if you want a case of spending, run amok, just look at the bailout. The 700 billion dollar bailout is packed with subsidies for wool, rum, and "Exemption from excise tax for certain wooden arrows designed for use by children", among others. These subsidies are pushing the bill's cost to over 800 billion dollars: www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95320567Also, here is the text of the bill: online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/senatebillAYO08C32_xml.pdf Search for your favorite earmark. Remember when McCain said he would call out everyone by name who supported earmarks? Wouldn't Tuesday's debate have been a great place to start? What were the House Republicans doing killing one bill and spending more money on the next one? Why did Pelosi move to a vote when she couldn't ensure a majority from her own party and why did she make a consensus-killing inflammatory speech? Why didn't the Dems kill this bill if it was out of line? Everyone has been complicit, and it's ridiculously annoying. The leadership on the hill, Democrat, Republican, and Independent, has been woeful at best, and is a reason why we won't reduce our debt anytime soon.
|
|
rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
Post by rosslynhoya on Oct 9, 2008 15:47:12 GMT -5
|
|
jgalt
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,380
|
Post by jgalt on Oct 9, 2008 16:33:52 GMT -5
We don't really have a Constitution anymore. here, here. thats the way its been for quite some time and its only going to get worse
|
|
FewFAC
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,032
|
Post by FewFAC on Oct 10, 2008 0:31:36 GMT -5
I suppose I did bring this up at various points in various threads, so I should comment. However, comma, I do not believe this issue is very serious should the legislative branch decide to engage in some type of discipline rather than rubber stamp various provisions because their party leadership has decided to demonize and withhold financial support from reelection campaigns based on partisan voting records.
Never have I been so in favor of anorexic/bulimic behavior as I am now in congressional responses to party leadership. Being "for us" or "against us" could have led to no other place, and maybe the voter has finally come to the conclusion that cannot be avoided.
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Oct 13, 2008 12:01:53 GMT -5
The focus on earmarks trivializes the overall wastefulness. The "Bridge to Nowhere" only made headlines because it was an earmark. A block grant from the USDOT to the AK DOT could have been blown on ten Bridges to Nowhere and no one would be the wiser. I like to think each time the vitally important annual highway bill comes up, what would happen if we took a year off from federal road construction? Could we just knock a half trillion off the debt, and maybe make it to our summer vacation destinations a couple hours quicker? This is something to highlight. In FY2008, $16.5 billion was spent on all earmarks. That includes "pork" as well as programs and things that majority of Americans support: funding for national parks and other kinds of conservation, grants to veterans and for national security, etc. FY2008 budget was $2.47 trillion---with discretionary making up only $1.14 trillion of that, and $611 billion going toward defense and military spending. That said, there is always enormous opportunity to make positive fiscally-responsible change in this country. I forget his name, but on Morning Joe this morning someone had a good point: that one of the things America needs is the return to risk-reward innovation and entrepreneurialism rather than pure risk-assessment, risk-avoidance profit mongering.
|
|