-
Website
http://themoderatevoice.com/ -
Original page
http://themoderatevoice.com/51360/democrats-notice-theyre-spending-us-into-oblivion/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
AustinRoth: Why don't we cut social entitlement programs by 100%? That would get rid of it even quicker.
It depends on how you count your change. Take a look. The major difference is that most of our entitlement programs are not funded on debt - Social Security, for example, runs a surplus that buys other government debt (such as that created by bloated defense spending).
At any rate, neither is going to happen.
More to the point: "Democrats Notice They’re Spending Us Into Oblivion" is not strictly true. If we look at US Debt versus sources of revenue for the US Government, we aren't really in that bad of trouble. The Government takes in something like $2.5 trillion in revenues from an economy that's roughly $15 trillion per year. I think our total debt is about $60 trillion. The size of the numbers makes them scary, but it's easier to understand this way.
Our debt is 24 times our current income. That would be like holding $1.2 million in debt on a salary of $50,000 (something I don't advise). There are two things that make it impossible - first, interest payments on debt; and second, the fixed income.
The solution is simple: generate a surplus and use some of it to pay down the debt. If, for example, the government revenues were $3 trillion, then our debt is only 20 times our current income (which is still huge, don't get me wrong). But rather than having a roughly $300 billion deficit, we would have a roughly $300 billion surplus. If that is applied direct to debt, then four years would pay off $1.2 trillion worth of debt - which would begin cutting back on our interest payments.
The thing to do is to both raise revenues slightly and cut back on spending - so that $3 trillion of revenue raises a $500 billion surplus in every year. In four years, you retire $2 trillion worth of debt, rather than only $1.2 trillion. It's the difference in paying off the whole thing in 200 years versus paying it off in 120 years. Obviously, if you slice spending and raise taxes to the point of retiring debt at the rate of $1 billion per year, the pay-off time is much lower.
The problem is that we lack the political will to even do one thing - cut spending or raise revenues - much less to accomplish both. What we have is two parties who are embracing the flip-side of irresponsibility.
The truth of the matter is that discretionary and nondiscretionary spending exploded during Bush's first term in office, surged again during his final year in office, and is now accelerating even faster under Obama and a Democrat-controlled congress.
The idea that the president can't be held responsible for deficit spending since it's congress that writes the bills is a joke since all it takes is a swipe of the President's veto pen to send a bill into the dustbin of history.
I see a lot of hypocrisy and feigned outrage coming from both sides. All the concern coming from Republicans regarding spending and big government is pretty much empty rhetoric given their silence during the Bush era. And all the "But Bush did it too" rhetoric coming from Democrats, even as they unapologetically clamor for even more spending and bigger government under Obama is equally hypocritical.
Maybe instead of blaming the other party, people throughout the blogosphere (including here at TMV) ought to be considering how they've voted over the last several years. How many people complaining about government spending and deficits decided to vote to give Bush a second term back in 2004, considering the disastrous job he did during his first term? How many people complaining about government spending and deficits decided to vote straight ticket Democrat in 2008, as if single party rule was going to solve anything?
If you people continue to keep voting for Democrats and Republicans--particularly if it's to put a single party in control of both the Executive and Legislative branches--why should you you expect anything to change?
It doesn't actually matter whether it was the Democrats, the Republicans, or little green aliens from Mars who drove up the numbers. The operable data is this: we're facing a crushing fiscal situation, and *the Dems are in charge right now*.! This very moment, they are the ones who have to lead. No time for sitting and stewing and fretting and pointing and blaming.
You'd make an excellent military leader, Polimom (if you aren't one already).
Well said.
That's a mighty big elephant in the room that many here choose to ignore in all this but I've done all I can and see no value in playing "yeah but" anymore.
It's simply amazing that anyone can, with a straight face, say Obama that should have fixed the damage done to our country and economy over the last eight years in eight months.
I have to agree with AustinRoth that you did not, in fact, refute the claim I made about the deficit being turned around and reduced only at times during Democratic Presidents and Republican Congresses.
For some reason you went into damage control mode to protect your beloved party. I wasn't even slamming democrats. You ought to know by now that I am a democrat. I was merely pointing out trends.
Austin is also correct that the Congress controls the purse strings. However.... The President WRITES the budget. It is only approved by Congress. My main point is that the government works well with a Democratic President and a Republican Congress. They compliment each other.
Regardless, when one party controls both branches - things get out of hand. Something tells me that you agreed with that in 2001 when Repubs controlled it all. Something also tells me that you don't hold the same candle up to the Democrats now, however.
You really should. This ain't about party. It should NEVER be about party.
Your bias seems to have caused you to lose the ability to comprehend the fact that the President and the 111th Congress have only been in session for nine months. And you implication that "recent history" is only the last nine month is silly.
Where was your concern when the republicans (and the George W Bush administration in particular) got us into this mess? Much of the trillions of current "wasteful spending" is the same military funding that Bush funded, the difference?.. President Obama put on the books where it belonged. From a surplus to a multitrillion dollar deficit in eight years of George Bush and all the republicans can say is "You've gotta quit blaming Bush."
It's embarrassing and it's shameful for the right expects all the economic problems caused by ten years of republican mismanagement and failure to be solved in nine months. And all the republican minority seems to be doing is exacerbating the problem with divisive tactics.
"to the extent it was there to begin with" eh Austin? You're starting to sound like jwest.
You've already forgetting the flurry of calls and letters to congress at that time? Or maybe you're thinking that Bush was popular and that mainstream Republicans were cheering him on? I remember the MSM screaming at the top of its lungs that it was desperately needed or we would all die, and both presidential candidates practically falling over each other to get back to congress first so that they could get it passed, but not the people. Of course, Bush was on his way out, so there wasn't much anyone could do to him, but I know a lot of people were relieved (temporarily) when congress first rejected the bailouts.
I know this isn't going sit well with many of you, but domestically, Obama seems to be just a continuation of Bush.
You are grasping at straws, misrepresentation and outright lies rather than just saying 'I misread the meaning of JD's post.'
That tells us a lot about your lack of character. I have in the past when shown to be wrong or having misinterpreted someone's words been more than willing to admit it.
Man up, dude.
1) On Medicare, we are planning major cuts (particularly to Medicare Advantage) and if the larger health care bill bends the total cost curve then it will help. Still, health care is going to continue to eat up an alarming slice of the American budget as we live longer, eat unhealthy food, and use fancy technology.
2) On Social Security the answer is pretty easy if a commission gives the political cover to do it: Raise the retirement age to 67, and raise the cap from roughly 90k to 130k. That will take care of a HUGE chunk of our deficit and our long term debt.
3) On defense, continue cutting wasteful weapons systems and move away from neocon imperial fantasies.
Eventually we will need to raise income taxes, though probably not by a lot. We've seen over the last few decades that marginal increases and decreases in income tax rates have virtually no effect on the national economy - but a large effect on the government's balance sheet.
Make the bold choices on long-term spending and revenue and we will be alright.
1.) Means test Social Security. Warren Buffet and the elderly very rich don't need it.
2.) Tax everyone's earnings fully for SS. The arbitrary $106,000 or whatever it is, makes no sense. (and the antitaxers can bite it--I would guarantee that my husband and I would pay much more tax--but we would gladly, if it helped get the country back on track)
3.) Encourage hospice and comfort care at end of life, rather than expensive tests and procedures that may lengthen life slightly, but add incredible costs to he rest of us.
4.) Get the hell out of Dodge--Afghanistan and Iraq.
That would be a start.
Even the few cuts that Obama suggested earlier this year are now being snubbed by his own party. You would think that out of 2.5 trillion, something could be cut out.
However, that was only the case after 1976. After 1976 our politics and economy changed. Our politics became more divisive and our economy shifted into "service" mode after jobs began to be shipped out of the country. It was also the time our energy became irreversibly controlled by foreign dictatorships and monarchs.
Now with a Democratic President and Congress our debt is climbing at the fastest rate in history. That worked in 1945 since we had a huge industrial sector with jobs a-plenty. It just won't work the same this time around. The spending will be just that - spending. No tangible benefits for the working man.
Stevek,
So what is your position? That the Democrats are blameless? You originally said it wasn't the Democrats who "spent us into oblivion." Well, you're wrong. With the exception of a couple of years, the Democrats have held either Congress or the White house for for the past several decades. They could have put a lid on spending and they didn't. Neither did the Republicans. Holding one party or another blameless is willful ignorance of the facts.
The fact that Congress didn't have a spine to stand up to Bush doesn't change the fact that budgetary power rests with Congress. Now the Democrats are in charge of both branches. So tell us, what is going to happen? Somehow I seriously doubt we'll be seeing the surpluses we had in the 1990's simply because the party you like is in power.
WTF? Your own chart shows the line firing upwards when Obama takes office.
Hint - Obama is a Democrat!
Placing those with the original graphs depicting Presidential rule, another conclusion can be reached.
The eras of most downward trend were during times when a Democratic President was presiding with a Full Republican Congress (Truman and Clinton). Both of these instances were reversals of upward debt into a better economy and lower debt.
At no time in history has such a reversal been acheived with same party rule with the President and Congress. That goes for both parties.
And yes, the Democrats are indeed running us into debt oblivion. And yes, it was started by a Republican (Bush). The ghost of Bush can no longer be blamed when it is THEIR votes that cause the debt to go higher.
The last sentence of your comment:Is what I was addressing.
106th United States Congress - January 3, 1999 to January 3, 2001
The Senate - January 3, 1999 - 55 Republicans / 45 Democrats
The Senate Republicans had a 54% to 46% majority (with Lieberman and the BlueDogs voting the GOP line)
The numbers in the House fluctuates but the final voting share was Republicans 51.2% Democrats 48.5%.
107th United States Congress - January 3, 2001 to January 3, 2003
The Senate - January 3, 2001 - 50 Republicans / 50 Democrats
The Senate Republicans had a 51.5% to 48.5% majority (with Lieberman and the BlueDogs voting the GOP line)
The numbers in the House fluctuates but the final voting share was Republicans 52.0% Democrats 48.0%.
108th United States Congress - January 3, 2003 to January 3, 2005
The Senate - January 3, 2003 - 50 Republicans / 48 Democrats / 1 Independent / 1 Ind (D)
The Senate Republicans had a 51% to 49% majority (with Lieberman and the BlueDogs voting the GOP line)
The numbers in the House fluctuates but the final voting share was Republicans 52.0% Democrats 48.0%.
109th United States Congress - January 3, 2005 to January 3, 2007
The Senate - January 3, 2005 - 55 Republicans / 44 Democrats / 1 Independent
The Senate Republicans had a 55% to 45% majority (with Lieberman and the BlueDogs voting the GOP line)
The numbers in the House fluctuates but the final voting share was Republicans 53.0% Democrats 47.0%.
110th United States Congress - January 3, 2007, and January 3, 2009
The Senate - January 3, 2007 - 48 (49) Democrats / 2 (1) Independent / 49 Republicans
The Senate Democrats had a 50.5% to 49.5% majority (with Lieberman and the BlueDogs voting the GOP line)
The numbers in the House fluctuates but the final voting share was Democrats 54.3% Republicans 45.7%.
111th United States Congress - January 3, 2009, and January 3, 2011
The Senate - January 3, 2009 - 58 Democrats / 2 Independent / 40 Republicans
The Senate Democrats had a 60% to 40% majority (with Lieberman and the BlueDogs voting the GOP line)
The numbers in the House fluctuates but the final voting share was Democrats 59.1% Republicans 40.9%.
In the last 10 years:
2 Congresses (106th / 109th) had a strong Republican majority. 4 years. 2 years w/ D 2 years w/ R President
3 Congresses (107th / 108th / 110th) were balanced. 6 years. 6 years w/ R President
1 Congress (110th) has a strong Democrat majority. 9 MONTHS. 9 MONTHS w/ D President
Like JD says (after looking at one graph) the numbers prove that this mess just HAS to be the Democrats fault... LOL
EDIT: Lieberman on $1B+ War Funding. Blue Dogs on economic issues.
Your bias seems to be causing you to lose your ability to read and comprehend, to the extent it was there to begin with.
Your post makes no sense as a counter-point as you try to present it, as it only goes to support what JD said - that the times of real deficit reduction in recent history are during a Democratic President with a Republican Congress.
How do you think showing Bush had a Republican Congress and making pithy remarks about it proves anything other than his point?
Last time I checked the Congress is the constitutional body responsible for creating and passing a budget, not the President.
Look at your chart again and consider which party controlled Congress.
And really, both parties are quite guilty of running up the budget. Arguing which one is worse is kind of pointless.
You're deluding yourself if you really believe the Democrats aren't responsible for our budget mess - they are, but so are the Republicans.
His point is obvious, even if you choose to feign ignorance. It is not the Executive that controls the purse strings, but the Legislative Branch.
But, I will concede the point that the President has a very strong influence on the spending decision of Congress. So again, as I just stated in my last post, notice the hockey-stick effect in your own chart since Obama took office.
Do you really think that the spending will go down once the worse part of the recession is over? Given the history of the Democrats in California, Maryland, Chicago, etc. The higher level of spending is with us forever. The Democrats just do not want to take resposibility for the coming massive tax increases. They would prefer to blame the Republicans by using a "Bipartisan commission" to jack taxes on middle class and upper middle class white through the roof.
As a fellow Democrat, let's be honest: The Dems need to get spending under control. The Blue Dog coalition should lead the way on this, since they have some fiscal credibility. I'd like to think Pelosi and Reid will wake up and smell the coffee, but they seem oblivious to the financial cliff we're off which we're on the verge of hurdling.
Also, not all spending is bad. But we definitely need to reign it in. But hey, the Big 2 have it all figured out: back-forth and blame and do the same. Whatever...
I'd snicker but it's a sickening joke on Americans as well as on America.