All angry all the time

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Crockett, Sep 12, 2021.

  1. AC

    AC 2,500+ Posts

    Get rid of the debt ceiling? Is so, what do you propose?
    US has a 130% debt to GDP ratio, worst since WWII. The USD has lost 98% of its value or buying power since 1913!
     
  2. Chop

    Chop 5,000+ Posts

    Some of the better sources of news remaining:

    - Wall Street Journal
    - Christian Science Monitor
    - The Hill (a bit more biased than the above two, but still pretty good)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Chop

    Chop 5,000+ Posts

    For a mostly intelligent, mostly well-reasoned, right wing polemic, written by some of the brighter bulbs who lean well to the right-of-center, get the free IMPRIMUS from Hillsdale College—With the understanding that it’s not objective, and doesn't pretend to be.

    Same goes for any publication by the Federalist Society.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    And I think it has cost them votes. I think there are suburbanites and even some urbanites who were always more socially liberal than the party base to varying degrees but rationalized their vote with the GOP because it at least wasn't going to go on reckless spending binges and bankrupt the country. That rationalization is a lot harder to make now that we've ditched entitlement reform as a pursuit and spent the last 4 years pitching all fiscal restraint to the wind.

    Some will argue that the Democrats' wild spending bills should make it easier to make that case, and they have a point. However, I suspect that these bills mostly just further damage the Democrats' credibility on fiscal responsibility without doing much to improve ours. I think time needs to pass and our leadership and priorities need to change to get our credibility back.
     
  5. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    Something real like a balanced budget amendment. The debt ceiling is a political grandstanding mechanism, not a real force to reduce the debt, because we know the limit will always be raised.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  6. Vol Horn 4 Life

    Vol Horn 4 Life 5,000+ Posts

    Yes, this. There should be a budget set and by law they can't spend over that amount. Right now they spend what they want then say, "well, if we don't increase the debt ceiling the economy will collapse". Most people are too stupid to see through this tactic....and yes it is a tactic by both Republicans and Democrats.
     
  7. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    Economic collapse might be somewhat of an exaggeration, but bad **** would happen if we truly refused to raise the debt ceiling. I don't mean by some deadline being missed by a day. That's not the end of the world. I mean a true, permanent refusal. If that happened, we would default on the debt, which means it would become much harder to take on debt when we actually need to. We'd become a poorer credit risk.

    I'm not per se against deficit spending. Deficit spending saved our *** in World War II. I don't mind deficit spending when war has been declared. I don't mind it when it's done for true infrastructural investments. For example, there was nothing wrong with borrowing money to build the interstate highway system. What's really bad is when you're doing it for ongoing expenditures, which is what we've been doing for so long.

    A balanced budget amendment wouldn't end deficit spending because it would have a narrow set of exceptions (war and carefully defined infrastructure). However, it would end the year-in-year out fiscal shitshow that we see now.

    Until we have a BBA, I'd also like to see the GOP stop making protecting tax cuts the top priority in budget negotiations. That just protects the public from the consequences of our reckless spending. If anything, they should do the opposite. The surest way to rein in spending is to make the public actually pay for the spending it demands. Do that, and people will care a lot more about it.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Hot Hot x 1
  8. nashhorn

    nashhorn 5,000+ Posts

    Ain’t gonna happen any more than term limits. No, I’m not trying to spark another discussion of that just making a contrarian comment.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. humahuma

    humahuma 500+ Posts

    I agree, however the Dem also want a certain tax bracket to pay. I want most everyone to kick in for taxes from 0% to a cap of 25% on a sliding slope get rid of deductions except for home. For instance, you make $60,000 your tax maybe 2% you make a million your tax maybe 10%. I want most Americans to feel and see where the Feds are our money taxes.
     
  10. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    That's great, but if we're going to spend like a country with a 40 percent tax bracket, then we should have a 40 percent tax bracket. We shouldn't just dump it on our kids' credit card.
     
  11. humahuma

    humahuma 500+ Posts

    True, that was an example, cap it at 40%. You could design it as if you make less than 40K pay 0 taxes. It’s all about revenue coming in and getting more people to pay taxes.
     
  12. HornHuskerDad

    HornHuskerDad 5,000+ Posts

    And we can hope that voters would favor decreases in spending rather than increases in taxes.
     
  13. nashhorn

    nashhorn 5,000+ Posts

    Yah know HHD I’m no longer confident the public even understands that it’s their money. It’s just gimme, gimme, gimme.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  14. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    They think that because they don't pay for what they receive. Our grandkids are paying for it.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 2
  15. OUBubba

    OUBubba Reluctant and Bullied Sponsor

    Agree
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. BrntOrngStmpeDe

    BrntOrngStmpeDe 1,000+ Posts

    I would propose a more flexible measure to account for actual emergencies.

    --- Balanced budget is the norm
    ---Allowed to exceed by 10% for 2 yrs in a row, but by the 3rd yr, balancing is again a requirement. If that means taxes must go up, so be it. If that means entitlements must go away, so be it. But whatever the real cost is, it must be borne by the people right then and there. No passing the buck and doing giveaways today so we can make future generations pay for them later.
     
  17. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    I just want the voters to pay each year for the government they want. None of this credit card BS except in "break glass case in emergency" situations.

    Balanced Budget is where my views intersect with many on the right. If that means Social Security and other programs reduce benefits, so be it. If that means our military is a bit smaller or we need to prioritize spending for the next war then so be it.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  18. humahuma

    humahuma 500+ Posts

    Glad you can agree on the right on balance budget but lately the right hasn’t even pretended to care about balancing the budget. Also I wouldn’t want to cut SS or the Military too much, there are other programs and entitlements that need cutting.
     
  19. Sangre Naranjada

    Sangre Naranjada Winebibber

    If you cannot cut SS, Medicare, and the military, you cannot balance the budget without wildly increasing taxes.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
  20. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    You've taken some of the biggest Fed Spending targets off the table. Without serious cuts to those then we're just nibbling at the edges.

    Radical thought...fund SS only so far as the Baby boomers get through then kill the program. Yes, that means the younger generation continue to pay in for a programt that won't be there but then the message it you BETTER plan on your own for retirement.
     
  21. humahuma

    humahuma 500+ Posts

    Where did I do that? Reading comp. I said I wouldn’t want to cut them much, I recognize they would have to be cut. But there some programs Fed needs to completely get rid of. Getting rid of SS would be a tough sale and a hard pill to swallow for some people. Who are you some radical right winger?
     
  22. huisache

    huisache 2,500+ Posts

    You BETTER plan ahead doesn’t work and there might be twenty pols in Congress who would vote for it. Maybe

    SS is there forever so figure on paying for it. Once the boomers bump has died off the actuarials look ok.
     
  23. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    It was the "not much" that hung me up. To make real progress on a balanced budget (or better yet paying down the debt) we need more than "not much". SS, MediCare/MediCaid and Defense is 69.5% of the budget. The entire budget needs to be scrutinized but in most cases "other programs" are mere rounding errors.

    [​IMG]
     
    • Like Like x 1
  24. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    I'm not saying it's easy but rather SS was set up as a giant ponzi scheme that assumed there would be more people paying in than those getting benefits. The Baby Boomers ****** us there when they didn't reproduce themselves.

    Medicare is even worse if you look at how much the average recipient pays in vs. the benefits they receive.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2021
  25. OUBubba

    OUBubba Reluctant and Bullied Sponsor

  26. humahuma

    humahuma 500+ Posts

    Right, I want them cutting everything some 5% some programs 100%, I don’t want to have the military or SS have their budget cut 50%.

    I don’t know what to do about SS, I sure don’t like the government in control and borrowing against it. Maybe phase it out after the baby boomers. New workers you are on your own like you said, I know my company did that no more pensions for new hires.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  27. nashhorn

    nashhorn 5,000+ Posts

    Nice find Bubba but I don’t think it was hard cause they (both parties) are full of crap on that issue. You could find the same thing on the Dems when the GOP is back in power.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  28. BrntOrngStmpeDe

    BrntOrngStmpeDe 1,000+ Posts

    We don't want to be without 'defense' but there is a TREE-MEN-DOUS amount of bloat in that budget. Defense spending could be cut back substantially and not actually effect readiness to engage in a real war. These paper targets that the bean counters use to judge 'readiness' are bogus targets. If the SHTF then we've got the bombs and bullets to do what needs to get done. The bloated defense budget is as much about handing out money to favored districts as it is protecting America. Trimming the fat in the defense budget is appropriate now and then. but that philosophy certainly goes for the other 2/3's as well(SS and Medicare). just as a small example, most National Guard units are outfitted with very expensive HMMV's at about 60-100K a pop back in 1990. They did not need HMMVs to drive 300 miles to Ft Hood so they could train for 2 weeks. It was a piss poor use of funding. While driving a HMMV is different than a GMC truck (80's transpo) it is not so different that every friggin unit needed their own complete fleet. And don't even get me started on the waste of 8 different uniform changes, or the Navy fleet or dumb *** fixed wing decisions in the AF. Our military (God love 'em) needs to be served notice that the post 09/11 boondoggle days are long past.

    And this is from a guy that did 23 years in the Army. We must do better with our dollars.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  29. BrntOrngStmpeDe

    BrntOrngStmpeDe 1,000+ Posts

    SS has long been a program preparing for disaster. Every generation has drawn out of it more than what they paid into it. And that forces the pols and bean counters to develop dumb programs to grow the population. That is just STUPID. We do need to axe it. However, we do need something for people to build a retirement.

    1. As much as I would like for Americans to be responsible, the truth is that many are living hand to mouth and trying to save for retirement is a distant thought. coming from that place, i can empathize with this issue and I think we should have a program that helps (if not mandates) a saving program. Leaving the poor to make food vs. retirement decisions is always going to result in food/rent.
    2. How do you incentivize people sufficiently to do the smart thing and plan/save?
    3. For me, a decent answer is to require a minimum investment account contribution each month from the paycheck but it doesn't go into the Govt coffer to distro. You must contribute to a plan like a 401k that is handled outside of GOV. However, it is not tied to your employer. I really dislike how our health and retirement plans are tied to employers. while there is portability, it is a pain in the ***. It would be better if we made the plan stable and then forced employers to adapt to the ubiquitous plans rather than the employers dictating the plans and the employee adjusting to the employer's plans.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  30. Horn6721

    Horn6721 10,000+ Posts

    BOSD
    If you are wanting an automatic retirement plan but don't want the gov't OR the employer involved Who would manage it?
     

Share This Page