My #1 political concern - Page 2 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

ERCougar · 09-26-2008, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SCcoug

Solving the debt would require hard choices and difficult compromises from both parties, cutting programs and raising taxes, getting out of costly wars ect. And we'd all have to adjust our personal spending habits and stop our personal deficit spending.

Another problem is the definition of national debt, what number do you use? The treasury website shows that publicly held debt is at 5.6 trillion. It also shows that intra government loans, like dipping in to SS funds, is at 4.1 trillion. That's 9.7 trillion right there. If you add in future SS, medicare, medicaid, it would be much much more. I've heard estimates from 41 trillion to 65 trillion, and that's just national government. Add in household debt it gets worse.

I agree its a big problem we aren't addressing. Seems like we by and large wait until a problem turns into a crisis before we address it and then we scrabble to fix it. Why not confront it now in a calm, reasonable well though out way instead in a frantic manner that we probably won't like the solution.

Sources:
On page 32 it says futre budget shortfall for benifits are 47 trillion over next 75 years.
http://www.gao.gov/financial/fy2007/07frusg.pdf

A paper on US debt and possible solutions from the St Louis Fed
http://research.stlouisfed.org/publi.../Kotlikoff.pdf

US Credit market as percentage of GDP
http://www.rgemonitor.com/globalmacr...e_fainthearted

Aritcle on US household debt
http://www.levy.org/pubs/ppb_88.pdf

Wow...
you just ruined my day.

ute4ever · 09-26-2008, 05:24 PM

Remember in 1992 when the 4.5 trillion debt was one of the main focuses of Bill Clinton's campaign? He said he had a plan to cut it in half over the next four years. I remember one of the debates where he said if he failed to do so, he would not seek reelection in 1996.

BarbaraGordon · 09-26-2008, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERCougar

I agree with you on McCain. The crazy right-wing "conservatives" have gotten to him. The old McCain would have never gone along with his current proposal.

However, I'm not sure how you can be much more sure about Obama. I've seen many question whether his payment mechanisms can match his promised spending. I'm just afraid he's being naive (or dishonest), and I guess if I have a choice out of deficit spending and big government and deficit spending and small government, I'll choose the latter--rectifying things is easier.

I'm open to either candidate, in the end. Whoever can convince me that they care about balancing the budget gets my (totally meaningless) vote.

The difference is, as best as I can tell, that the Dems are brave enough to say, "hey, somebody's got to pay for all this."

You've gotta give the GOP some credit, though (pardon the pun): they are masters of the bait and switch. They run on "It's time for less government and lower taxes." And then they give you more government and a tax deferral.

Brian · 09-26-2008, 05:46 PM

We need a king.
These pieces of poo in DC don't have the guts to really do anything about it.

BarbaraGordon · 09-26-2008, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian

We need a king.
These pieces of poo in DC don't have the guts to really do anything about it.

Are you running? I'll support your bid for the crown.

All-American · 09-26-2008, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian

We need a king.
These pieces of poo in DC don't have the guts to really do anything about it.

Ave Caesar.

Brian · 09-26-2008, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian

We need a king.
These pieces of poo in DC don't have the guts to really do anything about it.

Or maybe a good CEO.

Good corporations work because a smart set of people (the board) select a smart person to run it. The CEO reports to the board, not the people in the cubicles or the urinal cake changers. Which is how good corporations stay solvent.

This obviously has its downsides and is only partly TIC, but I cannot fathom any good solution being made by the smoldering B.M. pile in DC.

Brian · 09-26-2008, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Are you running? I'll support your bid for the crown.

I'm running for Earl. Maybe Viscount.

BarbaraGordon · 09-26-2008, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by All-American

Ave Caesar.

...credit-uri te salutant!!

exUte · 09-27-2008, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Because doing something about it would require taking a stand on issues that Americans don't like: cutting services or raising taxes.

This is not rocket science. But no one would get elected on either or those two platforms.

Americans want something for nothing. And our kids are going to get hosed.

09-26-2008, 05:46 PM	#14
Brian Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Oak Ridge, TN Posts: 1,308	We need a king. These pieces of poo in DC don't have the guts to really do anything about it. __________________ e^(i * pi) + 1 = 0 5 great numbers in one little equation.

09-26-2008, 05:24 PM	#12
ute4ever I must not tell lies Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 5,103	Remember in 1992 when the 4.5 trillion debt was one of the main focuses of Bill Clinton's campaign? He said he had a plan to cut it in half over the next four years. I remember one of the debates where he said if he failed to do so, he would not seek reelection in 1996.