I occurs to me that some of you may be confused about my "political" stance after my recent posts. Let me try to clarify my position:

If anyone thinks the mainstream Republicans, tea party Republicans, mainstream Democrats, blue dog Democrats, the Green Party, American Socialist Party, etc., etc. (I sort of lose track of all the players), owns the "one true ring", I think they are sadly deluded. In my opinion, none of these groups is interested in anything more than increasing their power base.

Their "event horizons" only include the last election and the next election. They have nothing more in mind.

Until we, as a Nation of voters, can convince these elected public servants to learn to work together, for the good of the Country, the situation will not improve.

So, how can we make this possible? It's really quite easy. We have to learn to vote for people who "can reach across the isle". Every vote cast for a "hard-liner" is a vote to destroy this Country.

As a Nation, we learned to work together to make this Country the World's leader. Why can't we demand the same from those we elect?

- Jack

 

No one cares about where you stand

 

There is no 'work together' without a balanced budget. There is no balanced budget with runaway entitlement program spending.

 

I'm afraid you have over-simplified what the problem is in D.C. "Reaching across the isle" is great for sound bites and P.R. purposes, but it has gotten this country 14,000,000,000,000 dollars in debt. If you figure in future obligations, that number is over 80,000,000,000,000 dollars. Obama has spent 4,000,000,000,000 since January 2009. Anyone who is sane can see that this spending cannot continue. And it's going to get worse when Obamacare is fully implemented in 2014.

Compromise is good on some things, but now our country is in dire straits and our profligate spending needs to be cut. Our debt being downgraded is just the beginning as more downgrades are forthcoming if we don't cut spending. The standard of living of every American depends on cuts, not more "stimulus".

In short, the future of America is directly correlated with economics and spending.

Unfortunately, there are those in D.C. who can only hold on to power via handouts through high taxation. It's been going on for almost 50 years. As long as that continues, this country will not prosper.

Don't believe me? Let's revisit this in another 5 years and see where America is compared to today.

 

14 trillion could probably take any 3rd world country and turn it into an economic "leader"

The way i see the U.S. going is it will probably default and be taken over by China within my lifetime (next ~50 years). I can't see the U.S. gov changing its spending habits

 

Thanks, you've just validated my position!

- Jack

 

Agreed! So, how do we get our elected representatives off their "hard-core" positions to make all this happen? I'm all for a balanced budget. And, I'm all for modifying entitlements. Can we possibly also look at ways to increase revenue?

- Jack

 

I'm not "over simplifying" the problem, but I think the Tea Party does. The spending did not start with Obama, or Bush, or Clinton .... But, I DO recall the Bush administration saying words to the effect that "deficit spending was good for the Nation". Why wasn't it bad then?

But, I'm not trying to blame anyone - casting blame is not going to fix anything.

How about a positive effort. Why not adopt the Starbuck's CEO's idea of corporations NOT funding PACs, and instead, using that money to hire workers? You could put a lot of people to work, productively, with that investment.

But maybe, you think the people out of a job should not be employed. After all, manpower is the greatest expense for a company. Technology and off-shore manufacturing can do it cheaper. So, buy Chinese!

When I was getting a haircut today, my barber was talking about an 80-acre farm his family still owned and would not sell. Standing up to Big Ag is just one step in the stairway. Not feeding PACs would be another. Every journey begins with just one step.

- Jack

 

Our debt is still only about 100% of our GDP. There's still hope. There are countries in worse shape than us.

But, we have to have the fortitude to make serious, unpopular decisions. And, in my view those involve both cuts in spending AND increases in revenue. BOTH are possible, if people are willing to work together.

- Jack

 

I am of the opinion, it is just like a voter that has a budget.

If they do not have the money, a responsible person does not spend it.
There are always corner cases that make a person spend money they do not have, but an intelligent person would know what is a Want and what is a Need item in this case.
Car goes paws up, you need another one to get to work.
Have not finished saving for the next one, time to hang some paper for a reasonable purchase.
The Need part is getting what is needed for the task at hand, commuting to work, get a commuter car.
The Want part is when a person buys a BMW 5 series in this case, rather than an actual commuter car.

If the person wants a 5 series, and does not have the money, they should do the smart thing, and get a car that fits the needs, but the other option is to get a 2nd income source to pay for the additional debt. Not always a doable item, but it can be done.

Most people when faced with the prospects of getting a second job or getting a reasonable car, so they can spend time with their family and friend, rather than work 70 hr per week, would chose the reasonable car. Make expenses match income, and don't put that strain on the family time.

The govt ( Fed and state ) are of the case of purchasing that new car, and getting an Audi A8L, while having no down payment, and having 10 other cars to choose from.

They are going to get that additional income, but will complain about it all the way to the bank, and put the strain on relationships ( i.e. businesses being allowed to grow organically again, to create jobs on their own, not jobs that are the result of govt money ).

Ronnie cut taxes ( given this is an order of magnitude greater then vs now ) and took the pain on the front side, to allow the economy to grow organically.
Taxes were added on later, but only after the growth was under way to support the increase in taxes, and not choke off growth. I love how some will point to Ronnie's economic policy as 'snake oil' when it worked.

This is where increasing taxes now could be a reversal to the growth ( albeit continental drift slow ), and the process needs to start somewhere, why not with matching expenses to income like an intelligent person would do ?

The other fact to this, is the 1996 JEC report that showed raising taxes has an inverse reaction to the desired one.
Clinton proved the paper correct ( and Ronnie's move correct ) in regards to raising taxes in his 1st term, put tax revenue on a downward slide after.
Had it not been the result of the explosive growth, the 'surplus' of tax revenue would not have happened. Keep in mind, this surplus was spent.

This is all supposition on my part.

 

Fair tax......it turned several european countries deficits around in 5 years...it can do it with ours also.....

 

Many good points as always, Steve!

I don't totally agree with all of them, but, I bet if it were up to you and me, we'd be able to work something out.

To use your metaphor - we DO need to cut spending - no question. But, a family in this situation often has to look for a second source of income to get things under control.

I think our Country needs to find ways to increase revenue, while it cuts spending.

- Jack

 

If they did not have the expenses to match that is.

Where does this 'China is going to take over' stuff come from ?

The debt that China holds is unsecured, the States were not put up as collateral for the bonds, they are bonds, unsecured.
They are only backed by the faith of the US Gov.
Same thing happened at GM.
GM defaulted on $ 9B of bonds that the CA teachers union held.
What did the teachers union get ? Zero.

The only way China can 'take over" :
1. Invade
2. Buy every company ( and at the point, they would only own Wallstreet, not the fed, state and local govts ), which would be difficult for China to even do.

 

Soak the Rich!
Find out how much Frank makes, use it as a baseline and go up!

 

Sorry Jack, but our manufacturing jobs have been offshored because of onerous government regulations and taxation. There is no capital gains tax in China and very little environmental regs there. They are even bringing a new coal-fired power plant online every 12 days. American companies cannot afford to pay someone a living wage and compete with that.

Greed is most prevalent in D.C, not the boardroom. But hey, those evil corporations sure do make an easy target for politicians, as they accept their campaign cash.

Last I heard was that Obama was counting on raising between 700 million to 1 billion dollars for his re-election campaign.