China opED on US downgrade

[Guest 6.8 AR]

You do contradict yourself, Lester, but in a good way.

Personally, if more people paid attention to what Ayn Rand meant, in her writings,

we wouldn't have produced the high number of victims in this country. That cramming

down you mention was the problem all along, along with the compromising by the

country club R's to "just get along" and maintain power.

"There are personally fiscal responsible people in all these groups. Hardly anyone is

completely free of all socialistic thought and hardly anyone does not have a pet gov program."

That's so true. Only in fiction would you find a Henry Rearden, or Francisco d'Anconia. I

wish that wasn't the case.

Back to the OP. China isn't our problem, we are. We are allowing our current crop of leaders to

get away with murder. It's time we conservatives found just enough common ground and picked

some leadership and fix this mess. The Constitution is common ground enough, but no more

manipulation of it.

You don't have the right to Welfare!

The second Amendment did not say anything about restrictions, quite the opposite!

No cradle to grave social services.

No curly cube dumbass light bulbs from China.

Screw NPR!

Screw apples with your Happy Meal. I like a little fries with my salt, please.

You get the picture? I like my freedom.

If a muslim doesn't like us infidels, shoot him first! Pour bacon drippings on him second.

Private enterprise makes the government look like the amateurs they are.

[Guest mikedwood]

I just popped in to check in and read some good stuff. Cause in a minute my wife is going to decide I need to do something besides this Internet thing.

Edited August 9, 2011 by mikedwood

[mav]

They'll riot in the streets when you start taking away their comfy for life jobs... and that doesn't even count what happens when we cut grandpa and grandma off with no social security or medicare.

First off, the only people I know of who are talking about cutting grandma and grandpa off social security and medicare is the left. It is nothing more than a scare tactic used by the left and RINOs any time entitlement reform is suggested. Medicare and social security can be reformed without drastically altering the benefits to those currently on those programs or those about to enter those programs. The Ryan Plan, while very far from perfect, did attempt to do that very thing. What did we hear in response? Nothing but demagogery.

In regards to rioting in the street from those government employees who will be downsized out of a job, that is not guaranteed to happen. If the government will start by enacting pro-growth policies, which includes deregulation, tax reduction, immigration reform and enforcement, etc..., the financial picture won't look so hopeless. Instead of strangling businesses, if the government would create a business-friendly environment, jobs will come back. As the economy recovers and the unemployment rate goes down, government employees can be transitioned from the public to the private sector. If they b**ch and riot because the benefits aren't as great in the private sector, well... that is too d**n bad. For too many years, the number of people making their living off the taxpayer's money has been steadily increasing (it seems like an exponential increase under this president). So yes, we will have to have drastic change in this country. However, that change if done correctly, doesn't have to end in a scorched earth/societal breakdown. The sooner we start, which should have been years ago, the less painful it will be.

[Oh Shoot]

I just popped in to check in and read some good stuff. Cause in a minute my wife is going to decide I need to do something besides this Internet thing.

Well, shame on you for admitting it (and thanks for the thoughtful additon to the topic).

- OS

[JayC]

They maybe using it as a scare tactic... but the reality is we're going to have to make massive 50-75% cuts in senior entitlement programs just to keep our head above water. We owe more than 130T in unfunded liabilities! We could cut the budget down to nothing and spend (at current tax rates) the next 60+ years paying those liabilities off.

Paul Ryan's plan didn't solve the entitlement issues, he didn't even cut a single penny from the current budget level over his 10 year period. And his 'historical' level of government spending is still 2 or 3 times what it should be for a healthy economy.

I agree if we had started back down the size of governments 10 years ago, we could have slowly reduced the size, but we're headed towards a real debt crisis, and the cuts we'll have to make will have to be large to continue to fund the last 30-40 years of debt seniors today saddled my generation, and my children's generation with.

All this BS you read coming from Washington isn't true, we can't grow our way out of this mess, we need REAL cuts in government spending... Not some game like the "cuts" we just did while raising the debt limit, but real cuts in overall government spending... We need to get federal spending under 2T a year in the short term, and in the long term under 725B... 725B is more the historical norm for this country.... When the economy grows (after reducing taxes and government spending) then we can grow the size of government with the size of economic growth.

Now, to get below 2T is spending next year you're going to have to cut 45% of the federal government. You can't do that without sharp cuts to entitlement programs...

The truth is we're going to wait until the bottom falls out of the world economy, and then we'll see Greek style forced spending cuts to pay the interest on the 23T we're going to owe in 2015...

Seriously, how exactly do we pay off all this money we owe? If we don't impact benefits of current seniors, and lots of federal jobs.

First off, the only people I know of who are talking about cutting grandma and grandpa off social security and medicare is the left. It is nothing more than a scare tactic used by the left and RINOs any time entitlement reform is suggested. Medicare and social security can be reformed without drastically altering the benefits to those currently on those programs or those about to enter those programs. The Ryan Plan, while very far from perfect, did attempt to do that very thing. What did we hear in response? Nothing but demagogery.

In regards to rioting in the street from those government employees who will be downsized out of a job, that is not guaranteed to happen. If the government will start by enacting pro-growth policies, which includes deregulation, tax reduction, immigration reform and enforcement, etc..., the financial picture won't look so hopeless. Instead of strangling businesses, if the government would create a business-friendly environment, jobs will come back. As the economy recovers and the unemployment rate goes down, government employees can be transitioned from the public to the private sector. If they b**ch and riot because the benefits aren't as great in the private sector, well... that is too d**n bad. For too many years, the number of people making their living off the taxpayer's money has been steadily increasing (it seems like an exponential increase under this president). So yes, we will have to have drastic change in this country. However, that change if done correctly, doesn't have to end in a scorched earth/societal breakdown. The sooner we start, which should have been years ago, the less painful it will be.

[mav]

I mentioned the Ryan Plan was very far from perfect. The only reason I mentioned it was to make the following point. At the time, the Ryan proposal was the only thing out there, and while it wouldn't do very much in terms of helping our financial picture, it was at least suggested as something better than what we currently had, which was doing nothing. While the plan did not greatly affect entitlements, what did we hear about it? We heard nothing but the same scare tactics that have been used for decades. They (the government) are going to take away your social security and medicare.

In regards to not being able to grow our way out of this problem, I agree. However, I do believe that economic growth, tax reductions, tax increases, decreasing spending, and entitlement restructuring among many other things can bring us out of the pit of dispair without doing a slash and burn 45% overall reduction. If the later was tried, we would have absolute pandemonium. We would end up destroying the country instead of saving it.

One might have thought I made a typo when I mentioned tax deductions and tax increases in the same sentence. I did not. What I mean is that I agree with some that suggest we will have to have increased revenues. However, the increased revenues should not come from the wealth creators nor the rest of the people who are already pulling the cart. We have to institute a system in which everyone is treated equally, whether it is through a flat tax or fair tax. The 50% who freeload by not contributing any federal income taxes have got to be dealt with. Everyone needs to have some skin in the game if this problem is going to be solved.

I could go into a lot more specifics as to what needs to be done, but right now I don't have the time. I am using up my lunch hour in this post. Just to reiterate, I believe the problem can be solved without crippling the country. However, time is of the essence. The longer we wait the more likely, as you mentioned, that we will end up with a Greece (or worse) type scenario.

Even though everything looks so bleak right now, I am going to try my best to hold on to what little hope I have left that we will get some decent representatives (state and federal) that will recognize the true gravity of the situation we are facing, and will have the courage to make the necessary changes that will be needed to push us in the right direction.

[Guest nicemac]

Everyone needs to have some skin in the game if this problem is going to be solved.

Amen!

[Guest Lester Weevils]

The jobless situation makes the budget situation appear exceptionally un-solveable. If we could wave a magic wand and put 12 million plus people back to work, the revenue would come back up and expenses such as food stamps, unemployment and welfare would drop, and certain stimulus items would sunset, and it still wouldn't be balanced but it would drop back to the George W. Bush slow going bankrupt rather than the Obama fast going bankrupt. If we were at the Bush slow bankrupt situation the problem would still be big but it wouldn't look near as hopeless.

Given a Bush slow-bankrupt situation, then just getting out of all but absolutely-necessary wars and international commitments would go a long way toward fixing it.

I mainly worry about the deficit rather than the debt. We have to pay interest on debt that is held by private investors and governments, but about half our debt (or more) is in the SS/Medicare trust funds and stuff we owe the Federal Reserve.

Interest accrues on the spam bonds in the SS trust fund, but we don't have to really pay that interest on the imaginary SS bonds using real money. In addition, if we never pay back the federal reserve, then the debt can sit there on the Fed Reserve books for a hundred years without being a problem. So if we can just eventually balance the budget and STOP borrowing private funds, then the debt load isn't a big deal even if it is paid off over decades and just keeps getting rolled over ad infinitum. If we could just get to to the point where we can pay for every year with current revenue.

I agree with JayC that even republican's plans for fixing it are not realistic, because the problem is so insanely huge. If you just read what wonks say about it, or listen to talking heads describing it, IMO you don't have a good feel for the magnitude of the problem. I dunno nothin about nothin but a few months ago took some time to download a bunch of docs from the gov and study the actual numbers. It is bad enough to make you crap yer pants. It is easy to repeat slogans from talking heads, but maybe most talking heads have not spent enough time looking at the numbers. Look at the numbers for awhile and you say, "What the hell were they thinking and why didn't they do something about this a long time ago?" However bad you think it is, study the actual figures and you will probably decide it is worse than you thought.

====

The USA in the Johnson and Nixon eras had gratuitous extreme levels of guns and butter while running near-balanced budgets, even with some years of rather high unemployment. War in Vietnam, War on Poverty, Moon Program, peppering the midwest with silos of mass destruction, and educating kids pretty good with college tuition small enough to pay with a part-time job. How did they do it?

There are multiple factors, but two biggies--

1. Raiding the SS trust fund. However, the total SS tax was only about 6 or 7 percent back then. Less than half of today's rate. So it wasn't all that much to steal.

2. Taxing hell out of EVERYBODY. Po folks back then paid as much tax as upper-middles pay today, and the upper-middles were REALLY getting hosed. And the people were grateful because even with that brutal tax load, it was lower than it had been after WWII up thru the 1950's.

I don't like high tax. I don't like any tax. But if we went back to the 1960's-70's tax code it would get close to balancing the current budget even with all the crazy spending.

It would be kind of fun to go back to the 1970 tax rates for this reason-- Just about everybody in the USA would join the Tea Party. Union members would join the tea party. Black Panthers would be marching along with everybody else at the tax protests. Civil Servants would join the tea party. Burger flippers and store clerks would be marching in the tax protests. Leftist sociology major college students would be in the Tea Party. It would politically unify the nation.

That would most likely happen even if we roll back ALL the bush tax cuts. Before the bush tax cuts, most folks who made a little money had to pay some income tax along with the inescapable SS flat tax. Back when the tax was higher people were used to it, like chronic arthritis pain. After awhile it is routine. But slap that tax back on after they are not used to it and everybody would squeal like a pig.

Maybe one of the best things the Republicans could do is give Obama what he wants and roll back ALL the bush tax cuts and blame it on Obama. You would have to look long and hard to find an Obama supporter once people look at their first paycheck stub after the rollback.

Edited August 9, 2011 by Lester Weevils

[mav]

I agree with JayC that even republican's plans for fixing it are not realistic, because the problem is so insanely huge. If you just read what wonks say about it, or listen to talking heads describing it, IMO you don't have a good feel for the magnitude of the problem.

I don't disagree with either of you guys on certain aspects. The Ryan Plan wouldn't have done much, but as I stated earlier, Ryan was the only one at the time out there offering something as an alternative. The Cut, Cap, and Balance debt ceiling bill that was passed in the House was better, but it still would not have solved the problem. The Penny Plan would not solve the problem either. Where is everybody else's proposal? It doesn't exist. While I am by no means a republican party apologist, they seem to be the only ones that will even have a discussion on the matter.

In regards to those who are reading and/or listening to the political pundits and so-called economic experts not having a good grasp on the severity of the situation, I couldn't disagree more. I believe more and more people realize that we are in deep s**t, fiscally speaking. This is evidenced by the reaction of the tea party and others to the p.o.s. debt ceiling bill the republican leadership pushed through the congress. The only people who liked it were he political class, everyone else was livid. They knew that the bill would do nothing to fix the problem except to exacerbate the problem. Heck, even Sean Hannity, who I think is a republican talking points guy, was ticked-off about the bill. Further evidence can be shown from the strength of the tea party; it is not waning as some thought it would. I think the mindset of a lot of the american public is moving in the right direction.

The problem we have now is how do we go about fixing this problem without wrecking the country in the process. Assuming His Exalted Majesty doesn't get reelected next year, we will see if a majority of the american people are serious enough to take the necessary steps required to get our fiscal house in order.

[Oh Shoot]

... Assuming His Exalted Majesty doesn't get reelected next year, we will see if a majority of the american people are serious enough to take the necessary steps required to get our fiscal house in order.

Be realistic. The voters in general don't have a clue what's going on. 90% of TGOers don't pay any attention to the political forums here.

Ever watch a Stossel random street interview about issues? Appalling. THAT'S the electorate. If O loses in a landslide it's because most people feel THEY INDIVIDUALLY are worse off than before. They could give a **** about liberty or future of the country in general; they vote, as always, to get "mine".

It looks like the Supremes will rule on ObamaCare before the election, so if they strike it down, that's the best hope of a big Dem swing, all those folks who still think they're going to get great and FREE health care.

- OS

Edited August 10, 2011 by OhShoot

[mav]

Be realistic. The voters in general don't have a clue what's going on. 90% of TGOers don't pay any attention to the political forums here.

Ever watch a Stossel random street interview about issues? Appalling. THAT'S the electorate. If O loses in a landslide it's because most people feel THEY INDIVIDUALLY are worse off than before. They could give a **** about liberty or future of the country in general; they vote, as always, to get "mine".

It looks like the Supremes will rule on ObamaCare before the election, so if they strike it down, that's the best hope of a big Dem swing, all those folks who still think they're going to get great and FREE health care.

- OS

Well, this is a gun forum, so I would expect the percentage of people who participate or even look at the political section to be fairly low. Correlating a 10% participation rate in the political sections of this forum with the general voting public seems to be a stretch.

I have seen some of Stossel's man on the street segments, and yes, they are appalling. However, not everyone of those jerks is going to vote. I would be willing to bet that most of those people wouldn't dare go vote on election day because it would interfere with their daily plans.

I don't see how the SC declaring Obamacare unconstitutional is going to make a big swing for the democrats. The last poll I had seen showed that majority of the American public does not want Obamacare. We have 26 states challenging the constitutionality of Obamacare, and 12 proposing interstate compacts as an alternative to Obamacare. It is those same clueless voters who elect those state legislators, governors, and attorney generals.

As evidenced by my posts in other threads, my faith in the American public isn't rock solid, and you may indeed be proven correct. However, I will be damned if I will sit back and say that the destruction of this country is inevitable and deride others that may have a little hope, foolish or not, that all is not lost. There was a huge victory last November, which a lot of people said couldn't or wouldn't happen. How many people said you would never be able to remove collective bargaining rights in Wisconsin? It happened.

From yours and other's point of of view this is merely prolonging the inevitable. Well... That may be true, but I am just 36, and I am not ready to give up just yet.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I share mav's view about the SC killing Obamacare. It should show that those

Dems who were compelled(and the commies within) to vote for it are wrong.

the actual voters who will vote will be the ones who are more interested in this

country.

A lot of people around here and elsewhere expect too much at once for a movement

to produce results immediately. It doesn't work that way in America. the Tea

Party movement is growing and since communism is very exposed now, tax payers

are beginning to realize that it is wrong and are becoming more active. The

movement may not get it totally right, but it is in the right direction, and I think

Obama is toast unless he uses his billion dollar campaign to get out his welfare cheats

to the voting booth. And that may happen.

[JayC]

Raising revenues is a fallacy.... It's not possible... you can change where the revenues come from, but we appear to be at a maximum of federal revenues for the last 70+ years.

For example in 1948 the ratio of revenue to GDP was 16.9%, in the middle of the Johnson Admin 1965 - 16.5%, the middle of the Nixon Admin 1971 16.8% - and G. W. Bush 2004 16.7% - last year? 16.7% There are hills and valley's for short periods of time... spikes for a few years up to 20% and down to 14%, but a tax burden of 18%-ish is about all the country can handle.

The only thing democrats and republicans can do with taxes is change who pays them, at the end of the day revenues will stay about the same, somewhere between 16 and 18% of GDP which means we need to reduce the size of government below 16% (and I would argue way below).

When President Clinton left office the debt was at 5.7T, when President Bush left office the debt was at 10T, today 3 years after being elected President Obama is at 14.5T, in 2013 we'll be at 17T at the end of his first (and hopefully only term) that is nearly a 100% increase in debt in 4 years (twice the rate of debt expansion in the Bush years), by 2015 the estimate is we'll be at 23T.

The entire time, tax revenue has remained about the same between 15.96% and 18.77%, while spending has increased from ~20.4% to 25.1%.

Clearly the problem is we're growing the federal government much faster than the economy and the federal government is too large for us to support with the tax burden the American people are willing to accept. The *only* solution to this problem is to reduce the size of the current government, in the short term below 16% of GDP allowing us to have a small surplus to start to pay off the debt we've been racking up since the 1970's.

The sooner we do this, the less painful the cuts will be, reducing 25% of the federal work force over the next 18-24 months would hurt, but it will hurt a lot less than 5-7 years from now, we have a real debt crisis (ie we can't sell TBills at a reasonable rate) and are forced into 50% Greek style cuts in a matter of 4-6 months.

The Paul Ryan plan, isn't cutting, it's slowing the growth rate so it just kills us more slowly as a country... or as I like to call it, slightly smaller Big government. We still end up in the same place just takes us 10 years longer to get there...

Cut, Cap and Balance would work, but the targets are WAY too high, we need a tax policy that promotes growth, that needs to be under 10% federal spending, and it would be even better if combined local, state and federal government tax burden was under 10%. The economy would sky rocket with a tax burden 100% lower than we have today.