T Nation

National Debt - Is it a Crisis Yet?

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
“Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter” - Dick Cheney.[/quote]

Did you believe that when he said it? Do you believe it now?

I don’t think anyone is questioning that the republicans had a hand in debt problems, but Obama is making it much, much worse.[/quote]

This is an opinion that has two sides, there is the side that says spending will stimulate the economy and there is the side that says it will make it worse.

I think Obama’s approach is new to the YOUNG Republican group because they think if we cut taxes on the most wealthy they will reinvest that money in our economy. And it will trickle down to the little people. And if we do away with all regulations on business they will flourish and the free market will keep them legitimate

Obama’s approach is a little more direct. Cut taxes on the less advantaged and demand honesty and good ethics from business. I have my issues I do not like about Obama.
[/quote]

Cut taxes on the less advantaged? The “less advantaged” don’t even pay taxes. In some cases they receive a “refund” for money they never paid in.

(We’re talking about income taxes, right?)

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
“Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter” - Dick Cheney.[/quote]

Did you believe that when he said it? Do you believe it now?

I don’t think anyone is questioning that the republicans had a hand in debt problems, but Obama is making it much, much worse.[/quote]

Think of all that money that we’d have to devote to healthcare without having to support the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Deficits only evidently matter when you’re trying to help Americans, but not when you’re invading other countries, as evidenced by the teabaggers’ non-existence during the Bush years. [/quote]

Nice sidestep of the question.

Either you believe deficits matter or you don’t.[/quote]

They definatly matter , the time to deal with the deficit is when times are good like Clinton did , Bush should had done the same[/quote]

I don’t care what time it is, good or bad, there is plenty of excessive, wasteful government spending to cut.

I agree, Bush spent entirely too much.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

Of course they matter, but they’re not going to severely affect the economy until they become stratospherically high.[/quote]

Well, uh, no - this is false.

Even you don’t believe this. At least I hope you don’t.

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

At what point do the debt levels become stratospherically high? Because I believe we’re already there.

Most people don’t realize how much even $1 trillion is. To put it in perspective, 1 trillion seconds is roughly 32,000 years. Our national debt is now over $13 trillion.

At what point should we begin to pull in the reigns a little and start to pay that down?

http://www.usdebtclock.org/
[/quote]

I’m all for lowering the debt, but I believe it should start with military spending. Immediately.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

At what point do the debt levels become stratospherically high? Because I believe we’re already there.

Most people don’t realize how much even $1 trillion is. To put it in perspective, 1 trillion seconds is roughly 32,000 years. Our national debt is now over $13 trillion.

At what point should we begin to pull in the reigns a little and start to pay that down?

http://www.usdebtclock.org/
[/quote]

I’m all for lowering the debt, but I believe it should start with military spending. Immediately. [/quote]

I’m not going to disagree with you, but don’t you at least think we should lower spending (wherever you think it should be lowered) BEFORE taking on any new liabilities (ie, healthcare)?

I personally don’t think we should be taking on any new liabilities, but if you’re for the healthcare bill at least we can agree the timing is horrible, no?

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

I’m all for lowering the debt, but I believe it should start with military spending. Immediately. [/quote]

Why wouldn’t you start with the unspent portion of the Stimulus Bill and the Health Care Bill, both of which are on the books as costing money but not in effect at the moment?

Eritrea, Georgia, Suadi Arabia, Oman, Israel, Chad, China, UAE, Jordan, Iraq, Sudan, Yemen, Singapore, Burundi, Lebanon, Brunei all spend th esame percentage of higher of their GDP on military spending . . . .

The problem is not in our discretionary spending, but in our Entitlment programs spending - that’s what is breaking the budget and the source of our trillions of debt . . . .

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
The problem is not in our discretionary spending, but in our Entitlment programs spending - that’s what is breaking the budget and the source of our trillions of debt . . . .[/quote]

I agree completely.

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

I’m not going to disagree with you, but don’t you at least think we should lower spending (wherever you think it should be lowered) BEFORE taking on any new liabilities (ie, healthcare)?

I personally don’t think we should be taking on any new liabilities, but if you’re for the healthcare bill at least we can agree the timing is horrible, no?
[/quote]

I think that to those that oppose it, the timing will always be horrible. The timing wasn’t good in '92 when things were booming… so I’m not sure there would ever have been a good time.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

I’m not going to disagree with you, but don’t you at least think we should lower spending (wherever you think it should be lowered) BEFORE taking on any new liabilities (ie, healthcare)?

I personally don’t think we should be taking on any new liabilities, but if you’re for the healthcare bill at least we can agree the timing is horrible, no?
[/quote]

I think that to those that oppose it, the timing will always be horrible. The timing wasn’t good in '92 when things were booming… so I’m not sure there would ever have been a good time.

[/quote]

There will never be a good time because it’s a downright horrible idea, but there is a difference between getting a bad idea through and getting a bad idea through at the worst time possible.

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

I’m not going to disagree with you, but don’t you at least think we should lower spending (wherever you think it should be lowered) BEFORE taking on any new liabilities (ie, healthcare)?

I personally don’t think we should be taking on any new liabilities, but if you’re for the healthcare bill at least we can agree the timing is horrible, no?
[/quote]

I think that to those that oppose it, the timing will always be horrible. The timing wasn’t good in '92 when things were booming… so I’m not sure there would ever have been a good time.

[/quote]

There will never be a good time because it’s a downright horrible idea, but there is a difference between getting a bad idea through and getting a bad idea through at the worst time possible.[/quote]

My thoughts exactly. Great Post.

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
The problem is not in our discretionary spending, but in our Entitlment programs spending - that’s what is breaking the budget and the source of our trillions of debt . . . .[/quote]

Here is the federal budget pie chart from the office of management and budget for last year. Whoever did the chart got the data from here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/tables.pdf

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

There will never be a good time because it’s a downright horrible idea, but there is a difference between getting a bad idea through and getting a bad idea through at the worst time possible.[/quote]

Then costs continue to rise and insurance companies keep making their millions upon millions while denying coverage to whomever they please.

That system was broken worse before.

Just to expand on this, if quality deteriorates, that will likely mean more deaths than our current system.

Crappy healthcare + long waiting lists = more people dead as a result of a shitty healthcare system.

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
There are some problems with the old system but insurance companies being greedy wasn’t one of them (have you ever looked at their financial statements?). Expecting insurance companies to cover pre existing conditions is like buying a beat up car and expecting the auto insurance company to pay for the repairs.
[/quote]

Well then let those inferior cars and people just die. Why should anyone be responsible to help them?

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
There are some problems with the old system but insurance companies being greedy wasn’t one of them (have you ever looked at their financial statements?). Expecting insurance companies to cover pre existing conditions is like buying a beat up car and expecting the auto insurance company to pay for the repairs.
[/quote]

Well then let those inferior cars and people just die. Why should anyone be responsible to help them?[/quote]

Why shouldn’t those people be responsible to help themselves? Why should we, actual tax payer, be forced to take care of them? I am all for helping people voluntarily, but forced by law is irresponsible.

By the way every one dies at some point.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
There are some problems with the old system but insurance companies being greedy wasn’t one of them (have you ever looked at their financial statements?). Expecting insurance companies to cover pre existing conditions is like buying a beat up car and expecting the auto insurance company to pay for the repairs.
[/quote]

Well then let those inferior cars and people just die. Why should anyone be responsible to help them?[/quote]

If my taxes weren’t so damn high I’d be contributing much more than I currently am to private charities.

Surely we can agree private charities are much more efficient than the government, no? They have to be. If they’re not, other charities will be more likely to receive my contributions. The government doesn’t have any incentive to be efficient and I don’t have any choice but to pay my taxes anyway.

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
The problem is not in our discretionary spending, but in our Entitlment programs spending - that’s what is breaking the budget and the source of our trillions of debt . . . .[/quote]

You sure? Discretionary spending made up 13% of the budget while military spending was the highest at 23%. Medicare and medicaid made up 19% and social security was 20%.

EDIT: Just saw that tribulus pointed this out.

[quote]and1bball4mk wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
The problem is not in our discretionary spending, but in our Entitlment programs spending - that’s what is breaking the budget and the source of our trillions of debt . . . .[/quote]

You sure? Discretionary spending made up 13% of the budget while military spending was the highest at 23%. Medicare and medicaid made up 19% and social security was 20%.[/quote]

Lets work on our addition shall we. Entitlement include Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. 19% plus 20% equals 39%. 39% > 23%.