I suggest that the national debt does have eternal life as none of the current squabbling in Washington directly addresses it. Many on the street have great faith in the government thinking it will save us because it always has. Obama plays to this faith by inferring that the problem is solvable when those pesky republicans decide to listen to the voters. Obama suggests that his approach can resolve the problem within the next five to ten years, but can it?
Let’s look at some pre-deal figures, Obama’s 2012 budget proposal of some 3.68 trillion projects 2.627 in revenue and a deficit of 1.057. This represents a spending rate of 1.4 times revenue as compared to the current 1.667 times revenue. But when Obama or Boehner speak of getting the deficit/debt under control they are in reality only addressing the deficit. Without a balanced budget the debt continues to rise as no payment on the principal is possible.
Once when negotiating a sizable contract I pointed out proposal “puffery” that I considered to be beyond the pale. The head of our team said, “A lie is not a lie when the truth is not expected”. It appears that this is true of those we choose to serve on the Hill as the debt reality is never directly addressed. That reality is that it would take more than 50 years to resolve the current debt if we could make 0.6 trillion dollar payments. Of course in a decade down the road that number will prove even more insurmountable. But back to the present, where would we muster ) 0.6 trillion out of a balanced budget? If we tried it in 2012 we would have to cut the 1.057 deficit then set aside another 0.6 in payment for a total hit of 1.657 trillion. That would leave only 2.02 trillion to spend. Now consider all the posturing, name-calling and vilification that you hear now over present schemes that don’t even approach reality and you will see just how serious this problem really is. Couple this with Obama’s admission that he has more progressive spending schemes on his desk ready for discussion and you will see why the national debt may indeed have eternal life.
I present this analysis not only to this august and distinguished group but also to my mail list, to my duly elected in the Senate and Congress, and even to the President and select of his staff.
so another thread you won't respond to anything anyone says against your argument point....I will point out my questions to you this time since you missed them before.
so when buying a house you would consider it catastrophic to owe more then you make in a year? (question 1) don't get me wrong we need to work towards reducing it but reducing spending on money that goes back intot he economy is not the best thing to do coming out of a recession, during boom times would be the ideal time to reduce the deficit (do you understand this economically? question 1.A - I don't have any expectations you will answer this)
(question 2) -
Quote:
Couple this with Obama’s admission that he has more progressive spending schemes on his desk ready for discussion and you will see why the national debt may indeed have eternal life.
and what would those be?
I wouldn't call what you posted to be an analysis, it's more of just republican ranting about Obama
question 3 - so do you agree with most democrats and many republicans that taxes do need to go up along with spending cuts? The last budget surplus was with Clinton's budget ( A democrat) - do you think a republican will really work towards reducing the deficit? (question 4)
question 5 - you do realize republicans have clearly laid out their agenda for the deficit spending, ALL of their attempts have placed raising taxes as an acceptable option, even willing to give the democrats and Obama the ability to not do a thing if they choose to about the deficit as long as taxes are not increased on high earners, do you agree with this strategy that keeping the tax rates so low (comparatively speaking compared to history and compared to other countries) is so much more important then reducing the debt?
would you rather have a republican that keep taxes low and does not pay down the debt or a democrat that taxes more and pays down the debt? between these two options which would you choose if these were the only options - so between A and B which one (note there is no C option here) (question 6)
would you rather have a republican that keep taxes low and does not pay down the debt or a democrat that taxes more and pays down the debt? between these two options which would you choose if these were the only options - so between A and B which one (note there is no C option here) (question 6)
A rather moot question since neither party has a plan to pay down the debt, whatever gave you that idea? The lack of a viable plan is what led me to the eternal life question. Both parties only tinker with the deficit and not the debt.
Obama and Congress Agree To Raise Debt Ceiling to $120 Trillion
by NickFun
Complicated graphs and charts prove the country is now just fine.
President Obama and Congress breathed a collective sigh of relief today as Obama signed into law a budget agreement that would raise the federal debt ceiling from it's current $12 trillion to $120 trillion.
"The country's finances are now in excellent shape", an upbeat Obama said in a prepared statement. "We now have plenty of money for education, health care, social security, NPR and funding for the wars".
House Republicans were initially against raising the debt ceiling until Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, reminded congress that without the removal of the debt ceiling congress would have to be shut down and they would be unable to vote themselves pay raises.
The President said he has a plan to have the country fiscally sound by the time the $120 trillion debt limit has been reached, which will probably be in about 10 years.
A rather moot question since neither party has a plan to pay down the debt, whatever gave you that idea? The lack of a viable plan is what led me to the eternal life question. Both parties only tinker with the deficit and not the debt.
wow Eddie, one question out of 6 and even that you failed to really answer according to the situation posted, now are you trolling or do you really not get how evasive you are being?
btw, the last party to have a budget for a balanced plan and significantly reduce deficit was the democrats....
As an independent I don't care which party does it, just balance the budget. It matters not who did it in the past, who will do it now?
note: still 5 1/2 questions you ignored.....
well an independant has zero chance at becoming president, so it is the lesser of two evils, republicans have historically shown they don't care about the deficit while democrats have historically reduced deficit spending.....
the republicans SAY they will but when the time comes they will make another tax cut instead of actually reducing, just as they have in the past, and even cutrrently they show far more interest in lowering taxes for the rich then the anything about the deficit
Leaders' Friday meetings yield no budget breakthroughs
By Molly K. Hooper - 07/16/11 08:30 AM ET
House Republican leaders met with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley on Friday as lawmakers continued to spar over the best plan for raising the debt ceiling.
Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) met with Geithner and Daley in the Capitol late Friday morning, a GOP leadership official said.
Boehner's and Cantor?s offices did not expand on details of the meeting that took place at 11:45 a.m.
An aide told The Hill however, that Speaker Boehner invited Cantor to join the meeting.
It?s unclear whether any progress was made in the discussion, but a leadership aide said that the Speaker cleared off his schedule for the weekend.
Should President Obama recall negotiators to discussions over the weekend, Boehner is ?ready to meet if and when necessary,? an aide told The Hill.
Cantor could also ?be available? should leaders meet over the weekend, his aide said.
Shortly after his pow wow with Geithner and Daley, Speaker Boehner spent close to 30 minutes meeting with Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).
Boehner would not comment on the discussion he had with Pelosi during the meeting, which was held in her Capitol office suites.
Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said that Pelosi requested the meeting, but did not divulge the subject matter.
"The former Speaker asked to meet with the Speaker, and they met," Steel said.
Though both leadership offices refrained to expand on the unplanned meeting, it was clear from remarks made earlier in the day that Pelosi was unhappy with Boehner?s decision to offer the ?Cut, Cap and Balance? bill ? a proposal championed by fiscal conservatives in the House and Senate.
The meeting happened little more than two hours after GOP leadership announced their intention to endorse the ?Cut, Cap and Balance? proposal, as their favored solution to the debt ceiling crisis.
Pelosi called Boehner?s intention to move the measure ?outrageous,? shortly after her caucus held a closed-door meeting to discuss the ongoing negotiations impasse.
?It?s outrageous. ? I want to see what it is because we just heard about it, but it is as bad as their balanced so-called?and it wasn?t a balanced budget amendment. It was a Trojan Horse to bring in the Ryan plan again. This is even worse, from what I?ve heard. But I have to go see it,? Pelosi said.
Meanwhile, House Republicans, most of whom don?t want to raise the debt ceiling at all, applauded their leadership?s decision to call up the ?Cut, Cap and Balance? bill.
The plan would authorize a $2.4 trillion increase in the borrowing limit after Congress passes a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution. It would also cut spending and cap it in the future.
The GOP leaders said they would bring the package up for a vote next week.
?We asked the president to lead, we asked him to put forward a plan, not a speech, a real plan, and he hasn?t. We will,? Boehner said.
During a press conference late Friday morning, President Obama said he had not studied the new Republican proposal, but added that it ?doesn't sound like a serious plan to me."
The president also rejected the balanced-budget amendment proposal, saying, "We don't need a constitutional amendment to do our jobs."
But can a history lesson save us from a 14.3 trillion dollar debt which neither dems nor reps are addressing? Looks like Medicare doc fix (not a part of Obamacre) still looms.
Quote:
CBO: Obama budget worse than projected on 10-year deficit
By Erik Wasson - 03/18/11 02:03 PM ET (THE HILL)
The Congressional Budget Office on Friday released its analysis of President Obama?s 2012 budget proposal and found it does less to rein in deficits and the debt than the administration had estimated.
CBO estimates Obama's plan would produce 10 years of deficits totaling $9.5 trillion. By 2021, it would increase the debt held by the public to 87 percent of gross domestic product.
The administration, using different methods, estimated budget deficits would total $7.2 trillion over the next 10 years under the 2012 budget. It forecast that total debt in 2021 would be 77 percent of GDP.
The White House also said total deficits over the next decade would be $1.1 trillion more without the recommendations included in Obama's budget.
Marc Goldwein, policy director for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, said that CBO has found the effects to be almost nil.
He explained that the difference between the CBO's $9.5 trillion estimate and OMB's $7.2 trillion estimate comes from two sources: rosy economic growth assumptions by OMB and offsets for the Medicare doc fix as well as transportation spending OMB did not specify in the budget and which CBO will not factor in.
The most important aspect of CBO's analysis is that, while OMB claimed the president's budget "stabilized" the debt at 77 percent of GDP over the 10-year window, CBO estimates the debt will grow throughout the period and end up at 87 percent, he said.
CBO said the biggest reasons for the deficits, compared to the status quo, are the permanent extension of the Bush-era tax rates for the middle class and changes to the Alternative Minimum Tax that Obama favors in this budget. As a result of the tax policy, there is a $2.7 trillion net increase in the deficit over the next 10 years.
?The president's other proposals would reduce the deficit, on balance, over 10 years,? the CBO concludes.
For 2011, CBO concludes that ?if all of the president's budgetary proposals were enacted, they would add $26 billion to the baseline deficit for 2011. As a result, the 2011 deficit would total $1.43 trillion, or 9.5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP).?
Under the "doc fix," Congress regularly suspends a requirement under law that payments to doctors from Medicare be massively reduced. So far, this has not been paid for, adding to the deficit.
White House budget director Jack Lew reacted to CBO's estimate in a blog post Friday and offered a technical defense of the administration numbers.
He noted Obama has said that if an offset for the transportation spending was not identified, the administration "would not support making these investments."
On the "doc fix," he said the administration has outlined a way to pay for it for three years and believes that pattern will continue.
"With three years of the fix paid for, we believe that this establishes a pattern of practice ? critically important in scoring policies -- that strengthens our commitment to work with Congress on a permanent solution. Again, CBO chooses not to make this assumption."
Lew also said the administration is right to assume robust growth of 4.3 percent GDP growth by 2014.
"It is our view that the economy will return to full strength, and that is a view shared by the Federal Reserve as well," he wrote.
House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said the CBO estimate "exposes the widening gulf between the President?s rhetoric and his budget?s reality."
"Simply put, the President?s budget spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much ? and it continues to heap an unsustainable burden of debt on American families, today and in the future," he said. "The President?s budget never reaches ?primary balance,? meaning that it fails to clear even the low bar the Administration set for itself in justifying its claims of sustainability."
Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said, "Even using their own estimates, the Administration couldn?t hide how bad our nation?s deficit and debt are, but today CBO has 100 percent proven that the President?s budget is nothing but an air ball."
Linear Mode
