Kilmer17 Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 It's easy for Canada to cut defense back to next to nothing. They know we're the big stick next door. As such, they can cut defense without any real world consequences. I laughed at how quickly both sides came out and blamed either A- the other side or B- S&P claiming they used bad math. Neither side is willing to address the true problem. Even now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 He never came out in public and specifically said what he was going to cut. That would be politically stupid. But there were leaks over what Obama and Boehner were discussing. This article details pretty extensively over what kind of deal the two were discussing, and how tilted it was in favor of Republicans... http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/92539/obama-boehner-debt-ceiling-press-conference-concessions-revenue I will say this. Everybody in the room new the potential consequences of not dealing with this issue seriously. Adding immediate debt and cutting that debt over a period of 10 years was stupid. You may say that the original plan was too in favor of the GOP but in retrospect, it probably needed to be more in favor of some of those ideas. 4.7 was the number i distinctively heard over a period of 6 to 8 years. 2.4 was the number I heard in a period of 2 years or immediately. Instead, what we got was more debt now with the promise of cutting the same amount in 10 years. That was never going to get it done. It was a bad deal all the way around but it was really bad of the President to allow that to happen. He new what had to be done and he ignored it. Was he the only one? Nope. Were the Democrats the only party? Nope. Is he the leader of this Country and of the Free World? Yep. He deserves the lions share of the fault here. That's what comes with leadership. I don't know what else to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 It's easy for Canada to cut defense back to next to nothing. They know we're the big stick next door. As such, they can cut defense without any real world consequences.I laughed at how quickly both sides came out and blamed either A- the other side or B- S&P claiming they used bad math. Neither side is willing to address the true problem. Even now. Well it has more to do with Canada not being an empire, they still gave troops to NATO then and now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 Well it has more to do with Canada not being an empire, they still gave troops to NATO then and now My point is that Canada can sleep tight knowing that even if they had ZERO military they're still safe and sound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 My point is that Canada can sleep tight knowing that even if they had ZERO military they're still safe and sound. I am just sitting here smiling as I hear the same things all the time The US can not cut defense spending we have to police the world Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 I am just sitting here smiling as I hear the same things all the time The US can not cut defense spending we have to police the world Who said that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 I am still confused why we separate SS from the rest of the federal government. I believe it was first during Vietnam when surpluses from Social Security(SS) were used for non SS projects. At this point we committed to paying back a SS fund with bonds. The using of SS funds for other federal expendiutres hashappened ever since. I scknowledge we as a country like to value these IOU's. I get it as our country's finances are all tied to these. Just look at our downgrade resulting from our arguments over the last month as we considered the possibility of not paying the ones off which were coming due. Still, at the heart of it, weren't we as a country really committing to maintaining a certain level of SS benefits? Who thinks a politician will do well saying, "I propose we reduce SS benefits by 10% or do away with them all together?" Nobody thinks this, and our belief has nothing to do with these bonds. We will pay the benefits out of a sense of generational obligations ot those who paid in and were promised some fall back money to prevent abject poverty amongst the elderly who can no longer work. Which brings me back to the roughly a third of our debt. Why do we count what one part of the federal government "owes" another part of the fed. as debt? If I owe myself $10 because I used my debit card instead of cash, it doesn't matter to my account. If one were to simply say the SS fund absolve the fed of their obligations from these securitees, wouldn't our debt situation instantly look better? What if they did it in exchange for an agreement to fund SS for all agreed apon obligations as they become current? Really this is what most people I know want. They want to know they will get checks from a system they paid into. Why do we insist on calling SS anything but a 'pay as you go' plan? Had we called SS such, we could have avoided the whole debt cap raising shananagains. Yes, there is still an issue with the real structure of our entitlements, but this is the first time I remember paying such a high cost to avoid using certain words. Truth told though, I think the primary challenge to this is our collection of SS separate from the federal income taxes. If combined, people would see a decided drop off percentage wise above the level where SS is not currently taxed. So I guess we pay to avoid the perception of not paying on existing treasuries and to maintain the stead fast belief in how progressive our tax system is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 Invoking my best LKB.... oh, the downgrade occured because Obama's black? :doh:I realize this is humor, but it's a pretty low kind of humor that feeds off some pretty negative stuff. I hope I don't get scorned for this and by no way do I approve of such lackadaisical sentiment... However, I think that based on his place in history coupled with this being the beginning of an election year has forced Obama's hand not to raise taxes. Perhaps he will if he gets a second term, but his goal is obviously first to secure 2012, USA AAA be damned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 I am just sitting here smiling as I hear the same things all the time The US can not cut defense spending we have to police the world How much more defense spending do you want cut? If I'm not mistaken, the DOD defense budget cut 100 Billion in Januarry of 2011. They just recently cut 350 Billion more in the last agreement with another 600 Billion to follow that. I mean, I understand that the DOD spends a lot of money but they are, by no means, the biggest drain on budget overruns. What is the number that you think DOD should be cutting? At what point do social programs get cut? If so, how much? I mean, this is the problem right? We have no plan. I've seen plans introduced from Bowles Simpson, I've seen plans introduced by Ryan, I've seen a plan introduced Coburn that all outline ways in which our current debt problems could be addressed. Not saying that they were perfect but they were plans. Real plans about serious efforts to deal with the problem and they were not all based around just spending cuts. They were not even seriously looked at. None of them. At some point, this Administration has to deal with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 Didn't the crazy old loon warn of this? The public. Always 4 years too late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 How much more defense spending do you want cut? If I'm not mistaken, the DOD defense budget cut 100 Billion in Januarry of 2011. They just recently cut 350 Billion more in the last agreement with another 600 Billion to follow that. I mean, I understand that the DOD spends a lot of money but they are, by no means, the biggest drain on budget overruns. What is the number that you think DOD should be cutting?At what point do social programs get cut? If so, how much? I mean, this is the problem right? We have no plan. I've seen plans introduced from Bowles Simpson, I've seen plans introduced by Ryan, I've seen a plan introduced Coburn that all outline ways in which our current debt problems could be addressed. Not saying that they were perfect but they were plans. Real plans about serious efforts to deal with the problem and they were not all based around just spending cuts. They were not even seriously looked at. None of them. At some point, this Administration has to deal with this. Ryans plan would not do anything to control costs in fact they would lead to higher government health care costs. Some of come out and said it is possible over the nect decade to save one trillion in defense spending and includes everyting DOD Homeland Sec and they have pointed out the biggest waste abuse is in defense spending. Unemployment and SS can be cut by means testing And as many even those on the right have pointed out healthcare needs to be overhauled so as to curb spending and that would mean increasing the contol government has on pricing and not following the rates set by the private insureres. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
December90 Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 Congrats Tea Party!You got what you wanted. 100% dead wrong The tea party wanted much deeper cuts with a real path towards reduction in the debt. keep drinking the liberal "spending more than you have is okay" koolaid if you enjoy it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 Top priorities: 1. Raise taxes 2. Healthcare 3. Retirement aid And then way down here is discretionary spending such as DoD budgets. I would have to insist they revisit healthcare costs. The triangle is broke and the causes are known. Doctors and Pharmaceuticals are gouging because insurance companies are paying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 Ryans plan would not do anything to control costs in fact they would lead to higher government health care costs.Some of come out and said it is possible over the nect decade to save one trillion in defense spending and includes everyting DOD Homeland Sec and they have pointed out the biggest waste abuse is in defense spending. Unemployment and SS can be cut by means testing And as many even those on the right have pointed out healthcare needs to be overhauled so as to curb spending and that would mean increasing the contol government has on pricing and not following the rates set by the private insureres. You can not possibly make that statement about any of the Plans because none of them were seriously looked at. Ryan's plan was scored and the results of that process did not show an increase in higher costs. His plans cuts 6 trillion from the debt over ten years. How can anybody say that this would not work when it's been scored by the CBO and they have approved? Before you answer this, let's just agree that we both understand how the CBO can be wrong. I certainly believe that it's wrong in regards to the President's Health Care Plan but I don't see a lot of people on the left disputing those findings. Ryan's plan, along with multiple others mentioned, have never seriously been looked at because it would require significant cuts to Social Programs and everybody knows what that means on the political side. However, you can't just say that this won't work or that won't work when nobody has seriously looked at it. I don't think that's possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 I am just sitting here smiling as I hear the same things all the time The US can not cut defense spending we have to police the world Technically its a known policy that the United States protects the Western Hemisphere. Though we are known to help cities of even our enemies when the called upon via catastrophe. I'm kinda proud of our children for doing this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 Technically its a known policy that the United States protects the Western Hemisphere. Though we are known to help cities of even our enemies when the called upon via catastrophe. I'm kinda proud of our children for doing this. That comes with being an empire But taking shots at other countries and saying the US has to do this rather cut defense spending is pointless this is something they choose to do and that has to be paid for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 That comes with being an empireBut taking shots at other countries and saying the US has to do this rather cut defense spending is pointless this is something they choose to do and that has to be paid for. Who is saying that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 You can not possibly make that statement about any of the Plans because none of them were seriously looked at. Ryan's plan was scored and the results of that process did not show an increase in higher costs. His plans cuts 6 trillion from the debt over ten years. How can anybody say that this would not work when it's been scored by the CBO and they have approved? Before you answer this, let's just agree that we both understand how the CBO can be wrong. I certainly believe that it's wrong in regards to the President's Health Care Plan but I don't see a lot of people on the left disputing those findings.Ryan's plan, along with multiple others mentioned, have never seriously been looked at because it would require significant cuts to Social Programs and everybody knows what that means on the political side. However, you can't just say that this won't work or that won't work when nobody has seriously looked at it. I don't think that's possible. Yes I can because I have read what the effects will be and also read on how medicare works for their billings. The presidents plan does not do enough to cover people or lower costs it is the Ryan plan without laying rising costs on the backs of seniors ---------- Post added August-8th-2011 at 10:59 AM ---------- Who is saying that? Fine then cut the spending down to the same level as China your biggest rival Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 ......Some of come out and said it is posible over the nect decade to save one trillion in defense spending and includes everyting DOD Homeland Sec and they have pointed out the biggest waste abuse is in defense spending. ........ Who pointed out the biggest waste is from defense spending???? Obviously someone who doesn't know how the US Government operates. There is tremendous (to an absurd degree) waste in Defense but the really scary thing is Defense is by far the most efficient Government agency when it comes spending. Take the FBI for example their biggest expenditure in the last decade was upgrading their computer system. They literally had to throw the whole system out when the upgrade was completed. They have since redone the whole project under a new contract and now may need to throw that out. It would be like the defense department building an Aircraft Carrier and then discovering it was too unstable to launch or land aircraft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 What does China's spending have to do with anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 What does China's spending have to do with anything? It affects us because they won't finance our debt. Go for the AAA not the AA+. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McD5 Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 FNM now downgraded by S&P. I wouldn't be surprised to see someone do something stupid, and violent in Washington. This level of incompetence is truly amazing. This country needs someone to lead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 Who is saying that? Agreed. We have no responsibility, whatever. We chose to do these things but I don't know that anybody is holding a gun to our heads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 Who pointed out the biggest waste is from defense spending???? Obviously someone who doesn't know how the US Government operates. There is tremendous (to an absurd degree) waste in Defense but the really scary thing is Defense is by far the most efficient Government agency when it comes spending. Take the FBI for example their biggest expenditure in the last decade was upgrading their computer system. They literally had to throw the whole system out when the upgrade was completed. They have since redone the whole project under a new contract and now may need to throw that out. It would be like the defense department building an Aircraft Carrier and then discovering it was too unstable to launch or land aircraft. GAO and retire military officers have all point out billions of dollars in waste and abuse in defence spending The cost overuns on the F35 ar 771 million dollars right now with more to come int he future Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 Yes I can because I have read what the effects will be and also read on how medicare works for their billings.The presidents plan does not do enough to cover people or lower costs it is the Ryan plan without laying rising costs on the backs of seniors Read what the effects will be from where? Has their been a study performed that looks at this? I have not seen it. If you have it, I would be happy to try and understand what it is that you see. ---------- Post added August-8th-2011 at 10:59 AM ---------- [/color] Fine then cut the spending down to the same level as China your biggest rival Why? Our problems are unique to ourselves. We may need to cut even more drastically or we may not need to cut as drastically. It my be more dangerous to map our spending to another countries. That is a very Canadian approach to the problem but I don't think it's very practical for us. There is clearly much more to it then that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.