|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2011 10:43:05 GMT -5
The United States is in an economic kerfuffle. National debt is in the trillions (each citizen, on average, owes around forty-something thousand dollars), gas prices are rising again, and the government risks defaulting on its loans if Congress and the president don't compromise within the next week. There's raising the debt ceiling and all, but, understandably, each side of the aisle refuses to raise it without certain conditions.
In the wake of this mess, some questions:
1. How did we get here? To what do we owe the blame? Tax cuts? Excessive spending? A decade of expensive wars?
2. What do you believe is the best solution? Raising taxes? Cutting spending--in which case, what needs to be cut? A combination of both? Something else entirely?
|
|
|
|
Post by commissarburn on Jul 26, 2011 11:21:25 GMT -5
How did we get here? It's obvious. War costs money. We subsidize a ton of stuff. We had to bail out a ton of financial institutions. We keep cutting taxes. Most importantly, though, I think Politics is to blame. If they'd just raise the ceiling and leave all the budget stuff until there was worry, we might be alright, but they're only probably further hurting the economy playing a game of chicken I'm thinking we'd be better off not dealing with. Clinton seemed to have the budget under control, but that seemingly went the other way after he left office. Since then, we've had both a Democrat and a Republican, and with a trillion dollars of debt there's more than enough blame to go around.
Though I think pinning that blame isn't something we should be doing. Both sides need to STFU for a second and stop stroking each others egos (amongst other things), and just pass something. Either side's not going to be happy, but even Reid came out with 2.8t in cuts and Boehner still refused it, in favor of his half-now half-later approach to when things are more suited to getting his guys into the white house.
I'm all for raising taxes. And not just that "close the loopholes" and on the wealthiest Americans and all that. I'm sure a very slight tax increase could yield some modest income if spread out over the entire populace. Throw in closing said loopholes and all that jazz and doing some spending cuts and everything, and I'm sure the budget might start to look better. But for god's sake, raise the debt limit so we don't lose our AAA rating. We pay the lowest interest rate on our debt than any other country, and if we lose that rating, that interest rate goes up and then WE OWE AN EVEN MORE UNGODLY SUM OF MONEY.
If we default, US Treasuries go from being the safest financial asset you can own to worth nothing. No one will take us seriously and any country or person that owns them is SOL, which only further destroys an already ravaged world economy.
You'd have to be pants on head dumb not to act before August 2nd, and if it happens, I'm going to just say it now and say I'll be running for congress. I'd probably get in, too, since I'm pretty sure no one in either party will be coming back next term.
All rhetoric aside, it's time to stop believing we can have our cake and eat it to. No one said the budget was supposed to be easy and it wouldn't have an impact on the way things grow. Yeah, businesses and households might hurt, but that's the times were in. We can't just keep cutting taxes and expect the government governing some 308 million people to pay for itself. Time to stop playing the blame game and waiting until the last minute and just cut the losses and take whatever deal does both without breaking anything too badly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sq on Jul 26, 2011 11:32:03 GMT -5
We are using finite resources like they're infinite. We can't keep "progressing" like this. Something much, much bigger needs to change.
Viva la revolucion~
|
|
|
|
Post by Joker on Jul 26, 2011 11:51:03 GMT -5
Unfortunately, though statistics differ, most of the credible ones I've found say that national defense is only 20% of our national budget. And when you consider how much we've been spending on pointless wars these last few years, that's scary!
I don't know enough about the whole situation to say much, but I'm glad the Republicans are finally taking a stand and treating our trillions and trillions of dollars worth of debt as something...actually serious and worth discussing. I'm not for raising taxes, either. Our federal government was never designed to be this big; over the last century or so it's been taking over a lot of the functions of the state governments. I think that's the real problem here. Washington needs to go on a diet. 0:-)
|
|
|
|
Post by commissarburn on Jul 26, 2011 12:19:42 GMT -5
More like standing in the way and throwing a tantrum 'cause they can't get the deal they want. Everyone seems to forget these are the same Republicans that upped the debt ceiling some half a dozen times over the last administration's eight years. And now they choose the time to take things "seriously?"
Regardless, maybe I wasn't paying attention or something, but I can't think of any instances where there was a "government takeover" or some state functions. What're we saying is better left to the states? If I recall, my home state couldn't even get a budget out the door. Maybe it's no wonder we're seeing the same thing here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian Wolf-Park on Jul 26, 2011 12:45:02 GMT -5
While I am not American, I'm keeping a close eye on how this will turn out as the US defaulting will affect Canada in some way (and I'm pretty sure the rest of the world as well).
|
|
|
|
Post by Joker on Jul 26, 2011 13:46:25 GMT -5
I haven't forgotten it, which is why I'm not a Republican. I'm just so opposed to our huge debt and spending that I think any time is better than none to take things "seriously." It could be the Republicans, the Democrats or the Green Party, I don't care as long as something actually changes.
I don't think "we" collectively will be able to come up with anything that's better left to the states; I, personally, think nearly everything except for national defense and things like the interstate highway system/interstate commerce should be. Obviously, many people/nearly every Democrat/most Republicans will disagree. But there's simply no denying that our federal government is far, far bigger in every way than it was in 1900 - or even 1950 for that matter. With that enormous size comes a lot of completely unnecessary but almost inevitable bureaucracy; this is what you avoid when you size things down and let states and counties deal with most issues.
|
|
|
|
Post by Char on Jul 26, 2011 18:11:31 GMT -5
While I am not American, I'm keeping a close eye on how this will turn out as the US defaulting will affect Canada in some way (and I'm pretty sure the rest of the world as well). The US economy is ingrained in pretty much every country - and I have no doubt if the US defaults, Canada will end up getting the brunt of the blow. Like you, I'm keeping very close tabs on this as well... |
|
|
|
Post by commissarburn on Jul 26, 2011 20:07:57 GMT -5
I haven't forgotten it, which is why I'm not a Republican. I'm just so opposed to our huge debt and spending that I think any time is better than none to take things "seriously." It could be the Republicans, the Democrats or the Green Party, I don't care as long as something actually changes. I don't think "we" collectively will be able to come up with anything that's better left to the states; I, personally, think nearly everything except for national defense and things like the interstate highway system/interstate commerce should be. Obviously, many people/nearly every Democrat/most Republicans will disagree. But there's simply no denying that our federal government is far, far bigger in every way than it was in 1900 - or even 1950 for that matter. With that enormous size comes a lot of completely unnecessary but almost inevitable bureaucracy; this is what you avoid when you size things down and let states and counties deal with most issues. I'm with you there. The sooner things get passed, the better. Even all this debating isn't helping the recovery efforts and all; the longer the markets sit in the dark on whether or not we're going to default, the more likelihood we might start seeing investors pull money. Overall, it's probably a really bad thing it's gone this long. While there is no denying the government is bigger, you also have to realize the size of our country is also bigger. The population sure as heck isn't what it used to be, and sometimes those extra pencil pushers are the result. Regardless, I don't find "the bureaucracy is big" to be a reasonable argument for the downsizing of government. It's not really a complaint. Yes, they're sometimes slow and hard to deal with, but what things is it doing to cause you to deem it necessary to downsize? You're still really not giving me an answer as to the things that would be better off left to smaller state governments. |
|
|
|
Post by Joker on Jul 26, 2011 21:10:26 GMT -5
I'm with you there. The sooner things get passed, the better. Even all this debating isn't helping the recovery efforts and all; the longer the markets sit in the dark on whether or not we're going to default, the more likelihood we might start seeing investors pull money. Overall, it's probably a really bad thing it's gone this long. While there is no denying the government is bigger, you also have to realize the size of our country is also bigger. The population sure as heck isn't what it used to be, and sometimes those extra pencil pushers are the result. Regardless, I don't find "the bureaucracy is big" to be a reasonable argument for the downsizing of government. It's not really a complaint. Yes, they're sometimes slow and hard to deal with, but what things is it doing to cause you to deem it necessary to downsize? You're still really not giving me an answer as to the things that would be better off left to smaller state governments. Well, I certainly don't want us to default either. xD But I really don't think that will happen, so I'm not too worried about it. I'm just glad they're discussing it before social security takes its dive into the negative billions of dollars within the next few decades. (It can't sustain itself past...2017? Something like that.) Our country is certainly bigger, but federal spending has increased at a much greater rate than population. I suppose my "bureaucracy is big" argument is something to do with this: the government is making its citizens pay taxes and then wasting the money. That alone would be enough for me, anyway. But if you want a comprehensive list of things I think should be left to state governments, I would start with the big ones like social security and Medicare, and then run the gamut from education (No Child Left Behind, anyone?) to health care (the ever-popular ObamaCare). I would put international aid on the list, but I really don't think that should exist at all. It might help if we got out of Afghanistan, Libya and wherever else we're fighting too. Obviously not everyone agrees with me, and that's what makes America great! We do need to do something about the debt, though. Seriously. George Washington was more than a little prophetic when he warned us against borrowing in his Farewell Address. |
|
|
|
Post by commissarburn on Jul 26, 2011 21:33:39 GMT -5
I'm with you there. The sooner things get passed, the better. Even all this debating isn't helping the recovery efforts and all; the longer the markets sit in the dark on whether or not we're going to default, the more likelihood we might start seeing investors pull money. Overall, it's probably a really bad thing it's gone this long. While there is no denying the government is bigger, you also have to realize the size of our country is also bigger. The population sure as heck isn't what it used to be, and sometimes those extra pencil pushers are the result. Regardless, I don't find "the bureaucracy is big" to be a reasonable argument for the downsizing of government. It's not really a complaint. Yes, they're sometimes slow and hard to deal with, but what things is it doing to cause you to deem it necessary to downsize? You're still really not giving me an answer as to the things that would be better off left to smaller state governments. Well, I certainly don't want us to default either. xD But I really don't think that will happen, so I'm not too worried about it. I'm just glad they're discussing it before social security takes its dive into the negative billions of dollars within the next few decades. (It can't sustain itself past...2017? Something like that.) Our country is certainly bigger, but federal spending has increased at a much greater rate than population. I suppose my "bureaucracy is big" argument is something to do with this: the government is making its citizens pay taxes and then wasting the money. That alone would be enough for me, anyway. But if you want a comprehensive list of things I think should be left to state governments, I would start with the big ones like social security and Medicare, and then run the gamut from education (No Child Left Behind, anyone?) to health care (the ever-popular ObamaCare). I would put international aid on the list, but I really don't think that should exist at all. It might help if we got out of Afghanistan, Libya and wherever else we're fighting too. Obviously not everyone agrees with me, and that's what makes America great! We do need to do something about the debt, though. Seriously. George Washington was more than a little prophetic when he warned us against borrowing in his Farewell Address. I believe the figure was reduced benefits after 2037, after which it goes into slow decline because of baby boomers and all that, and something having to do with us having used part of that money elsewhere? Something like that. Regardless, pretty sure it's 2037 with reduced benefits. Trying to spin some of those things off to the fifty states would be a nightmare, and even still I think you'd be bound to have the same problems as you do at the federal level. The first two I'd disagree as to your "expense" status you've placed on them (seeing as they're paid for OUTSIDE of our taxes, through social security stipends that come out of our paychecks). As for Education, that one is left all the way down to the city level, isn't it? Sure, there are mandates and things like that to keep government funding to schools, but it's not like it's all at the state level. If you shift the burden to the states, you're only going to see state taxes go up, and I believe your original thing was "I don't want to see taxes go up." I'll anticipate the comeback being that the states could even lean up, but that money has to come from somewhere and if states are ALREADY cutting education expenses and laying off teachers, then that really only compounds a problem by cutting something from Federal and trying to give it to the states. As for healthcare, I could see that posing problems. The original idea of the health care reform act was to (in theory) lower the cost of health care by providing a so-called "government option" that would directly compete with other companies out there. Because the government would be able to undercut other companies, through nothing more than capitalistic competition, they're greatly reduce insurance premiums and provide care to the so-called un-insurable, like those with preexisting conditions and the like. However, people got worked up about silly notions like "death panels" or something or other, so they dropped that and instead went through a bunch of other things and even sat down with the GOP, like they did with the debt talks, to try and work something reasonable (though even then, they didn't vote on it. Jerks). And, hey, I don't know about you, but I kinda like staying on my parent's insurance while I'm up here in college. I'm unemployed at the moment, so it's not like I've got any way to cover that sort of thing, and like I should be penalized for going through school instead of trying to enter the work force in a recession. That aside, trying to get the states to come up with similar plans that would do the same thing would be a nightmare (different laws in different states might very well drive up the costs between states; that's the cost of doing business when one state is more lenient that another. Top that all off, and you've just created a whole mess of bureaucratic work for those insurance companies and you better believe if it isn't a nightmare now, it sure as heck would be. As for international aid, are we talking about giving to stricken countries like Haiti and stuff? Suggesting the NPOs take over that? Well, isn't the Red Cross having trouble feeding people in famine stricken Somalia enough as it is? I'm not saying cuts aren't good, but trying to spin some of these things off to the states might as well be an exercise in futility (or better left to the Feds). Perhaps some of these things could stand to see some form of reduction and tweaking (No Child Left Behind, most likely), and probably some programs could stand to be examined more closely (subsidies and loopholes of all kinds to be sure), but no one said this was some easy issue that could be solved with a marker and a once over. Least you seem reasonable enough to not be one of the ones who go "LET'S DEFAULT AND GO TO THE GOLD STANDARD AGAIN!" |
|
|
|
Post by Pacmanite on Jul 27, 2011 8:52:18 GMT -5
I'm not American either but this crisis is one of the things that has been pushing the Australian dollar to terrifying heights. ($1 AD = $1.1 USD, anyone? Just a few years ago it was half that.) And the bloated Aussie Dollar has been bad for the domestic retail, because everyone wants to buy their stuff for cheaper on the internet and just have it shipped over. You can see the local stores going out of business in front of your eyes, and even the big retail chains are badly hurt. (As it happens, my casual job is one in the retail sector.)
But of course, I'm sure that the debt crisis is much more painful for the US. I hope for your sakes that the government can pull their act together. =/
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2011 16:26:10 GMT -5
So...what exactly is going on now?  It looks like Boehner's plan's been rejected and some people are filibustering. |
|
|
|
Post by commissarburn on Jul 30, 2011 16:46:23 GMT -5
So...what exactly is going on now? It looks like Boehner's plan's been rejected and some people are filibustering. Boehner forced his bill onto the floor for a vote, where the Republican's barely got it through (some 8 votes; was 218 yea, 210 nay) so the plan passed the House. The Senate, which told them straight up they'd kick it out, did just that (both Republican and Democrat senators voted to not pass it). So, now we have about two, three days before we default. They can either pass Reid's plan somehow, or by an act of some beneficent deity develop one and pass it. If they don't, it's been nice knowing you all. EDIT: Whoops, just checked the news. House rejected Reid's bill. Herpderp. |
|
|
|
Post by commissarburn on Jul 31, 2011 21:35:02 GMT -5
www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvvQEVUwWVcWell, I haven't seen or heard anything about the bill, but they seem to have reached something. It's probably likely to pass, I'll assume. If not, I'll eat my tall hat.
|
|
It looks like Boehner's plan's been rejected and some people are filibustering.