House Federal Budget that is serious about getting America back on track

Jesus would give away his own money, not someone else's.

I am generous with what I have. It is what I do. I'm not even Christian but I see no reason to not be generous especially when the benefit to someone else outweighs the cost to myself.

I do not reach into other people's pockets and then give to everyone else though.

Perhaps you have confused Robin Hood and Jesus Christ :laugh2:
 
FWIW, I'm an Independent

two classes of people, the ruling class and the poor.

The US was that way before WWII and in my opinion is heading that way again. FDR Administration's creation of the GI Bill was a major reason the middle class expanded. Previously poor people who were looking forward to a life of being working poor were able to purchase homes, and provide education & good health care for their families.
 
Show me where it says the Federal Government is required or even allowed to by law let alone take money out of my pocket to do it with.
in fact, the framers of our country felt that forced charity through taxation was akin to tyranny.

Final words:
Liberals = generous
Conservatives = selfish

You're out of your mind with these comments. It's real easy to be quite generous with other people's money.
Do you give to charity?
Do you donate time?

you're a liberal so you must right, cause liberals are the generous party right?
It's not possible that the Democratic party has been keeping the poor down with entitlements so that they can leverage the "working poor" vote is it? Not possible that they would engineer welfare systems and programs that are designed to keep people on them right?

wake up man, our government is broken on all sides, not just the conservative one. The politicians are using YOUR money, and your children's money, to pander themselves with welfare programs in order to keep themselves in power. Yeah, that's real noble of them. Maybe if we made it so people couldn't sit on their asses and collect more in benefits than getting a job at Mcdonalds they would go find a job. Hard to be motivated to get a job when your bills are taken care of and you can sit on your ass and drink beer all day. Maybe then we wouldn't need the illegal alien population that "does the jobs Americans won't". Holy shit, I just killed two birds with one stone, how bout that?
 
Last edited:
in fact, the framers of our country felt that forced charity through taxation was akin to tyranny.



You're out of your mind with these comments. It's real easy to be quite generous with other people's money.
Do you give to charity?
Do you donate time?


you're a liberal so you must right, cause liberals are the generous party right?
It's not possible that the Democratic party has been keeping the poor down with entitlements so that they can leverage the "working poor" vote is it? Not possible that they would engineer welfare systems and programs that are designed to keep people on them right?

wake up man, our government is broken on all sides, not just the conservative one. The politicians are using YOUR money, and your children's money, to pander themselves with welfare programs in order to keep themselves in power. Yeah, that's real noble of them. Maybe if we made it so people couldn't sit on their asses and collect more in benefits than getting a job at Mcdonalds they would go find a job. Hard to be motivated to get a job when your bills are taken care of and you can sit on your ass and drink beer all day. Maybe then we wouldn't need the illegal alien population that "does the jobs Americans won't". Holy shit, I just killed two birds with one stone, how bout that?

I do in fact donate to nonprofit organizations, which will remain unnamed, because it is none of anyone's business but my own. But if you must know.....(GP, DOW, WWF etc...) Look up the initials for definitions.
And in addition to monetary donations, (not to political candidates or any such related thing), I am a big brother to a 12 y.o. boy who has no father.
My relationship with him has been rewarding for me as well, as it shows me things about myself that I may not have noticed without him. I hope to help make him a generous capable contributor to society, much like myself.
Your comment about welfare moms shows that you too, think the welfare problem at the bottom of society is more serious than the welfare problem at the top of society. Welfare moms pale in comparison to corporate welfare that takes your money too. Maybe we should end ALL welfare including oil companies and the like who really don't need it. Welfare moms piss me off too, but then I just think of BP, or Exxon/Mobil, and that rapidly puts things in perspective. Maybe you are mad at the wrong end of the welfare spectrum. All too common today in this divided society.
 
Your comment about welfare moms shows that you too, think the welfare problem at the bottom of society is more serious than the welfare problem at the top of society. Welfare moms pale in comparison to corporate welfare that takes your money too. Maybe we should end ALL welfare including oil companies and the like who really don't need it. Welfare moms piss me off too, but then I just think of BP, or Exxon/Mobil, and that rapidly puts things in perspective. Maybe you are mad at the wrong end of the welfare spectrum. All too common today in this divided society.

Hey, now you're getting it. I am for cutting subsidies as well.
Farm subsidies
ethanol subsidies
oil subsidies

all of them. If you can't make money in your chosen market without the federal governments subsidies you're a shitty businessman. Not to mention that subsidies are basically the way of the federal government controlling the free arket. No one should tamper with the free market, hence it being a "free market"

Lets go back two pages where I said all spending needs to be cut. Did I say I only wanted to cut entitlements? Nope, I said ALL SPENDING. that's the root of the issue. We don't have money, but we keep running up the credit card debt. Eventually the creditors stop giving you money, we are nearly to that point.
 
Jesus and politics.......carry on.
5popcorn.gif
 
Hey, now you're getting it. I am for cutting subsidies as well.
Farm subsidies
ethanol subsidies
oil subsidies

all of them. If you can't make money in your chosen market without the federal governments subsidies you're a shitty businessman. Not to mention that subsidies are basically the way of the federal government controlling the free arket. No one should tamper with the free market, hence it being a "free market"

Lets go back two pages where I said all spending needs to be cut. Did I say I only wanted to cut entitlements? Nope, I said ALL SPENDING. that's the root of the issue. We don't have money, but we keep running up the credit card debt. Eventually the creditors stop giving you money, we are nearly to that point.

The bolded statement above, regardless of what we don't see eye to eye on, is probably the most sane thing you have said lately, and shows that we do in fact have some common ground. Not much, but some. It is a start.
 
April 2011 Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said Tuesday there is "no risk" the U.S. will lose its top credit rating amid a new analysis that revised its outlook on American debt to "negative."

Geithner took to the airwaves of financial news networks to push back against a report Monday by Standard & Poor's that lowered its outlook on U.S. debt to "negative," reflecting political uncertainty over whether lawmakers will reach an agreement to address long-term debt.X

There is no chance that the U.S. will lose its top credit rating, Geithner said, forcefully disputing the notion that S&P or other ratings services might downgrade U.S. bonds from their current AAA rating.

August 5, 2011
The United States has suffered the first downgrade to its credit rating in history, as Standard & Poor's has reduced the nation's rating from AAA to AA+.

The credit rating firm said the recent plan to raise the debt limit while reducing the debt "falls short" of its expectations, but also offered broader condemnations of America's political process.

"The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed," the firm wrote in its announcement. "The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy. Despite this year's wide-ranging debate, in our view, the differences between political parties have proven to be extraordinarily difficult to bridge."
S&P said it was "pessimistic" about the ability of Congress and the White House to reach a broader plan to rein in the deficit "any time soon."

The Treasury Department immediately pushed back against the downgrade by S&P, accusing the rater of having major calculation errors that threw the firm's entire rationale into doubt.

"A judgment flawed by a $2 trillion error speaks for itself," said a Treasury spokesperson.

After being presented with S&P's economic rationale for the downgrade, Treasury officials immediately pointed out a perceived error in the analysis, which found it had pegged discretionary spending levels at $2 trillion too high, compared to analysis from the Congressional Budget Office. That calculation error resulted in a much higher growth rate of the nation's debt-to-GDP ratio.

S&P acknowledged the error, and removed that portion of the analysis from its statement.

The ratings agency blasted elected officials for failing to make the tough choices to get the fiscal picture in order, but refused to weigh in on the fundamental fight in Congress -- whether increased revenues should be part of any deal to reduce the deficit.

"Elected officials remain wary of tackling the structural issues required to effectively address the rising U.S. public debt burden in a manner consistent with a 'AAA' rating," it wrote, adding, "Standard & Poor's takes no position on the mix of spending and revenue measures that Congress and the Administration might conclude is appropriate for putting the U.S.'s finances on a sustainable footing."

It added that the nation's rating could be lowered further to AA within the next two years if the government's fiscal problems do not improve, while assigning a negative outlook to its current rating.
 
It's the Spending.........

Decades of over-spending and over-borrowing by the federal government have damaged America’s creditworthiness. Congress after Congress, President after President, the federal government spent every penny it took in—and borrowed over $14 trillion on top of that—to try to keep happy the voters to whom the government made promises it could not afford. The government kept shifting the burden of paying the bills forward onto future generations.

Well, the future has arrived, and it is bleak. Our economy is weak, millions of Americans are out of work, and America is so deep in debt that we have lost our good credit rating. Our nation needs to drive federal spending, including our ever-growing entitlement programs, down toward a balanced budget while maintaining our ability to protect America and without raising taxes. That is the sound path forward to a stronger economy with smaller government and more real jobs.

The White House’s first reaction to this news was to blame S&P itself, claiming that their math was wrong as spokesmen pointed out S&P’s past rating failures. Correcting the math didn’t correct the problem, however, and so S&P went ahead with its downgrade. Debating S&P’s credibility misses the more important point, which is there for all to see: Projected deficit spending properly raises questions about U.S. credit quality.

We cannot waste time shooting the messenger when the message itself is impossible to ignore: It’s the spending.


Unsustainable entitlement programs have been built up over many Congresses and Presidents. Elected officials from both parties over many decades helped push us closer to this point. But the last chance to start correcting the problem before damage to America’s credit occurred was during the recent debate over the debt limit.
Regrettably, President Obama and the Senate liberals refused to allow reforms to any entitlement programs and refused to make significant cuts in other federal spending unless they could raise taxes on America. Conservatives rightly resisted increasing taxes, which is a recipe for economic disaster during an economic slowdown. The resulting deal on the Budget Control Act brought little in the way of spending cuts and lots in the way of increased borrowing, and it was the last straw that cost America its top credit rating. President Obama and his liberal allies on Capitol Hill brought America’s credit down.

The White House claims that its tax-hike centered “grand bargain” would have prevented a downgrade, yet they still have not told us what was in that “bargain.” Even as Senate Democrats are nearing three years without a budget, President Obama has offered to the American people rhetoric and class warfare, rather than solutions and responsible leadership.

Other liberals went out of their way this weekend to blame this downgrade on the Tea Party, with Senator John Kerry (D–MA) going as far as calling it the “Tea Party downgrade“ on NBC’s Meet the Press. Former Obama advisor David Axelrod echoed that coordinated spin on Face the Nation. Besides proclaiming for all to see that the liberals have no solutions themselves, this argument ignores the facts.

The Tea Party’s primary focus is our nation’s fiscal health. If it were not for the Tea Party’s positive influence, Congress would still be spending, taxing, and borrowing with little regard for the burden it is placing on future generations. Only months ago, President Obama was demanding a so-called “clean” debt limit increase that would allow him to keep on borrowing without any cuts to spending.

As our colleague J. D. Foster points out in his expert analysis of Friday’s downgrade, the debate over the debt limit was the substantive ideas of the conservatives versus empty political rhetoric of liberals:
In the course of negotiations on the debt ceiling, congressional Republicans tried tirelessly to get the President and Senate Democrats to get serious about cutting spending. All Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D–NV) could do was carp about symbolic tax hikes on the rich, oil companies, and their latest silly affection—corporate jets. To be clear, despite the perilous state of the nation’s finances, the President’s sole objective was ideological and symbolic: Even if Republicans had caved on tax hikes, which they wisely refused to do, the revenue gains would have been inconsequential compared to the spending cuts that are necessary. The President played politics while the nation’s credit rating was set to burn, and now it has.
President Obama, congressional liberals, and their allies believe that if we remain silent on our fiscal future, then markets and credit agencies will not notice our perilous future. Thus we heard from liberal pundits and politicians who called the debt debate a “manufactured crisis”—as if everything would be fine with more blank checks. The problem of federal over-borrowing and over-spending was and is real, as the credit downgrade and market reactions reflect. Congress and the President must fix the problem and fix it now.

Liberals this week will try to equate revenue increases with tax hikes. But that is simply not factual. Government revenues increase when we have greater economic growth and more taxpayers in the workforce. That economic growth is impossible with job-killing tax hikes and increased regulation. Raising taxes on taxpayers earning $250,000 or more hits entrepreneurs, small business owners, and investors, thus slowing economic growth still further.
In the next 10 years, once the economy recovers, revenue will rapidly approach and will likely surpass its historical average of 18.5 percent of GDP, while spending is projected to shoot past its historical average of 20.3 percent to 26.4 percent of GDP. Government spending will have increased by 22 percent just on President Obama’s watch.

Yet some liberals were still calling for more debt and deficits this weekend in the name of new “stimulus.” On Friday evening, Obama’s former economic advisor Christina Romer said the first failed stimulus she helped design should have been bigger and argued for a new and larger stimulus saying: “What I want is more now.”
That is, more of what President Obama has given us in the past—fruitless new spending programs. This would give us a bigger problem, not a solution. With America and the world in the grips of an economic slowdown, we need action to create economic growth and jobs and restore America’s credit. We do not need more government.
As dire is the domestic situation, as Foster notes, the consequences for the global financial crisis may be worse:
In today’s global economy, however, the U.S. credit rating downgrade may prove catastrophic. Prior to the credit rating downgrade, Europe was already teetering on the brink. Last week European stock exchanges plunged 10 percent, their worst weekly losses since November 2008. The long-building government debt crisis in Europe, which had been so unsuccessfully papered over just a few weeks ago by its leaders, is reaching the boiling point, threatening to wash over not just the worst offenders like Greece and Portugal but also some of the pillars of the European Union like Spain and Italy.
We cannot improve domestic or global economic conditions by becoming more like Europe. America can do better by adopting better ideas.
Heritage has offered its fiscal plan, “Saving the American Dream,” which would balance the budget in 10 years and lower our debt-to-GDP ratio to 30 percent (from the 100 percent it reached last week). It would accomplish this through responsible reform of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the tax code.
As Foster concludes:
A number of sound incremental reforms can garner strong bipartisan support and can substantially improve these program’s sustainability and the nation’s finances. The President must lead his party to join hands with Republicans in the joint select committee to embrace these reforms and be ready to enact them, saving far more than $1.2 trillion and far sooner than November 23. The objective for the nation, the President, and the joint select committee is clear: drive down spending—including and especially on entitlement programs—toward a balanced budget while protecting America and without raising taxes. Properly done, this would lead to economic growth, more jobs, less government, and a restoration of the nation’s credit rating. It can be done.

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/08/08/morning-bell-its-the-spending/
 
Sounds like Obama is on the ropes with his own supporters in Congress, as well as those who support him simply because he's black and that great promise of Hope and Change..........
http://campaign2012.washingtonexami...ntial/black-caucus-tired-making-excuses-obama

Sorry folks, his plan is underway and it's not designed to work out well for average American people.....however, its a great plan if you are on the oppressor side of the oppression.
 
Here is a great source for national debt statistics. http://www.justfacts.com/nationaldebt.asp

Some facts to put our country's current financial situation into perspective:


As of August 3, 2011, the official debt of the United States government is $14.6 trillion ($14,574,607,940,062).[1] This amounts to:

• $47,159 for every person living in the U.S.[2]
• $123,999 for every household in the U.S.[3]
• $309,998 for every U.S. household that pays more in federal taxes than they receive in benefits from the federal government[4]

* Publicly traded companies are legally required to account for "explicit" and "implicit" future obligations such as employee pensions and retirement benefits.[5] [6] [7] The federal budget, which is the "federal government's primary financial planning and control tool," is not bound by this rule.[8] [9]

* As of September 30, 2010 (the end of the federal government's fiscal year), the federal government has:

• $7.3 trillion ($7,297,000,000,000) in liabilities such as federal employee retirement and veterans' benefits[10]
• $17.2 trillion ($17,195,000,000,000) in unfunded obligations for the Social Security program
• $22.8 trillion ($22,800,000,000,000) in unfunded obligations for the Medicare program
• $122 billion ($122,000,000,000) in unfunded obligations for two other "social insurance" programs called "Black Lung" and "Railroad Retirement"[11]

These unfunded obligations are referred to as "closed group present values" and are calculated in a manner that approximates how publicly traded companies are required to calculate their debts and obligations.[12] [13] [14] The figures represent how much money must be immediately placed in interest-bearing investments to cover the shortfalls between projected revenues and expenditures for all current taxpayers and beneficiaries in these programs.[15] [16] [17]

* Combining the figures above with the national debt and subtracting the value of federal assets, the federal government has $56.5 trillion ($56,529,800,000,000) in debt, liabilities, and unfunded obligations as of September 30, 2010.[18]

* This shortfall is 82% of the combined net worth of all U.S. households and nonprofit organizations, including all assets in savings, real estate, corporate stocks, private businesses, and consumer durable goods such as automobiles.[19] [20]

* This shortfall equates to:

• $182,914 for every person living in the U.S.[21]
• $480,949 for every household in the U.S.[22]
• $1,202,373 for every U.S. household that pays more in federal taxes than they receive in benefits from the federal government[23]

* These figures do not account for the future costs implied by any current policy outside of the “social insurance” programs listed above.[24]

* These figures are contingent upon the continuance of current federal law and "a wide range of complex assumptions" made by federal agencies."[25] Regarding this:

• Social Security's 2010 annual report states that "significant uncertainty" surrounds the "best estimates" of future circumstances.[26]
• Medicare's 2010 annual report states that the program's financial projections "do not represent a reasonable expectation for actual program operations in either the short range … or the long range" because:
a) "Current law would require physician fee reductions totaling an estimated 30 percent over the next 3 years—an implausible result."
b) The 2010 Affordable Care Act [Obamacare] eventually reduces "Medicare prices for hospital, skilled nursing facility, home health, hospice, ambulatory surgical center, diagnostic laboratory, and many other services" to "less than half of their level under the prior law. …. Well before that point, Congress would have to intervene to prevent the withdrawal of providers from the Medicare market and the severe problems with beneficiary access to care that would result. … [This] would lead to far higher costs for Medicare in the long range than those projected under current law."[27]
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsAGaaYabrY&feature=player_embedded

"The Economy has gotten better than it was when I first took office"


Facts don't support repeated claims......where I'm from we call this "lying".
Here is some insight on the business owners perspective, from Dallas Fed President Richard Fisher (who should replace Bernanke!)

“I have spoken to this many times in public. Those with the capacity to hire American workers―small businesses as well as large, publicly traded or private―are immobilized. Not because they lack entrepreneurial zeal or do not wish to grow; not because they can’t access cheap and available credit.

Rather, they simply cannot budget or manage for the uncertainty of fiscal and regulatory policy. In an environment where they are already uncertain of potential growth in demand for their goods and services and have yet to see a significant pickup in top-line revenue, there is palpable angst surrounding the cost of doing business.

“I would suggest that unless you were on another planet, no consumer with access to a television, radio or the Internet could have escaped hearing their president, senators and their congressperson telling them the sky was falling.

With the leadership of the nation―Republicans and Democrats alike―and every talking head in the media making clear hour after hour, day after day in the run-up to Aug. 2 that a financial disaster was lurking around the corner, it does not take much imagination to envision consumers deciding to forego or delay some discretionary expenditure they had planned.

“Instead, they might well be inclined to hunker down to weather the perfect storm they were being warned was rapidly approaching. Watching the drama as it unfolded, I could imagine consumers turning to each other in millions of households, saying: ‘Honey, we need to cancel that trip we were planning and that gizmo or service we wanted to buy. We better save more and spend less.’ Small wonder that, following the somewhat encouraging retail activity reported in July, the Michigan survey measure of consumer sentiment released just recently had a distinctly sour tone.

“Importantly, from a business operator’s perspective, nothing was clarified, except that there will be undefined change in taxes, spending and subsidies and other fiscal incentives or disincentives. The message was simply that some combination of revenue enhancement and spending growth cutbacks will take place. The particulars are left to one’s imagination and the outcome of deliberations among 12 members of the Legislature.

“Now, put yourself in the shoes of a business operator. On the revenue side, you have yet to see a robust recovery in demand; growing your top-line revenue is vexing. You have been driving profits or just maintaining your margins through cost reduction and achieving maximum operating efficiency. You have money in your pocket or a banker increasingly willing to give you credit if and when you decide to expand.

“But you have no idea where the government will be cutting back on spending, what measures will be taken on the taxation front and how all this will affect your cost structure or customer base. Your most likely reaction is to cross your arms, plant your feet and say: ‘Show me. I am not going to hire new workers or build a new plant until I have been shown what will come out of this agreement.’

“Moreover, you might now say to yourself, ‘I understand from the Federal Reserve that I don’t have to worry about the cost of borrowing for another two years. Given that I don’t know how I am going to be hit by whatever new initiatives the Congress will come up with, but I do know that credit will remain cheap through the next election, what incentive do I have to invest and expand now? Why shouldn’t I wait until the sky is clear?’”


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-recession-of-2011-2011-8?page=2#ixzz1VmOg62De
 
Back
Top