Our deficit is eviscerating the middle class

[Valkahuna]

A good friend of mine sent me a link to an interesting article today.

Lot's of truth and food for thought in this article. I am not trying to make a statement here, only passing along what I found very relevant and ineresting.

Here it is: http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2011041514/deficit-america-has-forgotten-and-eviscerating-middle-class

[Tropic traveler]

The deficit is going to eviscerate EVERYONES retirement and/or savings.
Then the libs will be truly happy as everyone will be equally poor.
Mark my words... if we {the U.S.} don't get serious, REALLY serious about eliminating deficit spending there won't be ANY rich, just all poor wards of the state. The next few years are critical.  

[RoadKill]

There will still be 2 (two,to,too,tew ) classes. Rich and poor.

[G-Man]

I heard on Bill Maher's show the other night that the Republicans are for the rich.  I've heard that before, but hearing it from him started me thinking.  I can name 50 or more democratic millionaires, but can only name 3 or 4 republican millionaires.

[valkmc]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-04-26-new-york-government-aid.htm?loc=interstitialskip 

Check out this article in USA. Tells you where the money is going. You cut all you want from public employees but if we don't get control of this we are doomed.

[fudgie]

(two,to,too,tew ) 

  

[Bonzo]

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/25/133211508/the-weekly-standard-obama-vs-bush-on-debt

[Bob E.]

Wasn't it Cheney that said "Deficits don't matter"?  I have to say that I find it kind of ironic that people talk about the "libs" and their spending while holding up the conservatives as somehow being fiscally disciplined...meanwhile the country's debt was rather small until Reagan took over and they started to skyrocket...only to be continued by Bush I, then Clinton takes over and ends up with a surplus only to be blown away by Bush II.  Granted, Obama has spent some money, but the deficit for 2008 (signed by Bush II) was projected to be about 1.3T when he took over, not to mention the severe depletion of revenues due to the economic crisis since the great depression, not to mention 2 nearly decade old wars and now a 3rd conflict in Lybia.

Jest sayin...

[custom1]

It's not a dem vs. rep thing. They removed the last link of the dollar to gold in 1971 and then the spending takes off like a rocket.




They can just print money at will. That causes inflation. Without inflation our wages would be lower and more in line with other countries and we would be able to compete.

[musclehead]

I heard on Bill Maher's show the other night that the Republicans are for the rich.  I've heard that before, but hearing it from him started me thinking.  I can name 50 or more democratic millionaires, but can only name 3 or 4 republican millionaires.

yeah but how many repulican BILLIONAIRES can you name, I can name several on the left.

[musclehead]

Wasn't it Cheney that said "Deficits don't matter"?  I have to say that I find it kind of ironic that people talk about the "libs" and their spending while holding up the conservatives as somehow being fiscally disciplined...meanwhile the country's debt was rather small until Reagan took over and they started to skyrocket...only to be continued by Bush I, then Clinton takes over and ends up with a surplus only to be blown away by Bush II.  Granted, Obama has spent some money, but the deficit for 2008 (signed by Bush II) was projected to be about 1.3T when he took over, not to mention the severe depletion of revenues due to the economic crisis since the great depression, not to mention 2 nearly decade old wars and now a 3rd conflict in Lybia.

Jest sayin...

spending went up under Reagan too, the congress spent 1.78 of every dollar coming in. the purse strings of the country are controlled by the house, and if the house is ran by a bunch of big spenders it hurts us all especially during a recession. however under Reagan and Bush 1 and 2 the economy wasn't doing so bad and the ill effects of wild spending were minimized. what happened in 1994? the elections happened and a fresh faced group of conservatives came to Washington. remember how they were ripped on by the republicans? most were very very discouraged by the ROT and GRAFT and CORRUPTION and went home before they lost their souls to the Borg.

[Tropic traveler]

Wasn't it Cheney that said "Deficits don't matter"?  I have to say that I find it kind of ironic that people talk about the "libs" and their spending while holding up the conservatives as somehow being fiscally disciplined...meanwhile the country's debt was rather small until Reagan took over and they started to skyrocket...only to be continued by Bush I, then Clinton takes over and ends up with a surplus only to be blown away by Bush II.  Granted, Obama has spent some money, but the deficit for 2008 (signed by Bush II) was projected to be about 1.3T when he took over, not to mention the severe depletion of revenues due to the economic crisis since the great depression, not to mention 2 nearly decade old wars and now a 3rd conflict in Lybia.

Jest sayin...

You have a good point Bob.
This country has to move beyond the R vs. D thing. There is plenty of blame to go around. The deficit does matter when it gets to be such a high percentage of GDP. Falling dollar, weak economy, GDP goes down while deficit goes up soon we are at a tipping point & life as we know it changes radically for the worse.
If it weren't for the fact that most of the other players in the economic world were in worse shape than we are our real trouble would already be upon us. When the dollar loses it's status as the primary currancy the worst will begin.
I fear for all of us. 

[RoadKill]

http://youtu.be/MUFdBoOv9dE

[Bob E.]

Wasn't it Cheney that said "Deficits don't matter"?  I have to say that I find it kind of ironic that people talk about the "libs" and their spending while holding up the conservatives as somehow being fiscally disciplined...meanwhile the country's debt was rather small until Reagan took over and they started to skyrocket...only to be continued by Bush I, then Clinton takes over and ends up with a surplus only to be blown away by Bush II.  Granted, Obama has spent some money, but the deficit for 2008 (signed by Bush II) was projected to be about 1.3T when he took over, not to mention the severe depletion of revenues due to the economic crisis since the great depression, not to mention 2 nearly decade old wars and now a 3rd conflict in Lybia.

Jest sayin...

spending went up under Reagan too, the congress spent 1.78 of every dollar coming in. the purse strings of the country are controlled by the house, and if the house is ran by a bunch of big spenders it hurts us all especially during a recession. however under Reagan and Bush 1 and 2 the economy wasn't doing so bad and the ill effects of wild spending were minimized. what happened in 1994? the elections happened and a fresh faced group of conservatives came to Washington. remember how they were ripped on by the republicans? most were very very discouraged by the ROT and GRAFT and CORRUPTION and went home before they lost their souls to the Borg.

Well, I won't totally defend the dems on their spending records.  But I  just won't give a pass to the repubs when they try to claim to be the fiscally responsible party.  And I get really get tired of this arguement.  The only time that arguement comes out is when it benefits their party.  Sure budgets originate in the house.  But in the end, the president sets the agenda and priorities and ultimately approves and signs the budget into law.  He's the leader of the country with veto-power.  The buck stops there...unless there is a veto-proof majority, which, as party-line as these things are any more, rarely happens.  By your arguement, the republicans are now responsible for the current 2011 budget with its record 1.6T deficit.  In addition, during Bush II, if the deficit was such a concern to the republicans, why did they not apply the surplus to pay down the deficit rather than give it out in a tax cut?  Times were good then.  The economy was doing well in 2001.  In fact, that was their arguement for passing the tax cuts...by reconciliation, by the way.  But instead, the republicans blew up the budget with tax cuts, then Bush decided to go to war.  With 9-11 fresh on all our minds, I don't fault him for hitting Afganistan, but doubling down on the tax cuts in 2003 with Iraq brewing was irresponsible and ultimately very damaging to the national deficit.  The bottom line is that even Reagan and Bush I were smart enough to realize that deficits do matter and raised taxes to try and cover at least some of the bills.  I see no such wisdom from the current crop of republicans.  In fact, many of their so-called cuts even raise the deficit.  A perfect example is their cuts to the IRS tax-enforcement folks.  For every dollar spent, they return $10 in tax collection that would otherwise be not paid by tax-evaders.  But that was one of their big cuts in the latest budget cutting deal.

Also, most economists not involved with the Heritage Foundation would disagree with you on the "government spending during a recession" arguement.  In a recession, nobody is spending money.  If nobody spends money, the economy goes into a death spiral and tanks worse.  So the government needs to spend money in order to prime the economy to create/save jobs so people have money to spend.  This is another reason why it would have been nice if Bush II would have taken the surplus and paid down the debt so the country's fiscal situation was better.  But instead, the debt was already at near-record levels when the economy tanked...so any stimulus spending really looked that much worse for the deficit. Its kinda like if you get laid off.  If you've got some savings, you can weather the storm for awhile.  But if you are up to your neck in bills, you're gonna have problems.  We're in the same boat now with the Fed.  They've already got interest rates down to practically zero, where they've been for a long time.  So their hands are tied with any moves they can make.  So now the only thing to do is flooding the economy with money...which causes inflation, also not good.  Right now, we are suffering the consequences of short-sighted policy making on both sides of the aisle.

[G-Man]

I heard on Bill Maher's show the other night that the Republicans are for the rich.  I've heard that before, but hearing it from him started me thinking.  I can name 50 or more democratic millionaires, but can only name 3 or 4 republican millionaires.

yeah but how many repulican BILLIONAIRES can you name, I can name several on the left.

Even better!  Almost all of the rich people I know, see, and hear about are on the Left.  Go figure??