| 28 July 2010
The CBO just released a report that spells out what everyone but Obama and the Democrats has known for quite a while.
In a new report this week, the CBO grimly summarizes America's fiscal future: "Unless policymakers restrain the growth of spending, increase revenues significantly as a share of GDP, or adopt some combination of those two approaches, growing budget deficits will cause debt to rise to unsupportable levels."
"Unsupportable." Let that sink in for a minute. It means we'll have no way to pay what we owe — that we as a nation will be bankrupt. Lenders won't lend to the government unless it pays exorbitant interest rates. Capital that usually goes to create new businesses and jobs will be gobbled instead by the government to pay off its debts.
Just as bad, however, is that somewhere along the way we might have the mother of all financial meltdowns, a crisis that will make the most recent one look picayune.
As the CBO put it, "a growing level of federal debt would also increase the probability of a sudden fiscal crisis, during which investors would lose confidence in the government's ability to manage its budget.
Currently Obama, Reid and Pelosi are pissing away $1.5 trillion a year more than the government takes in. By the end of Obama's reign of fiscal terror our country will be $6 trillion dollars further in debt with no way to repay that debt.
Bush left office with a $10 Trillion national debt. That was bad. In 2 years Obama has pushed the debt to $14 trillion and it could be as high as $17 trillion when he leaves office. Obama added more to the national debt in his first year in office than GW Bush added to the national debt in 8 years!
We can only hope that a Republican Congress can slow Obama down while we wait out the rest of his disastrous 4 years.
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email this
Trackback(0)
TrackBack URI for this entryComments (50)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Nobody , July 28, 2010
I thought we weren't supposed to drop the F-bomb in the titles? However true it may be. We must be done with trimming around the edges and do some real cuts. Start with just ending some whole Departments, Like Ed, Energy, HUD et al.
written by Jim W , July 28, 2010
we're not, so I tweaked it. But that doesn't mean we're not fucked. Because at this rate, we are. WE need gridlock, pronto. We need some balance in the house or senate so NOTHING can get done and we, the AMerican public, can collectively catch our breath and hopefully slow down the insanity. Then, we need a complete turnover on all levels of the fed, with massive cost cutting (including people) to stop the runaway stupidity.
written by Barthélemy Barbancourt , July 29, 2010
I forgot.
But given that BO and his buddies are pissing away over $1.5 trillion a year that we don't have, we are truly fucked.
written by Jim W , July 29, 2010
don't sweat it. If google wasn't so fucking pissy about using great descriptive words like FUCKED in our titles, we wouldn't have to worry about it. Fact is, it's a perfect description of our current status, thanks to the super smart folks in our govt.
written by Odin , July 29, 2010
to consider a 100% estate tax yet? Or are you content to just go on making doomsday predictions while indulging your unwarranted sense of entitlement?
written by Caballo31 , July 30, 2010
That is laughable...if someone WORKS (you know that thing all of us "little people" need to do to survive) how are we (and our children)not entitled to the fruit of our efforts. Why should my estate, such that it is, pay for the governments entitlement programs? Whose "sense of entitlement" is really unwarranted? I plan to continue to indulge my WARRANTED sense of entitlement.
written by Odin , July 30, 2010
You think your children are entitled to the fruits of your labor? People used to occassionally write Dear Abby complaining that their parents were spending the writer's future inheritance. Abby always said it was the parents' money to do with as they please and their adult offspring have no natural rights to it. You disagree? You think adults have a moral right to wealth their parents earned?
written by Kermit , July 30, 2010
You think your children are entitled to the fruits of your labor?
Yes. And only a socialist would dispute my RIGHT to dispose of my property in the way I see fit.
written by Caballo31 , July 30, 2010
You reference "Dear Abby" to support an argument for the government TAKING what I earn? Funny... Back to the point Mr. Attention Deficit: Unwarranted Sense of Entitlement (in case you'd forgotten). If I have labored to develop an estate how is my desire to do with it as I please unwarranted OR a sense of entitlement. I imagine you believe YOUR children are entitled to the fruits of MY labor? I wonder what "Dear Abby" would have to say about that?
written by Barthélemy Barbancourt , July 30, 2010
I wonder why he is so obsessed with an issue that only affects 2% of the population. The rest of the country isn't affected.
Odin's class hatred is so deep that he has become unhinged at the thought that somewhere, someone might actually accumulate enough money to give their kids a better start on life than they had.
Give up your crusade Odin. People like to think that one of the benefits of their hard work is that their kids will be better off. Sometime people die unexpectedly and the kids get what that parents worked and saved so hard to create. This is human nature, not some cosmic injustice.
In your world the kids of the people that were killed on 911 should get nothing and every dime those people had in the bank on that day should go to the state? I think most people would call your idea insane.
written by Jim W , July 30, 2010
I'm failing to see how this circular argument on the estate tax applies to the post. It was about the federal debt growing to levels previously unseen, and how this govt is doing NOTHING to reduce it.
written by Kermit , July 30, 2010
This government CREATED the unprecedented federal debt. And as anyone with an ounce of integrity will acknowledge, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have been running Congress since 2006. This "mess" as Great Leader Obama likes to call it is of the Democrat's making.
written by Badda , July 30, 2010
Odin,
The point of kids complaining about their parents spendthrift ways wasn't that it was the kids' money... it was the parents', theirs to do with as they wish.
And if the parents wished to will it to the kids, that was their decision.
Your argument (such as it is) does not support your claim that it is the government's to take.
If the parents wish the government to have the money, they will GIVE it to the government.
written by Barthélemy Barbancourt , July 30, 2010
His view that all of your rights vanish the moment you die. It is a very strange view that would ruin society as we know it.
written by Badda , July 30, 2010
It's as if he wants a Will to no longer be binding AFTER the subject dies.
written by Kermit , July 30, 2010
Not inconsistent. Marxists believe that all money and property belongs to the government in the first place, and they (bureaucrats) get to decide how much you should be allowed to keep. There are no individual rights. Everything is for the State, everything comes from the State.
That's what the American Revolution was all about.
written by Nobody , July 30, 2010
Here we go again. Whst kind of feudal system do you want this time?
written by Odin , July 30, 2010
His view that all of your rights vanish the moment you die. It is a very strange view that would ruin society as we know it.
Yes, your rights end when you do. That isn't a strange view, it's the view of everyone who understands what rights are. I've asked this before and found no takers - Rights are claims made valid by law, tradition and/or morality. Who or what has your rights after you're dead and gone?
Couldja explain how you think your right to bear arms survives your death? Who or what continues to have your right?
written by Odin , July 30, 2010
I'm failing to see how this circular argument on the estate tax applies to the post. It was about the federal debt growing to levels previously unseen, and how this govt is doing NOTHING to reduce it.
You don't seem to understand what a "circular argument" is. And the original post asserted the need to "raise revenues" to address what are becoming unsustainable deficits. The estate tax raises revenues, or did until this year. W and the Repub-controlled Congress decided deficit spending was less important than giving tax breaks to inheritors.
I wonder why he is so obsessed with an issue that only affects 2% of the population. The rest of the country isn't affected.
As Willie Sutton said, because that's where the money is. IIRC, the top 2% of the population own about 95% of the wealth in America. As I've asked before, who has more of moral claim to that wealth, the society that helped and enabled its accumulation or heirs? Seems to me it's usually the former.
When the wealth goes to heirs instead of the greater society, the rest of the country is affected.
I imagine you believe YOUR children are entitled to the fruits of MY labor?
Probably as entitled to the fruits of your labor as your adult children are. Kids tend to be wealth sinks for their parents, not wealth enhancers. Why would your adult children be entitled to the fruits of your labor?
If I have labored to develop an estate how is my desire to do with it as I please unwarranted OR a sense of entitlement.
You have the natural right to do with your wealth whatever you want, subject to certain limitations, but that right ends when you do. How is that not obvious to you?
written by Nobody , July 30, 2010
Odie, one last time, My wealth is mine, not yours or "the greater society". I may do with it what I want even after I'm dead, by a decree called a will.
Your obession with wealth and rights seems to point to some mental illness, get help dude. As a fallen away catholic, I'm sure you have some issues. You're a one note somba guy. You make the same (poor) arguements every time and it grows tiresome. You've been disassembled, bit by bit, here over and over. and you still come back for more, are you into pain?
written by Kermit , July 30, 2010
You have the right to determine the distribution of your estate until you are dead. Then the socialist parasites move in.
Lovely system. May it fester and die.
written by tim-The Dyslexic Blogger , July 30, 2010
I for one am really geting tired of being told by some one that keeps buzzing around like a bug that he is the only smart oThis administration in office rightnne in the room. This is really old
Odin
the goverment of this nation is supposed to be controled by the peopel not some little click that is upsering powers they do not have. the administration in office righ now is taking powers they do not have the athority for. They are also ignoring the voices raised by there actions.
slowly the house of sand they have built is desolving around them. soon they will not have any more money to give away from obamas stash and we will see how fast it all falls down around his big ass ears
written by tim-The Dyslexic Blogger , July 30, 2010
i am typing this on an air cad laast post got garbled in the up load
written by sanders , July 31, 2010
Rights are claims made valid by law, tradition and/or morality.
Law and Tradition in the USA (among many other countries) is that a person's wishes via a will determine the disposition of their assets. Where's your beef?
written by Kermit , August 01, 2010
Contracts? We don't need no stinkin contracts. We got Barack Hussein Obama. Mmm mmm mmm.
written by Odin , August 01, 2010
Law and Tradition in the USA (among many other countries) is that a person's wishes via a will determine the disposition of their assets.
Law and tradition used to support the right to own slaves in the USA, but slave-owning wasn't a natural right (not according to the NL theory America was founded on) and eventually laws and traditions changed. As Madison said - "Justice is the end [goal] of government. It is the end of civil society."
As I've said before, the Declaration of Independence is a natural [moral] law document, asserting that morality trumps law and tradition. The US Constitution is based on natural law, asserting that citizens have pre-existing natural rights that govt must respect unless compelling reason(s) support the limiting/denial of those rights.
The trend in the US (and many other countries) has been for laws and traditions to change to better align with natural law. There is no natural right to bequeath or inherit and eventually US law and tradition will probably change to reflect that fact.
It's immoral to saddle future generations with debt. At some point the immorality of the current situation will probably force you and those who think like you to give up your unwarranted entitlement in the interests of fairness [justice].
Where's your beef?
Thanks mostly to poor Repub leadership, we're trillions of dollars in debt and headed for fiscal disaster. (Greenspan and Stockman have both recently publicly decried the irresponsibility of the Repub tax cuts that worsened the situation.) I initially asked if you Repubs were ready to consider a 100% estate tax (one possible solution) instead of indulging your unwarranted sense of entitlement and the answer seems to be - No, you'd rather hide shivering under your beds while bemoaning how screwed we are.
It's a good illustration of one difference between liberal and conservative philosophy. Liberals tend to look for solutions via constructive change while Repubs look backward to a rose-colored past that never was and never will be.
Yeah... what about contract law?
What about it? As I've said before, wills aren't contracts. Ask anyone who's completed the first year of law school.
That's what the American Revolution was all about.
No.
written by Jim W , August 01, 2010
Ok, so how is taking the estate of a man who passes away (leaving his wife and kids living off the public dole) going to pull the country out of debt? Who administers this program? Is there a subsequent reduction in spending on a federal level?
written by Kermit , August 01, 2010
Oh you've got to be kidding. Are we trotting out that "natural law" bullshit again? We don't live in a country governed by "natural law". We live in a democratic republic where We The People get to determine law. And slavery? Is that the best you've got to justify your socialist ciminality, Onan? Your love of judicial theft?
Thanks mostly to poor Repub leadership, we're trillions of dollars in debt and headed for fiscal disaster
I have already pointed out to you (repeatedly) that Democrats have had control of Congress for FOUR AND A HALF YEARS.
This economy belongs to them, NOT the GOP.
written by Nobody , August 01, 2010
Odie, Natural Law again? after you have proved you know nothing about it again? You state (again) that a will isn't a contract. Odin you are at best advocating thieft, at worst ignorance. If we quit funding "public" (socialist) schools, cut all welfare funding to zero, lost medicare-medicade funding, closed 98% of our overseas military bases, our debt would go away.
You may wish to live in a socialist utopia, I don't.
written by Odin , August 01, 2010
Ok, so how is taking the estate of a man who passes away (leaving his wife and kids living off the public dole) going to pull the country out of debt?
I believe the laws of most if not all states dictate that the estate goes to the surviving spouse and/or children if the deceased dies intestate (without a will). The spouse (usually) has a moral claim because community assets are considered owned by both, and minor children have a moral claim because the deceased was morally obligated to provide for them until adulthood. If the surviving spouse dies and the children are adults, why are they morally entitled to the assets? Why shouldn't they be obliged to provide for themselves?This excerpt explains some of the details of California law:
"As an example, most people believe that if they are married and they die without a will or a trust, all their property will go to their surviving spouse. That is not the case in California. If you are married with children, your community property(essentially property acquired during the marriage) will go to your spouse, but only one-half of the separate property (property acquired before marriage or inherited during the marriage) will go to your spouse if there is one child of the marriage. If you have 2 or more children, your spouse will only receive one-third of the separate property."
http://www.sandiegoestateplann...ng_trusts/
Odin you are at best advocating thieft
Theft from who? Who does the estate tax steal from?
written by Jim W , August 02, 2010
I thought laws were bad odin? they use to support the right to own slaves, after all. But then you fall right into your old standby. If the spouse is an adult, she should fend for herself. Brilliant. And as we know, when you lose a spouse, it's so easy to just immediately pick up the pieces and fend for yourself. How much further out of touch with real people can you be? I'm sure the bunker is pretty insulated, but eventually reality will find you Odin.
Now, tell me, if your plan to save the US economy (one spouse at a time) comes to fruition, who administers the program? How is it paid for? And most importantly, does this genius plan wipe out the debt of the fed? Or do you have an alternative plan to reduce spending? because when you steal teh estate from an adult spouse (who should be able to fend for herself - your words), If all she has been is a stay at home mom, she's going to end up on the public dole for awhile. She's going to need help. How do you intend to pay for that? Again, you brought this tired bullshit up as your answer to solve the national debt, so I want you to lay out for us exactly how this does it.
written by Fred , August 02, 2010
"Thanks mostly to poor Repub leadership, we're trillions of dollars in debt and headed for fiscal disaster
I have already pointed out to you (repeatedly) that Democrats have had control of Congress for FOUR AND A HALF YEARS.
This economy belongs to them, NOT the GOP".
Really Kermit?? Check out this piece by David Stockman who was the Director of OMB under Reagan. Mmm Mmm Mmm...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08...ckman.html
written by Kermit , August 02, 2010
Yes, really Fred. The current economy belongs to Nanacy Pelosi and Harry Reid.
You can run, but you can't hide.
written by Odin , August 02, 2010
I thought laws were bad odin?;
What made you think so?
they use to support the right to own slaves, after all.
So because there were some bad laws, you concluded that all laws are bad? Did you also conclude that because some businesses are scams, all businesses are scams? Because some pols are corrupt, all pols are corrupt? Some bad marriages = all bad marriages? How stupid are you really?
If the spouse is an adult, she should fend for herself.
Not what I said at all but given your lack of understanding of even the simplest posts, I doubt you're willing/able to distinguish between what I said and what your wind tunnel of a brain interpreted. What part of - "The spouse (usually) has a moral claim because community assets are considered owned by both" - is it that's giving you so much trouble? Are polysyllabic words beyond your grasp? How about multi-syllabic?
Aspire to autism.
written by Jim W , August 02, 2010
So instead of engaging, you just decided that acting like a fucking prick is the better route. Ok, well, Let me answer my questions for you since you seem incapable of having a civil conversation with anyone and are obviously too chickenshit to engage when challenged.
You're a one hit wonder, Odin. You come up with this moronic scheme of having the govt raid estates, all in teh hopes of closing the gap created by years of even stupider policies on the federal level. The fact is, your little scam wouldn't cover it. And without a reduction in spending on a massive level, combined with the dissolution of numerous govt agencies that shouldn't be in existence, we're not going to get out of this mess. Further, if your little scam DID happen, yet another layer of govt would have to be created because let's face it - that's what govt does. So we'd have another layer managing the estate robbery program. THEN, there would be a percentage of folks that had been left with shit thanks to your little scam. They would end up on the public dole for an undetermined amount of time. That would be yet another chunk of change that we, teh taxpayer would be stuck paying. SO - in the end, like many of the other stupid liberal ideas that we've been stuck with over the years, yours would end up bankrupting us as well. Great job Odin, all you managed to do was make a suggestion to actually grow govt further. Just like a true liberal.
written by sanders , August 02, 2010
Rights are claims made valid by law, tradition and/or morality.
That's your line, not mine, but I do agree with it.
Law and Tradition in the USA (among many other countries) is that a person's wishes via a will determine the disposition of their assets.
That's my line, and I agree (obviously) with that as well...
Law and tradition used to support the right to own slaves in the USA
Historical fact, and agreed, bad law. What it has to do with the current argument, though, I don't know...
So because there were some bad laws, you concluded that all laws are bad?...(insert other inanity here)... How stupid are you really?
Your line again. Backatcha, little fella.
written by Nobody , August 02, 2010
Odie is not to be paid too much attention here. He is a one hit wonder, a one note somba. He will lay out a few (stupid) arguments, call names, and run.
He has mental issues with wealth, the Catholic Church and very little knowledge about creating peace of mind or real value.
IMHO, he comes here because he's into some sort of blog SM, pain deal, just conjecture.
written by Kermit , August 02, 2010
I think Onan has a spectacular inferiority complex that compels him to deprecate others in order to establish his paramount intellect.
But that's just my opinion.
written by sanders , August 02, 2010
I've been around long enough to know Odie... sometimes you just have to answer his odd notions, or you start thinking that all progressives are as venal and shallow as he is. I need to talk to some of my Liberal friends more often. They, at least, have some common sense.
written by Badda , August 02, 2010
He's here to change the subject... and he thinks he runs the place.
With that in mind, you guys should just stop talking about him publicly. He's an arrogant piece of work that love the idea that we're talking about him.
Go read some of his posts from a year or more ago... for a while he was acting reasonable. He might even be a different guy, based on writing style.
written by Fred , August 03, 2010
You guys shouldn't let Odin get under your skin so much. Your frustration is shining thru and it's not pretty. Ignore him if he gets you so upset and move on..
written by Bill C , August 03, 2010
Aspire to autism.
Ignorance not only on display, but with klieg lights and fireworks illuminating the night sky.
Stick to your areas of knowledge when trying to throw out insults.
written by Barthélemy Barbancourt , August 03, 2010
If Mark Dayton wins the primary, does anyone here think Odin won't be voting for the poster child for inheritance?
Nah, Odin will vote for Dayton.
written by Badda , August 03, 2010
Forget Odin.
Most of those folks are voting for him.
Though, I gotta say, when the DFL called up our house asking who we're going to vote for (either 'Undecided' or 'Whoever Is Against The Incumbent') they pushed Margaret Anderson Kelliher.
One of the key factors the guy wanted me to give her special consideration is, get this, she's got a lot of support from in-state.
I *almost* asked what that said about an election like the one with Al Franken. I figured, screw it... I'll get more information out of these folks if I just keep quiet on the phone and let them do all the talking.
written by Kermit , August 03, 2010
All of the DFL junk mail coming to our house is addressed to my wife (who is slightly to the right of me). I guess I'm on a list or something.
written by Bill C , August 03, 2010
Though, I gotta say, when the DFL called up our house asking who we're going to vote for (either 'Undecided' or 'Whoever Is Against The Incumbent') they pushed Margaret Anderson Kelliher.
Because she won the endorsement at the DFL convention. She's not trying to buy the election like the other two.
Write comment
This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comments.
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.
