Thanks to big government/spenders in Washington, your family now owes $546,668!

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by fivepoint, May 30, 2009.

  1. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #1
    Is this what you would call 'sustainable?'
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-05-28-debt_N.htm

    What's the bad news? Barack Obama has taken this information and determined that we need billions more in corporate bailouts, unknown trillions for national healthcare, trillions for government stimulus, and the list goes on and on!

    If you think we need to keep spending, than fine... but you should at least understand first how much this translates into on a personal level. You, your family, your children, anyone who lives in your household now owes over $540,000 alone... and BO, along with the Washington establishment are planning RECORD LEVELS of deficits and spending in the next few years to come.

    We need to reshuffle the deck, people. We need to return to our constitutional perspective of government and realize that bureaucracies and socialistic programs are putting all of us in the poor house one day at a time.
     
  2. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #2
    I say no more bailouts, but health care definitely needs reforming.

    And you still mention nothing about W, who did the same thing, and is responsible for a lot of this mess.

    And are you really saying we should do away with military retirement programs? I'd like you to tell that to the military guys in my family.
     
  3. CorvusCamenarum macrumors 65816

    CorvusCamenarum

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL
    #3
    The cynic in me wonders why they (Washington) should care. After all, it isn't their money, and that's the easiest to spend.
     
  4. fivepoint thread starter macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #4
    Jeebus, Lee. He's not the president right now. GW carries a ton of the blame! He was a hawkish big government liberal, and I'm glad we're rid of him. It's unfortunate that his replacement is an even bigger spender, even bigger believer in a huge centralized and unconstitutional federal government, and an even bigger proponent of massive debt in the name of helping people.

    I talked about the 'washington establishment', what more do you want for me? GW wasn't any more my president than BC was, or GB, or JC. There are thousands of people I didn't mention. THe only one I DID mention was BO because he's currently in the process of pushing RECORD LEVELS of ADDITIONAL spending through right now, and has planned for much more.

    There's plenty of blame to go around, Lee. But we've got to start with who's in charge now because that's what matters for making an immediate change. It just so happens that he's also about the wort big-government spender of them all!

    That being said, this is about the issue, not the people. How do you feel about being personally in that much debt? Is it ok? Does it make sense to keep expanding our expenses? Does it make sense to tack on untold TRILLIONS for national medicine? Are we getting our bang for our buck with medicare? Social security (going insolvent)?

    IS THIS SUSTAINABLE?

    Could you be any more transparent, Lee? Where do you get this stuff??? You're not interested in the issue, you're not interested in the fact that we've got these hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt... you're interested in making this a political issue and attacking me for posting it. You're interested in accusing me for not mentioning GW. You're interested in suggesting that I don't care about military retirement programs. Wow. All I have to say, is WOW.

    Do I have a problem with military retirement programs? No. Do you?
     
  5. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #5
    Well this is hyperbole. You're not really personally in that debt.

    I'm sure everyone would prefer not to be in this situation. Unfortunately the world is due to poor economical management. What's the alternative? No debt but massive unemployment and all the social issues that go along with it? Crime, disease, death. A longer recession? A depression?

    Yes. Nothing could make more sense.

    Isn't the whole idea that it isn't to be sustained? That the bail outs are a short-term measure?
     
  6. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #6
    Absolutely not. I have family and friends in the military. But it was in the article you mentioned, and you made it political by specifically mentioning Obama. You also don't seem to have any suggestions for fixing the current mess. Care to point out specifically which parts of that article bother you? It seems that now you're cherry picking what you like and don't like.
     
  7. fivepoint thread starter macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #7
    You're right, you're in that debt, your neighbor is in that debt, your kids, grandkids, great grandkids, etc. are all in that debt! It's all of ours to share.


    You're making the mistake of insinuating that all of this is due to the recent economic downturn, when it's not. Its due to massive spending and an ever-growing entitlement society who wonders what the federal government can do for them, and not the other way around.

    You're also making a false assumption that no bailout would have translated into 'massive unemployment, crime, disease, death' when many economists disagreed very explicitly with that assumption.


    I'm glad you think so. I disagree.


    Again, the recent economic downturn is only one small piece of this debt. Medicare was designed to be sustainable, but is it? Social security was, but is it? Bail-outs are but one small part of this problem... what I'm asking, is whether or not this amount of debt is sustainable. If it isn't, how can BO and the liberal legislature continue to add more to the debt and unheard of rates?

    It's time to start asking ourselves, much like California is being forced to (although I wouldn't doubt they're going to try and get a bailout from the FEd. Government), what can we cut? How can we REDUCE spending? How can we SAVE money?

    Frankly, Lee... I'm unconvinced that discussing anything with you further is worth my time. You don't discuss the issue, you just mold it into petty personal attacks. I'm interested in discussing the issues, not getting accused of not supporting military retirement programs. :rolleyes:

    That's all.
     
  8. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #8
    What are you, a socialist? :D
     
  9. fivepoint thread starter macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #9
    Hahaha, you've got me pegged! :D
     
  10. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #10
    I'm merely pointing out that all you're doing is pointing fingers. If you want to discuss it, fine. Then discuss what you like and don't like. Obviously, there is some government spending you like, and some you don't. So discuss what you would like to be done about it. I'm interested in what you have to say, but so far, you've said nothing.
     
  11. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #11
    It's not personal debt.

    "Many economists" is a non argument. What do you think would have happened without bailouts? Do you disagree that the government stepping in and stimulating the economy in a downturn is productive?

    And your country has the infant mortality rates, low life expectancy, and massive burden of chronic disease that reflects such opinion.

    Medical programs are always required to be dynamic. Populations change and shift along with the disease burden. Hence programs need to change to keep up. Stopping them outright to save money is ridiculous.

    See above. All these programs are dynamic and need to change with demand. Stopping them outright to save money is ridiculous.

    Again, I'm not sure anyone wants to sustain debt. It's a short term measure to achieve longer term stability. The biggest failure is the government running a deficit in good economic times.

    How about you answering some questions? What do you see as the alternative? Why haven't you targeted military spending as something that needs reducing? Is the military more important than the health of your fellow citizens and keeping them out of poverty?
     
  12. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #12
    From this weeks Economist:

    [​IMG]

    (source)

    Can you cite some respected economists who've said this?
     
  13. fivepoint thread starter macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #13
  14. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
  15. SLC Flyfishing macrumors 65816

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #15
    I'm not a fan of all of this, but I certainly acknowledge that we're reaping what we've sown for putting so many idiots in office over the years.

    SLC
     
  16. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #16
    The Military.
     
  17. Agathon macrumors 6502a

    Agathon

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2004
    #17
    It's not quite the same.

    For example, your family can't print its own money to pay off the debt.
     
  18. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #18
    That's definitely an easy option available to the Americans...
     
  19. Agathon macrumors 6502a

    Agathon

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2004
    #19
    Since when does "wingnut think tank" mean the same as "respected economists".

    Hell, why don't we post what the American Communist Party thinks of the stimulus?

    Who is the bigger idiot? The Idiot, or the Idiot who votes for him?

    You're reaping what you sow because you are trying to live like a first world nation with a third world level of taxation. Public sentiment means that politicians have to supply lower taxation which is popular without cutting services which is unpopular. So any politician that doesn't pretend that by some magic he or she can't ensure both doesn't get elected. So the debt grows.

    What's fundamental here is that democracy is to blame.
     
  20. stevento macrumors 6502

    stevento

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2006
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #20
    It's not thanks to the big spenders, but rather the big borrowers.
     
  21. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #21
    Same difference.

    Maybe I'm not reading enough into it, but they don't seem to be entirely unrespected.
     
  22. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #22
  23. Iscariot macrumors 68030

    Iscariot

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Location:
    Toronteazy
    #23
    My "debt" is roughly $13 659. I wonder if that has anything to do with my country having stronger regulation?
     
  24. Agathon macrumors 6502a

    Agathon

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2004
    #24
    They're partisan hacks who can't be trusted because their funding is contingent on them pushing a narrow range of beliefs. The same goes for most political think tanks, which are little more than propaganda outlets.

    The only reason we have them is that in the 1970s those on the far right realized that their ideas were losing in the open, peer reviewed debate of universities, so they set up their own "counter universities" which were immune from peer review. They justified this by a conspiracy theory in which "liberals" had taken over universities and were using their positions to prevent conservatives expressing themselves. Some people actually believe that.
     
  25. SLC Flyfishing macrumors 65816

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #25
    I wouldn't know, I've never voted for a winning candidate (I've only been of age since the first election of Bush and I always toss in a vote for a third party's candidate.

    SLC
     

Share This Page