Our transparent President...

my2monkeyboys wrote: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/20...3-trillion.html

coasterqueen replied: Don't get me started.......



ETA: I will say this, though. Can I raise my debt limit up and make others pay for it? Pretty please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

my2monkeyboys replied: It seems that this should be getting more response... what's going on with the board lately? Is everyone just too tired to even discuss politics anymore???

Come on... I need some interaction, please!!!

This is just one of many things that seems to be getting swept under the rug lately, and I'm just sick of it.

coasterqueen replied:
I don't discuss it as much as I could anymore (and it's really hard for me to bite my tongue ) because of various other times I responded to things like this and got slammed for my opinions. Regular members know my response so no need to say it. It's a great topic, though. I'd discuss it in any other fashion with you, but not here.

PrairieMom replied:
I haven't had time to read it yet. I'll come fight with you later.

MommyToAshley replied: I'd imagine most people have less time today as kids are not in school.

Nina J replied: How did the US get so much debt? I am not American, so I am a bit confused. But, I assume Obama didn't rake up 12 trillion dollars in debt. Again, I don't really understand? Now can the government accumulate more debt without having to pay it off? And where is all this debt owed to?

PrairieMom replied:
Lots of countries. Mainly China.

PrairieMom replied: better late than never...

Ok, so really, This is CONGRESSES bill Obama just signed it, so its not like he is all alone in this. And really what is the man supposed to do? We are in a world of hurt. The only way to really fix the debt issue is to cut spending, and we are funding 2 wars right now, plus we need jobs, and that takes $ too.
Then after spending gets cut, they would have to raise taxes to pay the deficit off. So, who wants to line up to pay higher taxes?

That being said, I have no clue what the answer is. It pretty much sucks no matter how you look at it.

jcc64 replied:

He didn't. The previous administration took office with a substantial budget surplus, and then decided to instigate two wars and an expensive prescription drug entitlement program with no plan to pay for it, all while cutting taxes to benefit the wealthiest. I'm no economist, but I know that if I "buy" something astronomically expensive like a war or two, and then reduce my income in the form of tax cuts, I can expect to amass considerable debt. The fact that the Republican party is now masquerading as the party of fiscal responsibility is laughable.
People in this country have very short memories and next to no patience. They whine about debt, but they don't want their taxes raised. They want to continue to wage wars, but they don't want to pay for them. They want health care and job creation and relief from the economic downturn, but they also want smaller government. You can't have it both ways. People, including myself, like to blame this party or that party, but the truth is, we as a populace lack the political discipline and foresight to dig ourselves out of this mess.

coasterqueen replied:
Seriously? You think there is no fat, no pork that can be cut to help decrease the deficit? There are lots of ways they can cut spending without cutting lots of jobs, good needed jobs.

This isn't directed just to you, but in general - Even if Obama didn't make our debt, it doesn't matter. We need to stop blaming who made the debt and start worrying about STOP SPENDING!!!!!!!!!!!! Do we sit around in our personal lives and try to pin blame on who incurred our personal debt or do we try to figure out how to get out of the messes we put ourselves in?????

coasterqueen replied:
Jeanne, you need to wake up and smell the coffee. Democrats don't like to believe they spend anything either. They are just as fiscally responsible. My foot! Democrats like bigger government - bigger government costs more money to the taxpayers if I recall unless my math is wrong considering the government is funded by the people - you expand it then it will cost more as well. Seriously, you have to stop blaming one party for all the troubles in the world.

DVFlyer replied: Immediately eliminate all sources of income and freeze all assets and accounts from every Senator and Representative until the debt is eliminated..... ALL sources of income.

The debt will be eliminated in less than a year.

coasterqueen replied: Jeanne,

public apology if I offended you. I guess I'm blasting you for your opinion as well and I don't like that done to me. See, this is why I don't get into these discussions.

jcc64 replied: I'm not pissed, Karen, I just want to be understood. I anticipated this from someone:

[QUOTE]Seriously, you have to stop blaming one party for all the troubles in the world. [/QUOTE]

which is why I said:
[/QUOTE]People, including myself, like to blame this party or that party, but the truth is, we as a populace lack the political discipline and foresight to dig ourselves out of this mess.[QUOTE]

I am completely disgusted with both parties. I think the Democrats in Congress are the biggest group of losers on the planet. I am not a registered Democrat, Karen, and I never will be. They don't speak for me. They have whored themselves out to special interests and lobbyists as much as the Republicans. Having said that, I still have a tremendous amount of respect for Obama--I do believe he's trying to do the right thing by us all, though his ability to succeed at this point is seriously questionable for a number of reasons, some within his control but a lot far beyond it. I think he underestimated the toxicity and divisiveness of the game as it is now played out by BOTH parties.
And the main point of my post was that we voters own a lot of this blame for the reasons I cited in my op. We get what we deserve. Noboby wants to give up anything, or pay for anything, and we want it all NOW, or better yet, yesterday. We want our problems solved with the snap of a finger, but we don't want to give up anything to get them resolved. And the politicians capitulate and pander to our infantile impulses, and that is why things will not only NOT get better, but continue to get worse. It all makes me sick, and tbh, that's why I hesitated to respond to this thread initially. Because I feel utterly hopeless and feel that we've passed the point of no return as a country. I thought the country was poised for reform when Obama was elected, but clearly, that is not the case at all, and we're just going to continue to delude ourselves right into bankruptcy.

coasterqueen replied: Thanks Jeanne. Sometimes I get overheated before I try to calm down and think.

I agree with you in a lot of ways for sure.

I may not like Obama or what he stands for, but I really thought he'd stop the spending and try to get us out of debt. Now I know he isn't alone, the legislature is involved and he can't do it all by himself, so they aren't stopping the spending either. I just think they all need to stop, just like we have to in the real world, and pay off the debt, then spend. We are expected to be like that, so they, who they are supposed to serve us, don't do it.

There are some ridiculous pork projects that have been given to the state of IL for instance by Obama that are just obsurd and don't need to be done at time like this, IMO. That stuff ticks me off!

jcc64 replied: I think we agree on more than we don't, Karen. We both have very high standards for our elected officials, which they seem uniformly unable to meet.

PrairieMom replied:
No, I know there is pork, unfortunately, I don't really see any of our $ hungry / corrupted representatives doing anything about it. (not all, but some)
Its a vicious cycle, and I don't really see how it will end. They need the $ from special interests to get elected, and by then they have signed their souls away.

Personally , I think the whole darn system needs an over haul. I don't really see that happening tho, as long as the people in power keep profiting from things being the way they are.

The whole thing leaves me feeling kind of helpless and hollow.

jcc64 replied:

Me too, Tara, which is why I initially backed off from responding. I'm depressed about the whole deal and I'm sad for my kids, who clearly will be inheriting a very damaged, weakened country as a result of our runaway political dysfunction.

PrairieMom replied: I'm just gonna reply to these threads with
"what Jeanne said" from now on. You put it into words way better than I ever could.

coasterqueen replied:
Much to anyone's surprise, I feel the same way. Although I felt it over a year ago. Stinks!

my2monkeyboys replied: Honestly I do not like Obama nor do I think he's doing what he thinks is best. I truly believes he would love to make us a socialist nation.
But I also agree that there are VERY few politicians out there that truly want what is best for us and understand how to make it happen, whether they are republican or democrat.
It really is just such a sickening feeling.... watching our country go down the toilet a little more each day.

I agree with DVFlyer (sorry, can't think of your name right now! )...
kind of like if we made them all live off of social security... that would have been fixed LONG ago!

jcc64 replied:

Can you clarify what you mean by this? And why you think he would benefit by making us one?

PrairieMom replied:
thanks Jeanne. i want to know too, but i'm on my phone and have limited characters to ask. lol

luvmykids replied: I am honestly too saddened and disgusted at the demise of our country overall to even muster up anger at anyone anymore. Don't get me wrong, I am absolutely proud to be an American, but I am more than a little ashamed of us as a whole when I think of where we are now in comparison to the great nation our founding fathers envisioned and initiated. Really, it's impossible to blame this administration, or the one prior, or the one before that...in hindsight, we've been on a slippery slope in one area or another for quite some time, and it genuinely breaks my heart

my2monkeyboys replied: I get the idea that he wants this because he said it. Remember when he told "Joe the Plumber" he wants to spread the wealth around? That's just one of many things that makes me believe he has a socialist agenda.
And of course, if you're the one on top of the dung heap, you don't feel the bad repercussions from it, you're in control of it. Liberal democrats favor a larger government, and what better way to have more control (ie, a larger govt) than to arrange things in such a way as to have the majority, if not all, of the population dependent on you.

jcc64 replied:

I'm really curious to see the direct quote to which you refer. Did you hear this actually come out of his mouth, or are you relying on second hand interpretations from commentators on sensationalist media outlets?
And let's talk about Joe the Plumber, who was concerned that a theoretical business that existed only in his tiny little head would be subjected to a crippling tax levy by an incoming Obama administration. Obama proposed raising taxes only on people with incomes exceeding $250,000 per year, and by raising taxes, what he really meant was simply returning the tax rate to levels that existed prior to the Bush tax cuts, which by design benefited the very wealthiest people. It is no secret that those in the top 10% of American income flourished under Bush's trickle down economic extravaganza, while in the middle class, where the vast majority of us live, wages and living standards have stagnated or dropped. So now that Obama is in office over a year--have your taxes been raised? Has anything at all been taken away from you by the government?
A country whose government is only responsive to the well being of the richest 10% of the populace is unsustainable. If you think any attempt at trying to tip the scale back to the center in the most modest of ways indicates a radical socialist agenda, then you and I didn't study the same history books in school.
And fwiw, I am quite sure you'll be happy to receive your Medicare benefits and Social Security checks in your retirement, which will come to you courtesy of SOCIALIST entitlement programs, run by the government.

PrairieMom replied:
See, thats what I don't understand. Everyone's screaming socialist, ( and by everyone I mean the folks I listen to on the radio, like Glenn Beck and similar) yet, people are also screaming to hang on to their " socialist " programs like medicare. I find it really confusing.
I think people are more scared of the label than anything. We associate it with bad things. But, I for one, really LIKE the things that my tax dollars go towards, like my police, and fire departments, our mail system, libraries, public school, and even though I am completely not planning on receiving social security or medicare, If it is there when I am older and I qualify, then I will surely cash the checks.

I don't really think that Obama is out to change us into socialists, and really, he doesn't have the power to. The real people with the power are our congressmen and representatives.

jcc64 replied:

No Tara, the real people with the power are the corporations, special interests, and Wall Street behemoths like Goldman Sachs. That's who's REALLY running this country.
And I feel exactly as you do, Monica. It all makes me sick. I think our system of government, as it was originally conceived, was brilliant. But it no longer exists.

PrairieMom replied:
unfortunately, you are right. I have really had my eyes opened in the past few years, and it is really going to reflect in how I vote in future elections. Unfortunately, it won't matter. Things are THAT screwed up. It is so frustrating.

coasterqueen replied: Yeah, I might cash my social security checks, etc when I'm older but I, for one, would MUCH RATHER see social security privatized. I don't want our BIG government in charge of that (eta) considering it probably won't be there by the time I need it. Nor do I want them in charge of my healthcare. Them trying to take over those things make them somewhat "socialist" in my mind. There are TONS of other ways to deal with the healthcare issue without the government running it.

People are always going to want to have their cake and eat it too. Nobody is willing to sacrifice. If we did, we'd be a lot better off. I have no clue how any one person can say we can't sacrifice when it comes to our government, when it comes to stopping the spending (stimulus, etc, etc, etc) when in our own lives we KNOW when we have to stop doing those things to survive and keep our heads above water. It is simply hysterical to me that people don't see we need to stop spending, let the cards fall, and pick up the pieces and rebuild. WE, as citizens have to do it, so why would we expect anything less of our government?

jcc64 replied:

idk, Karen, it's a good question. Maybe b/c the numbers are so ridiculously huge, and the problems seem so out of our control, that people turn a blind eye. I once heard someone break down the gazillion-trillion dollar figure into what it might look like if every household in America was equally responsible for paying it back, and I believe it worked out to $400,000 per family, or something like that. It was the first time I was truly able to wrap my head around how much we actually owe. I think it needs to be presented in that way in order for people to "get it," and even then, I don't think they ever really will.

coasterqueen replied:
Yeah, I heard that too. I think it was in the $100,000 range, but that's besides the point. It still blew me away. At even just 100,000 per person, for my family that's $400,000 which is UNREAL for me to even comprehend.

I guess my point is, even if one president, or many, or however, got us into a war, or whatever the case was for the reason we may have gotten into debt, doesn't excuse the next person and allow them to keep spending no matter what is going on. This be the case for any party, IMO. These are simple life lessons we explain to our children daily. If one does something wrong, doesn't mean the other one should too. One of these days my kids are gonna ask me why I drilled that in their heads when our country as a whole can't get it themselves.

coasterqueen replied: Jeanne - I so wish I could find this article on The Capitol Fax Blog (IL blog) that I read about how Obama is offering our state twice the amount we asked for to house the Gitmo prisoners in one of our state prisons. WHY oh WHY would he offer us twice the amount when he doesn't have to. Wasteful spending, no matter how it would benefit our state. That whole issue on using our prison here is another story.

MommyToAshley replied:
I think you are right... the number is so staggering that people can't wrap their mind around what 14.3 trillion really means. It is the same way with personal taxes, I don't think people realize how much they pay in taxes since it comes out of their check before they even see it. Uncle Sam was pretty smart in that aspect. If people had to pay taxes after receiving their payroll check, I am sure there would be much more of an uproar about taxes. I don't have a problem paying taxes or the programs that the taxes go towards, but I do have a problem when taxes penalize those for working hard and being successful. I won't go down that path again, as you all know where I stand on those issues. It's a matter of principle to me as I am not one that would benefit from a fair tax system. I almost agree with going the route of a fair sales tax, but I think housing would have to be excluded from that somehow in order to allow lower incomes to be able to afford housing.

As for social security, I will most definitely cash the check as I don't have a problem receiving a fraction of my own money back... especially being self-employed, I pay the extra 15% that most employers pay. I'm with Karen on this one, I think I would yield a higher return on my own money than the government does considering the small social security check that I will receive.

I would not mind paying higher taxes for a better health care system as insurance and the health care system really stinks as it is now. But, that was even botched by partisan politics on both sides. If our elected officials would have been sincere about working together to come up with a plan instead of concerning themselves with how this will affect them at election time, well... maybe then the outcome would have been different.

I think our political system stinks. I think if there was a really good third party or independent candidate ... well, that may rock the system a bit. But, with the way campaign financing caters to the special interest, that will never happen.

I am with you and most other Americans when I say we are disgusted with the system right now. But, I still don't know any other country that I would rather live in or be a part of. Just look at how we are helping Haiti. We are in debt by 14.3 trillion dollars and we still send them aid. Most families have at least one of the financial providers out of work and are barely making it week by week, yet those same people still put $10 in the basket to feed a family in Haiti. So, while I am disgusted with the way politicians work the system, I am still pretty darn proud of our country.

jcc64 replied:

But if SS was completely privatized, do you think everyone would have the discipline, knowledge, foresight, etc. that you clearly have, to keep their $$ from evaporating long before they will need it to survive in their retirement years? I mean, we as a nation, are not very good savers and planners. I agree that it sucks to "be punished" for people who aren't behaving responsibly, (though lots of times, it's through no fault of their own. I've had to take a break in funding my retirement since I've been out of work b/c I have to pay my bills first), but I'd guess that more people aren't saving enough to live on than those who are.
And in the end, even if people are destitute, sickly, and homeless in their old age b/c they didn't invest well when they were younger, are you willing to throw an 80 yr old lady out in the street or deny her life saving medications? I feel like these types of scenarios are not only possible but likely, and old people will just start showing up at hospitals and shelters or whatever, and we'll end up paying for them anyway--just in a much less cost, effective way.
It's natural to pine for more control over your money, but I honestly think most people won't end up doing the right thing by themselves, at which point their problems become ours. At least SS and Medicare, flawed as they might me, provide a teeny, tiny safety net against a tidal wave of social problems.

coasterqueen replied:
I know most think I have no compassion for others, but I do. My words never come out wrong and won't now, but while I have compassion for those who can't do what is right, why should I get less $ because we have to take care of those? I mean, if I let the gov't give me SS, I will more than likely get less than if I invested it on my own, maybe not, who knows. But this is MY life, let ME control it to a certain extent. Obviously I can't do illegal things because it's my life and I should be able to control it, but legal things YES.

I don't know about others but I teach my children to learn from the consequences of their actions. If they do well they should be rewarded. If they do bad, they are not rewarded. I shouldn't be punished for working hard and taking care of my life, family etc just because others can't do the same. I'm sorry. I know that sounds like I'm not compassionate, but I'm tired of being punished because I CHOSE to work my arse off to have a better life than what my parents gave me.

my2monkeyboys replied: Well I was going to reply, but it seems I can just say "ditto" to what Karen has said.
Oh, and DeeDee, as well. There is no country on this planet finer that the USA (no offense to all the Canadians here ). I am proud to be an American no matter who is in office or what party is control of the Senate.