60 minutes = $188 million in new debt

[hippifried]

S&P credit rating? Oh, you mean that lame attempt by Moody's to scare everybody. Seems to have worked on you of the selective amnesia, but I remember that these were the same assholes, literally the exact same crooked lying assholes, who gave AAA ratings to Bear Stearns & Lehman right up till the minute they crashed. Well, I guess we should just bend over & buy whatever they're selling, huh? Go ahead. Not me though. Unlike Republican surrender monkees, I'm not willing to capitulate to European pressures for some kind of IMF 3rd world austerity program. This isn't Chad, or Myanmar, or Albania, or Greece. This is the world's largest economy, & the dollar is still the default reserve currency. You can cry all you want about the debt, but the biggest holder of US treasury bonds isn't China or foreign banks. Biggest bond holder is the US Federal Reserve. Like we always have, we owe the majority of our national debt to ourselves. All this doom & gloom is a bunch of fear mongering bullshit.

We will reach a point very soon where 1/2 of all revenues collected by the government will go to service the debt.

Yeah we know. So why don't y'all get your head out of the sand (or your ass as the case may be) & start looking at getting more revenue. We're never going to pull out of this malaise by cutting taxes. That's like going to your employer with a tale of woe about not being able to pay your bills, & asking for a pay cut. Time for the lying to stop. This isn't a spending problem. It's a hoarding problem. Wealth does no good for anybody if it isn't in circulation & growing. Corporate acquisitions & monopolies take money out of circulation. We need to straighten out our priorities. This economic theology, & its varied denominations in violent competition, ain't working. We need a total rethink.

[Faldur]

You must be smoking some good shit, cause your fricking nuts. "We don't have a spending problem", are you fricking kidding me? We have increased federal spending by 36% since 2008. You going to stand there and tell me 36% increase is not a problem? Again, your fricking nuts!

Its good to see the real beliefs of progressives, tax more and spend more. Until the country eventually collapses and I guess you plan on rebuilding it in a new image. Yes we do need to straighten out our priorities, we need to reign in the completely irresponsible growth of government and cut its spending back to 2008 levels. And there with a long hard road ahead we can begin to pay off the debt you losers have brought us.

[Stavros]

Faldur -on the issue of tax and spend, I am not going to disagree with you, and I do think that it is all too easy for governments to hire people on a 'temporary' basis who end up staying for years until noone can recall why they were hired or how things worked before they were hired.

However, Trish has a point as do some others: the Federal government, like it or not, is a major player in the economy, and there are measures which the fed can take to stimulate economic activity, to use taxes to help 'your fellow Americns' get over a bad patch; use taxes to invest or re-invest in the fabric of America: the point is that unless you want to live in Somalia or a country where there is no government, then these issues become Political with a big P even though, in a fundamental sense, they are economic. It means a closer scrutiny of how government raises, and then spends your taxes, and I actually see no contradiction between the left and right, as long as there is a consensus that, in the short-to-medium term, the fed has the potential to nudge the economy in the right direction. As long as the fed doesn't replace private enterprise, but I think we all want the mix to be better. Look at it from another perspective: 'Politics in Command' was the slogan of choice at the height of the 'Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution' in China, and it was a disaster. Politics can and shoulod intervene when it can, to nudge the economy; as long as it doesnt try to replace it -which it never will in the US of A. But what I am also saying is that there must be lots of people with money making schemes and ideas out there, and they are not all Madoff wannabees...and there isn't just a lot of water between you and Iceland, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and Greece....

[Faldur]

Well Stavros, you've got an opinion and I appreciate hearing it. But I am afraid I disagree with it. I differ with you and Trish on governments ability to improve anything. Take the war on poverty, (hows that one going?), the war on drugs, (just say no!). Government pours billions of dollars at problems and never solves anything.

You realize the war on poverty could have been won had we not let the federal government handle it. We have spent 8 trillion dollars on the poverty war had we just given the annual budget to the poor we would not longer have poor and no longer need the budget. That just shows you how ridiculous anything the federal government tries to fix. And how about the stimulus spending it had little or no impact on our economy and it costs us 2 trillion dollars.

And no one can convince me that our government spending levels in 2008 were draconian. We have grown the size of the federal government 36% since then, for what? And now were supposed to accept $3.8 trillion dollar budgets? It cannot continue, I do know how anyone cannot see that. Confiscate all wealth, your will still be short to sustain it.

[trish]

There you go with that word "confiscating" again. Your choice of language seems to indicate the issue is more moral for you than it is fiscal. Perhaps that is why "no one can convince" you. As I figure it, we owe each other the taxes that we pay to enjoy the benefits of our mutual projects; benefits that include security, transportation, justice, education etc. We would certainly not be better off without the support we lend to each other. In your first post you already admitted that we're in this mess because of George W. It's time to roll back his programs, first and foremost the Bush tax spending bill needs to expire.

[Faldur]

In your first post you already admitted that we're in this mess because of George W., no Trish in my first post I stated it was time to put the BS blame game behind us, and volunteered to take full blame for it. Now lets move towards solutions.

[trish]

If we don't understand how we got into this mess, we may not be able to extricate ourselves. The first thing that needs to be understood is that before the Bush tax spending bill we had a ten year budget surplus. The first thing that needs to be done now is to let that bill expire. That's a move toward a solution.

[onmyknees]

If you’re having trouble keeping up with your mortgage, dismantling your house won’t help. Letting the roof go, not painting the sills etc. will just create more expense down the road. Tearing down departments and striping the government will just cut services, and create unemployment in both the public and private sectors. The further dip in employment will cause the economy to stall and dip yet again. The U.S. is under-invested in infrastructure. There are dams, levies, bridges, highways, schools etc. etc. that require maintenance. We can let the house go, or we can maintain it. Letting it go to shit isn’t going to help us meet the deficit. You can’t make payments simply by not spending the money you don’t have. You have to make revenue too. Investments made now to maintain our infrastructure now may add to deficit now, but in the near future the investment will pay off in two ways. 1) Broken bridges and busted dams are a lot more expensive and inconvenient than ones that are functioning and maintained. 2) Keeping people employed puts money in circulation. There’s nothing better for business then people who have cash to spend. Remember, money trickles from the hands of ordinary working people into the hands businesses, companies, corporations, CEO’s and stockholders__not the other way around. (1) and (2) apply as well to governmental agencies which provide valuable service; e.g. FDA, CDC, DOE, etc. Without the FDA (for example) we’d soon find out how expensive mad cow disease can be and how a little investment at the proper time can save lives and livelihoods.

While I do agree about the infrastructure portion of your position, the question in my opinion is not one of not enough money. Where do all those billions go in tolls, in gas taxes, federal Highway funds, Motor Vehicle user fees, etc etc...?? On this I know a little something dealing with many State DOT's who get the lions share of their dollars from the feds..Here's one example. Good, reputable non union companies are almost always muscled out of the bidding process by local nepotism. Even if they were able to win a contact for a bridge project, the State dictates to them how much they have to pay their workers. Prevailing Wage. So let's say a non union company wins a State Highway project and pays their equipment operators 20 dollars an hour. By State law, they are forced to pay that same operator 40 dollars and hour even though the operator is entirely content making 20...so the taxpayer gets soaked for the other 20. While I have nothing against private sector construction unions, they do have an "infrastructure" in place with State politicians that resembles Payola in the music business. It's just a fact....So you see Trish......it's not always about more money. Forty years of this dependency society has made us a country of people who are largely unable to rely on themselves. I spent some time at a friends house in the Bronx recently. A tree had fallen onto the street. The neighborhood was filled with able bodied men of all races yet the tree remained down across the road for a week preventing traffic from passing. I listened to the residents complain about the City's response. One guy claimed he lost a week of work because he couldn't back his work van out of the driveway. I asked them had the thought ever occur to them to pool their resources and spend a couple hours removing the tree so buses and autos could pass. To a person they screamed about the lack of response from the city. I think that's emblematic of what your ideology has fostered and encouraged. Grown people totally reliant on local government for their every need.

When does the spending stop? How much is enough? Is it ever enough? If you're encouraging continued government spending, it's incumbent of you and your ilk to answer those questions. The fact of the matter is politicians redistribute tax dollars to perpetuate their longevity....that's undeniable. I saw today that several libs want to take the 50 million bounty for Bin Ladin and give it to the families of 911. Nice thought but the families have received billions to date, but Libs just have a spending jones. They have to spend. When asked why they said because if they don't the money will simply remain in the "bank" or get spent on other things. Therein lies the problem.

[Faldur]

Well Trish if you need a lesson on understanding, how about we look at how our current president in his first 19 months added more to the national debt than the first 40 Presidents combined. And is on pace to add more debt than all previous Presidents combined. You want blame baby look in the fricking mirror.

[trish]

To a person they screamed about the lack of response from the city. I think that's emblematic of what your ideology has fostered and encouraged.

Premise) When the government hires people it insist they be paid the going wage for their work.
Conclusion) Therefore we have become a nation of slovenly dependents unable to work up the ambition to clear brush.

There seems to be something missing from the argument. The mere fact it seems to make sense to you speaks volumes.