The Tea Party needs to stand strong or another $4Trillion in debt will be piled on the next generation. How some people can over look the harm we are causing with over $ 16Trillion dollars of debt ,and $125 Trillion in unfunded liabilities is beyond me. It's just shameful.

Joe-Apparently you didn't get the message-The tea party was officially declared irrelevant and dead 2 months ago on election day.

Maybe you can try again in 4 more years.

Reports of the death of the tea party have been greatly exaggerated.

I thought everyone knew Barney was an "outie"?

take out an equity loan on the house and another credit card.

Really, you try to inject common sense budget planning into our US Government?

The answer is simple like Robert E stated, find more credit sources, mortgage our grandkid's, grandkid's futures.

What's another $3,000.00 per resident in the US when we already owe 16,000.00 per resident already right?

It's all fuzzy math..............

I would buy a New car and take a trip to Disney World.

Don't forget even with all that, 40cents of every dollar they are spending every day is borrowed ;-}

First thing NK would be to cut the social programs at the house, kids allowance if any, cable channels, internet speed, dinner out, movies retals etc. But hat would be common sense for those of us that actualy know what a budget is.

NK:
Please cite the source of this information.
Thanks.

Joseph Kutnak -
NK_Voter's source of the information regarding the statistics regarding the federal debt came from this past Sunday's Meet the Press. You can read it in the transcript:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/50378102/ns/meet_the_press-transcripts/t/january-mitch-mcconnell-alan-simpson-erskine-bowles-angus-king-newt-gingrich-xavier-becerra-carly-fiorina-ej-dionne/#.UOtq43dCN8E

@ JH -

This trope has been making the rounds since 2010.

http://www.mymoneyblog.com/us-budget-numbers-simplified-to-the-household-level.html While it looks like science, it's not.

It's (yet again) popularized by way of Facebook.
Must we have constant rehashing of pseudo-science from the Conservative
Entertainment comlex? There's plenty of outlets for that, elsewhere.

NK - I got the same e-mail from two friends - one in Fla., one in Arizona but it didn't mention any "tenants" or "rentals" nor, if you re-read the beginning of yours, does it say this "family" would own rental property.
No doubt, Congress can't budget and hasn't in years. They just brought us to the 'fiscal cliff' yet voted themselves raises. Kind of ironic....

Social security is only self funded if you consider ponzi schemes and MLM scams to be self funded.

..and her is that clear, simple answer..you're making it too difficult
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bfq5kju627c

Revenues for the SSA is entirely funded by payroll deductions. They're not transfers from other sectors to pay for operating expenses, as with the DoD for example. The eventual recipients are the providers of these funds.

The current accounts deficit stems from the Clinton era policy of using any surplus to purchase long term government debt. This effectively reduces interest rates
in the next debt offering to the public.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Blogs/Capital-Exchange/2010/10/19/Capital-Exchange-No-One-is-Raiding-Social-Security.aspx#page1

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/21547

There are fewer people entering the workforce, to be sure, and ever more boomers eligible for Social Security benefits. Among the CBO measures considered for increasing revenue are means testing for recipients and including Capital gains in the FICA provisions.

The debt spiral has many causative factors, not the least being two unfunded wars
and a tax cut that did little to spur investment in any job creation during the period.

It's not a structural fault in Social Security, it's the shaky condition of an economy
that's been gutted by a Predator State apparatus, unchecked by regulations.

Vey true on the repeats for sure NK

US Budget Numbers Simplified To The Household Level

Someone sent this to me via e-mail, and I don’t know the original source. From the $38.5 trillion number, that seems to refer to the budget cut deal that averted a US government shutdown in April 2011. In any case, it does make the numbers much more easy to grasp.

Some stats about the US government:

U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000
New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
Recent budget cuts: $ 38,500,000,000

Now, remove 8 zeroes and pretend it’s a household budget:

Annual family income: $21,700
Money the family spent: $38,200
New debt on the credit card: $16,500
Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
Total budget cuts: $385

I know that this is macroeconomics vs. microeconomics. But the orders of magnitude are correct, and it can’t look good to anybody. I’ve never really liked the macroeconomics theory that it’s okay for governments to carry huge amounts of debt as long as it’s “only” a certain percentage of GDP. The idea is that you’ll grow your way out of it. Europe has shown us that entire developed countries can default.

http://www.mymoneyblog.com/us-budget-numbers-simplified-to-the-household-level.html

It's an internet chain lettter, the intellectual equivalent of SPAM.

If you buy this, you're gullible.

10:03 pm on Monday, January 7, 2013

SO -

We would agree that Governments and households have different revenue streams? Do you know how many years the United States Government has been issuing sovereign debt? There's a designated purpose for that.

Do you know why?

I doubt it.

BLUF: I'm not a math major and don't like when math prof gave me the answer then said: how did I get there. My answer was who gives a rat's a--. You just gave me the answer. That being said, at some point way back when we were not the risky sovereign debt so when did we become it?

"...way back when we were not the risky sovereign debt so when did we become it?"

That would be a result of the brinksmanship from the Debt Ceiling showdown, 2011.
Given that it was a vote taken AFTER Congress had already approved the expenditures that required funding, it was an end-run around the budget process.

In short, programs that the minority wanted cut from the appropriations bills were subject to review, twice. It's politics with a pocketbook instead of leadership.

That intransigence lead to the credit downgrade, which raised borrowing costs.

Reinstating The Gephart rule would return the budget process to stability, which
is what credit ratings truly measure - this forces negotiations back to the beginning
of an appropriation cycle, where they're approriate.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/spitzer/2013/01/04/debt_ceiling_showdown_reps_nadler_and_welch_propose_strategies_for_eliminating.html

Ok so it was last year.

Joe,
I love the fact that you blame the Dems for the debt. It shows your lack of knowledge about how our government works. Do you know who controls the purse strings???? Take a wild guess. The REPUBLICAN led House or Representatives. Now what made up fact were your shooting off???

And the democrats have had control of the congress far more often than the republicans.

Right, there's no Republican voting for spending measures.
Cool story, bro.

I would be much more interested in the exodus from Rhode Island as a topic.
We could ask an expert, like katherine why she left.

How long ago was that, katherine?
http://www.wpri.com/dpp/news/local_news/ri-population-drops

Not long enough, naome. It was whe I realized that Rhode Islanders will keep voting for the same people and expect different results. So I set out to find some people with common sense...and lo and behold I found them! Oh, happy day.

Given that nearly 40% of Federal expenditures that don't originate from insurance programs go to the DoD and debt to service two unfunded wars....

What does your Tea Party Speak-n-Spell recommend cutting first?

There's your problem Joe. Trying to understand a problem by looking at a minute snaphot only gives you a small part of the overall problem. None, and I'll say it again, None, of the Tea Party "fixes" were even remotely realistic. And the worst of them all was Paul Ryan's. Look at the CBO's evaluation of his "plan".

If you want to look "informed", then move away from the extremists. The answer is compromise.

Joe, are you going to take the "Tea Party" approach as a member of the Tiverton Budget Committee?

Joe, you can't spell the word newspaper, how can anyone take you seriously about this or any other issue?

That's funny. This is a publication of the American Enterprise institute, yet it
purportedly is presented as reality.

"It's a well-known fact that reality has a Liberal Bias." - Stephen Colbert

Nice try, Nogoalav!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScFKx7ezwgQ

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/american-enterprise-institute

Reality? From a Right wing neo-conservative think tank? I don't think so. aei.org.

Sorry, OT--I wasn't aware that facts and/or truth could only come from left wing/progressive sites. Perhaps you may want to be a bit introspective while looking up the term 'confirmation bias'.

NO WAY! President's can't make up lies..I read it on the internet...and if it's on the internet it has to be true...
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_md1gel5UdO1qe1ey2.png

"Mission Accomplished"

"In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003"
Ok. Hang on. My turn to dumpster dive...ready ok look....
Obama quotes and lies follow:

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

okay breath..here we go
“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

“There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

The above quotes came from here
http://dancingczars.wordpress.com/obama-quotes-and-lies/

Now..let me jump into a liberal dumpster...hang on ok got it...

Senate Republicans Throw a Temper Tantrum After Obama Tells the Truth About Them
By: RmuseJan. 2nd, 2013
http://www.politicususa.com/senate-republicans-throw-temper-tantrum-obama-tells-truth.html

I can dumpster dive all day looking for the "answer I want to hear" as opposed to what is the answer. This is the old answering a question with a question trick.."well what is the answer you're looking for?" is not an answer

Okay I can't go in again. I may ruin my Phil Steen Designers.
http://www.businesspundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/dumpster-dive-flickr-diegofuego.jpg

What cuts, then and how much?

That's why we call you Tea Party hacks. You'll trot out the "Welfare queen" and
"Obama Phone" bullet points and ignore the elephant in the room - the DoD.

Give me a break. Hide behind your pseudonym, because you dare not show your face. The DoD is spending that "provides for the common defense." The Constitution states that we should "promote the general welfare", not PROVIDE WELFARE!

"The DoD is spending that "provides for the common defense."

40% of the Federal budget pays for this. When the cost undermines the solvency
of the Nation, it's no longer providing - it's bringing us down. You remember the
CCCP? They had the same balance of payments problem - old people bought off with pensions, young people sent off to fight pointless foreign wars.

"The Constitution states that we should "promote the general welfare", not PROVIDE WELFARE!" Do you actually know how much of the Federal budget
goes to the programs that constitute welfare? I doubt that.

" Hide behind your pseudonym, because you dare not show your face."

Given that the loudest, angriest, least curious voices here are outright belligerent
and claim to own guns, anonymity is a reasonable caution.

I'm guessing that you got yours, and now willingly deny young people theirs in order to keep what you've managed to "earn" from the government.
It's only an entitlement when someone else cashes the check, Robert?

Projecting force into the passes of Waziristan might seem like defense to you,
but it looks like, walks like and quacks like the outreach of an Empire.

The purpose of the DoD is no longer Defense of our Nation, it's the conduit for
transferring taxpayer money into the coffers of Defense contractors.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/03/defence_budgets
http://defense.aol.com/2012/03/16/the-military-imbalance-how-the-u-s-outspends-the-world/

Here's the thing - even if the debt is successfully redressed to the satisfaction of the Tea Party faithful, you'll just move the goalposts back.

We've seen what the Free Staters did to New Hampshire - you lot aren't qualified
to run a Garden party, let alone any political office. Your 15 minutes are over.

Don't Kardashian on us, Joe - just go.
http://www.unionleader.com/article/20121220/NEWHAMPSHIRE14/121229936

So, as a Tea Party mouthpiece, or right hand man (either way you must be busy),
you don't know the Tea Party plan for putting the DoD on a diet?

Does the Tea Party have an actual list of Federal Departments and programs that
should be closed? All I've heard so far sounds like rolling back the clock to the year before the EPA opened it's doors...

??? mid term voting is Nov 2014. A little early for the voting rants isn't it?

I was just summing up the arguments from the right on this thread. But it's a good idea to have a long memory in American politics.

Gee TD, it sounds awful when you put it that way...

I would settle for Congress operating under a minimal code of ethics that applies
to the rest of us, and incarcerating them with the general population at sentencing.

There are plenty, on both sides of the aisle, that profit from the DoD.

We're not taking the finances seriously if we let the people writing the legislation to cut themselves a key to the Treasury counting room.

In order to balance the budget, we would need a 25% across the board cut to all spending. I would gladly take a DoD cut in that amount if we could cut 25% of all the rest. You on board TD?

Bill, by what year would that balance the budget? What is included on the revenue side?

In round numbers, we take in 3 trillion in revenue and we spend 4 trillion. As such, a 25% across the board cut would ballance the budget immediately.

This is not accurate. The House version of the Sandy Relief Bill did not contain any pork?

Okay, I read the article. There are no numbers associated with four Cabinet departments on the chopping block.

It is noteworthy that it effectively cuts off any assistance to young people in the form of Education, Student loans or retirement insurance through the SSA.

It also removes restraints on Big Oil and the Chamber of Commerce alliance.
You tools are being used, and yet - you seem to like it.

Given that Social Security was enacted after Banks defaulted on the life savings of a generation (in 1935), this seems an irresponsible notion coming from some of the loudest detractors of the TARP bailouts.

There's NO mention of the DoD black hole.
*surprise*

40% of our Federal expenditures from taxation go into the DoD and vanish.
It's not as if we invest in the Navy and they Bucaneer back with gold.

Our Military is being paid for by taxation - which the largest corporation DON'T PAY
to make the World safe for (wait for it) corporate business concerns.

I'm tired of paying for gasoline, twice.

Some Patriots.

And the billions which have been spent on R&D to save the lives of our soldiers have no real world applications? For that matter, the entirety of the modern technological world was a direct result of military R&D. In fact, I would bet most every major technological breakthrough since the invention of fire was brought about by someone looking to improve their odds of killing their foes. DoD has a definite return on investment. Can you say the same about my cousin who collects SSI disability because she's lazy and likes to smoke pot?

"And the billions which have been spent on R&D to save the lives of our soldiers have no real world applications?" If you're talking about telemetry, that's a NASA product.

If you're talking about trauma surgery and advances in prosthesis, those are both problems CAUSED by a belligerent military policy - putting young men and women in harm's way. What *specifically* are you holding up as our National ROI, Bill?

"For that matter, the entirety of the modern technological world was a direct result of military R&D. " I doubt you can back that up. GPS for cell phones and DARPA laying the groundwork for the Internet - sure. The first VLSI went into missle guidance systems - granted.

But clean water, electrical power to homes, trucking produce to stores -
EVERY technological advance from military R&D? That's a stretch.

The balance sheet isn't even - there's no direct dividend from such a large portion of the Federal budget entering the DoD, NSA and DHS - and if National Debt is
a serious issue, ALL branches of government must see spending reductions.

For instance, the Lockheed Martin F-35 known as the "Government killer" and
not for the intended reasons... http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/f-35-fighter-more-dangerous-to-governments-than-any-potential-enemy/article6299878/

" DoD has a definite return on investment."

Given our insoluble debt, I would say it's a negative return.

Specifically, I was thinking about trauma care. DoD medical/biotech research is pretty much tops when it comes to trauma. In addition, they perform/fund research in vaccines, cancer, PTSD, etc.

" If you're talking about trauma surgery and advances in prosthesis, those are both problems CAUSED by a belligerent military policy - putting young men and women in harm's way. What *specifically* are you holding up as our National ROI, Bill?"

I'm not sure what you're getting at here? You don't support treatment of soldiers or you don't support a standing miltary or something else? Soldiers fight. They get injured. We treat them.

" I doubt you can back that up. GPS for cell phones and DARPA laying the groundwork for the Internet - sure. The first VLSI went into missle guidance systems - granted."

How about interchangable parts? How about jet turbine development? Miniturization of electronics came about by trying to get us into space to gain a tactical advantage over our adversaries. True, not every single invention is a result of DoD research, but I feel that tjere are enough big things to back up my assertion.

The DoD, excluding the VA and warfighting, is actually a very small part of the total federal budget. In addition, there are already about 45 billion in cuts to the DoD budget. It's likely we will see another 50. Those cuts are manageable. After that, you have to start cutting soldier numbers and pay, which, if I recall, both sides have said is unacceptable.

As a general comment, I support a flat percentage cut to every federal expenditure. I'm willing to support cuts to DoD if it means we cut everything else.

Dollars saved?

References?

Thought so... (still waiting on that $125 Trillion accounting, too.)

Okay, lets talk about the "$125 trillion dollar unfunded liability" -
what is it, who is the recipient and what program is at risk.

G'Head...

Let's not pretend you give a damn about other people's children - you've been consistent in your stance attacking public education - and you DON'T have kids.

-- Since it isnt a specific loan owed to a specific person and due on a specific date
-- clearly it doesnt actually exist.

That's an annoying bit of sarcasm, Small Change, but it nicely illustrates that you are also small minded.

If you can't answer or don't wish to answer the actual question, please refrain from joining the conversation.

I find it amazing that these Tea Party members completely ignore the impact that two unfunded wars and the Bush tax cuts had on the deficit. Remember it was "W" who led America into these wars. These Teapublicans, now blame the President and the Democratic Party for the deficit problem. What a bunch of hypocrites.

=If you can't answer or don't wish to answer the actual question, please refrain from joining the conversation=

Oh, I'm sorry - did I fail to meet the lofty standards of erudition and respectful debate of The Patch? &)
Why don't you try your silly dominance games on those who might be intimidated by them.
My response was direct and to the point.
To suggest that we can not know whether a deficit of many many trillions, now growing by 3 trillion a year and increasing exponentially, is a problem or not unless we know exactly who each dollar is owed to and when it comes due is such a preposterous strawman, even by the proponents of limitless irresponsible spending, that it merits no serious response.

Small Change said:

-- it merits no serious response.

But, apparently, Small Changes believes that, in lieu of a serious response, it merits a sarcastic and pointless response.

If you re-read Joe Sousa's post, and then my follow-up question, you'll see that I was not asking Joe to quantify "a deficit". I was asking him to provide at least some detail concerning where he came up with a figure for "the unfunded liability" he mentioned, and what he considers to be the major components that make up this "unfunded liability".

Unlike you, I do not normally continue a discussion unless I have read the other person's words carefully and am sure that I understand all they are trying to say.

And, for the record, we are all still waiting for Joe to answer the original question.

Looks like you still have internet. You could cut that.

All kidding aside, I'll try to answer and then let people sit back and attack. Perhaps there is extended family or even friends you could turn too? Maybe a non-profit could be of some help. If you belong to a church or some other type of charitable group they also might be able to provide you with some assistance. Government isn't the only or even the best answer.

It certainly sounds like a very difficult position you're in, hypothetically. It seems though like you want to group everyone on the right who doesn't agree with you into some evil mob. That's unfortunate.

Let me counter with this question. What role do you feel personal responsibility plays in the situation you've described above?

And the beer thing, geez. Leave your address and I'll make sure there is a 6 pack on your stairs tonight.

You're friend,
A "Righty"

Ohh ohh me too Ted..I cut out beer ;}

Tiverton Dad:

That's a very good hypothetical, thanks for posting it.

-- What do I do?

The answer, of course, is to either raise revenue or cut expenses.

The only serious cut I see would be to eliminate the college tuitions as these are the only items that seem to be elective in your hypothetical. Outside of that, I think we need to look at raising revenues.

First, I don't think taking a second mortgage is a good idea at all. Why increase your debt? You're just kicking the can down the road.

Let's go back to the colleges. Can your 2 children get financial aid? Given your circumstances, you would certainly seem to qualify. Can your children work their way through college, or at least work to the extent that it equals your second mortgage payment? I bet they could. I did. Mine do.

Can you and/or your wife get a part time job? It wouldn't have to be forever, but it might have to be until one or both kids are out of college. I don't know what your skills are, but let's say that all that's available is a 20-hour per week minimum wage job. After taxes (very much approximated at 30%), that would bring in an extra $500 per month. Does an extra $6K a year help?

It seems your best answer is to raise revenues. Either get a better job, get a part-time job, or start a part-time at-home business that helps close the gap. If none of those are possible or palatable, then you've got to go back to "cut expenses".

But you might not like what you see there.

My college age child is on financial aid at URI and has a part time job. My high school age son also has an after school job. Interestingly, when my father was in high school, he dropped out to help with family expenses. That could be why he worked thirty years at a job that left him no savings and no pension.

I really think you're onto something with raising revenue. I think I have a debt problem and a revenue problem.

It's tough, but my parents didn't pay for my college and I don't have the means to pay for my kid's college either. If a student is smart enough, scholarships will follow them. If a student is poor enough, scholarships will follow them. If they are neither poor or an academic acheiver, then they could get a job and help pay the bills. Oh wait, scratch that idea. This is RI, the most liberal, most democrat controlled state in the country. There are no jobs! Well, at least the GA is trying to boost the economy with legalizing gay marriage. The number of busboy positions will surely go up. My point is (TD), what proof can you point to that shows more government spending helps, when there is an abundance of evidence that points to the contrary? Maybe you could keep an additional $5k/year out of that $80k. Wouldn't that help? Wouldn't you spend that more wisely that Uncle Sam? That's what this is all about for me. No matter how you slice it, the government is, by far, the worst steward of our money. It's the last place we should be sending it.

My point was that the country has a debt problem, and a revenue problem. We can cut all of the non essentials, but unless congress is willing to get a second job (i.e. find other sources of revenue) the debt problem isn't going anywhere. If my hypothetical family followed the TP budget plan, my parents would be in a run down nursing home, one child would have to drop out of college, another would have no prospects for college, and the third would have no prospects at all. Even with all that, within a year, I might be facing foreclosure. Like it or not, increasing revenue has to be part of the equation.

The devil is in the details. How would you raise revenue? Raising taxes doesn't always equal raising revenue. Lowering taxes doesn't always equal lowering revenue. The one thing we know for sure, is that the consumer will spend (their own) money much more effectively than the government will spend it. Our biggest headaches are Medicare and Medicaid. Unless we reform these two programs, no amount of revenue enhancement will help.

"Our biggest headaches are Medicare and Medicaid. Unless we reform these two programs, no amount of revenue enhancement will help." - RT

Given that Medicare Part A is entirely funded by payroll deductions, do you consider this portion of the plan insolvent? If so - where were the funds spent?

There is a misconception that Medicare is insolvent, which is untrue.
It is entirely possible that the current payout is unsustainable, which may be true.

The two concepts are not precisely related, yet easily confused.
http://www.nasi.org/sites/default/files/research/Is_Medicare_Solvent_and_Sustainable.pdf

This program is functioning as designed, but cannot be maintained as the number
of Americans working 10 years and paying FICA. It is notable that there is both a cap on this tax, per year and an exclusion of capital gains which makes the tax
regressive.

http://www.money-zine.com/Financial-Planning/Tax-Shelter/FICA-Tax/

I'm unsure why these are considered big headaches, when they're self-funded.

The DoD, by contrast, is entirely funded by base transfers (the providers of the taxation do not directly receive a benefit from the program).

This premise that Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security/SSA costs too much is false.
It's bought and paid for - the problem is skimming to cover unfunded Wars...
http://www.halfbakedlunatic.com/post/2011/04/06/Trying-to-make-sense-of-the-Federal-Budget.aspx

Public library, I knew it! ;)

Joe seems to be here for distance and irritation and for some reason everyone keeps indulging him. There are a lot of obviously intelligent people on here and I'm amazed at how he can get you all going with just a sentence or two. He's not here for civilized debate. He's here to see how many liberals he can keep going for a week at a time. Unfortunately, he is doing a damn good job of it!

Ted Geisel, I have concern for future generations . I posted the Tea Party link because they are the only ones with a plan to fix our countries problem. It's not my fault the Tax and Spend Liberals froth at the mouth every time I post honest truthful information. It's a sickness with them.

TD - I believe the clever analogy has escaped the attention of your audience.
If you equate "Get another job" to "Collect more revenue" it may be made clear.

I think it ridiculous to compare the government to private sector or home economics - government is for the things that are neither profitable nor manageable by individuals.

" It's not my fault the Tax and Spend Liberals froth at the mouth every time I post honest truthful information." - Joe Sousa

That's bogus. You posted a link that has ZERO quantification - just a promise
to close cabinet departments that promote health, education and welfare for young people. Conveniently absent the discussion are the World's largest military
and anything that serves retired people.

You claim to oppose slavery, yet would set the stage for it's return...

It's time for Americans to get real about the problem - capital gains aren't taxed as regular income, and that has both concentrated wealth into fewer hands while
leaving most hands with no meaningful work.

Trickle-down economics gutted the Treasury and ushered in The Predator State.

You're right. Everything should be on the table. But those two are the toughest and biggest problems. Our military could definitely use a haircut, but unfortunately, due to the vast number of wounded warriers, we'll and mostly they, will be paying for our recent wars for a long time to come.

When the VA is considered part of the DoD - the scope of the problem is clear.

The last 30 years have seen a decrease in genuine threats to our security
(remember Duck-N-Cover?) but more frequent wars of choice. If we're to be fiscally responsible, it's time to enforce restrictions on War as an exploit to stimulate a small sector of the Economy without concern for the cost to fallen
soldiers that are placed in harm's way.

It's not transparent; we can't see what we get for the money, and it never ends.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf

Okay, I tried to supply a link to that quote, but I keep getting the message, "this comment has been rejected." Can someone at Patch explain why. In the meantime, Google quote and you'll find the source.

"Running in the red: How the U.S., on the road to surplus, detoured to massive debt"
By Lori Montgomery,April 30, 2011 published by the Washington Post.

It's increasingly obvious that a lower tax burden on the wealthiest (mainly through capital gains exemptions) isn't good for the health of America.

The parasites are killing the host.
Deliberately, it seems...

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/10/19/the-neocons-war-against-obama/

You've got the Tea Party direct IV, right? Spell it out.

You've provided no link, no figures, no nuttin'...as usual.
$125 Trillion unfunded liability seems big enough that even YOU could find it...

I guess you find the conversation more to your liking when only your point of view is expressed .

It was watching Fox, and chanting "USA! U-S-A!" at Walmart on the way to NASCAR.

Look closely at the time stamps - most of the people that seem perplexed by outrage over this aren't punching the clock... they retired with Medicare before the jobs left.

Na..
C'mon man I cover some weekends for the people who have families here so I have to take days in the middle since we don't have overtime once the 40 per week or 80 per period is reached. So I have to take a weekday every so often. I pay my co-pays and work..all over again. No medicare..

@Leave RI - I would not consider you perplexed.

Bemused, maybe - but not perplexed.
FYE - Phil just got bumped of the top 40...

http://theawesomeboston.com/conservative-old-man-youtube-rapper-pepperjack-has-to-be-a-joke/

roger..so pepperjack is my next guy..whew..thanks

agree with with some reservations

"Till the Tea Party came along there were no answers. "
Not many afterwards, either.

"The Tea Party has not gone away."
Like the Kardashians, you lot can't take a hint.

"The Tax cuts were suppose to be followed with spending cuts."

Instead we got two grossly expensive unfunded wars.

"Instead we got two grossly expensive unfunded wars."

Very true. Both parties share responsibility though. Certainly GB was in charge but he needed the approval of congress. The AUMF for Afghanistan passed 420 Ayes, 1 Nay and 10 Not Voting in the house and 98 Ayes, 0 Nays, 2 Present/Not Voting in the Senate. I'd call that overwhelming support by both parties. VP Biden voted Aye.

The Iraq war was more heavily favored by Republicans. Only 40% of Democrats in the house voted for it but a majority, 58%, of the Democrat Senators voted for it. Again including VP Biden.

Actually, there's less money in circulation today than in 2008.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/7769126/US-money-supply-plunges-at-1930s-pace-as-Obama-eyes-fresh-stimulus.html

Do you have any idea how much money you're talking about?
Do you know how many zeroes in a Trillion?

I know there's at least one zero, in Tiverton.

Seriously, do you get your news from a box of cornflakes?

Can you back that up, Baywatch?

That sounds more like "truthiness" than factual analysis.
Social Security and Medicare are insurance programs, funded by recipients.

Entitlements are funded by base transfers (like farm subsidies and SNAP).

This claim that Social Security and Medicare are insolvent stems from two problems; the number of people receiving benefits exceeds those paying in which leads to an intergenerational transfer of wealth. This problem arises when
benefits aren't capped - the solution implies simple rationing.

Medicare is the source of most concern as the retiring cohort of Baby Boomers
is large, and they expect any and all measures to be taken if they enter the hospital. That's a POTENTIAL problem.

The existing problem in the Federal budget today is servicing debt (which is intended to fund growth through large scale projects like roads, bridges and ports)
rather than effectively subsidizing the Military and all the industries that profit by it.

America has given trickle down economics more than a reasonable time to prove
it's mettle, which it has not. It's apparent that lower tax rates on capital gains
encourage ever riskier investment in financial instruments (as with AIG) and
less in the industries that employ Americans.

Unless you consider the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and TSA industries, that is.

==Social Security and Medicare are insurance programs, funded by recipients.==
Hahahahahahaha....
Ok, good one. I wasn't aware that the Patch was the comedy club, but I appreciate the laugh.

The sad part is that some people actually believe that.

"The sad part is that some people actually believe that."
- Small Change

Perhaps you know something we don't? Do tell...
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html

Back what up? That absolute values of entitlement costs over revenues are close to equal and climbing? 2012 Entitlements are $2.05 trillion. Total revenues are $2.43 trillion.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/10/federal-spending-by-the-numbers-2012

Did you even read the Trustees report that you posted? Are you being humorous? It's difficult to discern sarcasm over the internet but that trustee report is pretty awful.

From the trustees report that you linked to...
"In 2011, the HI fund used interest income ($12 billion) and assets ($28 billion) to help finance expenditures.
This report anticipates a $38 billion deficit in non-interest income for 2012, followed by a period of declining deficits (2013-18)
as the growth in taxable earnings accelerates.
The projected trust fund exhaustion date is 2024 (unchanged from last year).
Under current law, scheduled HI tax and premium income would be sufficient to pay 87 percent of estimated HI costs in 2024 and 69 percent by 2086"

Yikes!

"It's apparent that lower tax rates on capital gains
encourage ever riskier investment in financial instruments (as with AIG) and
less in the industries that employ Americans."
What? How? Riskier investments cost more, risk isn't free. Losses cost real money. You seem to only be including gains, for every high beta winner there are a series of losers, and that isn't free.

Where do you suppose the money went, Joe?

Lotsa yamma about "entitlements" no mention of the Naval Base YOU work on...
Defense has been quietly siphoning from the Treasury for 30 years.

Are you incapable, or just unwilling to see this as THE major drain on the Treasury?

All government spending is wasteful, even military spending. It probably costs us $10k or more per combatant killed. Afgans and Iraqis were using IEDs that probably killed our troops for $50 each. That being said, I would rather equip our troops to the hilt and spend the money for superior firepower, than save money and lose our edge on the battlefield. I'd like to hear how much people would be screaming at our government if the price of gasoline spiked to $10/gal and heating oil was rationed, or commercial shipping interupted, because the U.S. couldn't send a carrier group to the Persion Gulf. It is extremely unfortunate that we entered the last 2 wars, but 3000+ deaths on September 11th, 2001 had something to do with that. National defense is part of the Constitution; writing checks to everyone with a hand out, is not.

"I'd like to hear how much people would be screaming at our government if the price of gasoline spiked to $10/gal and heating oil was rationed, or commercial shipping interupted, because the U.S. couldn't send a carrier group to the Persion Gulf." - RT

This very neatly illustrates my point; the size of the Fifth fleet appears inversely proportional to the scope of our (absent) National energy policy. I'm not so naive as to believe opposing National interests would not fill any vacuum left by a
reduced US Military presence, but remaining embedded on the Arabian peninsula and patrolling the Gulf of Hormuz effectively subsidizes a business interest.

In effect, we're already paying closer to $15/gallon for gas if the security premium paid to military protection services, subsidy for prospecting, tax rebates to the industry, regulation and oversight as hidden costs.

There are those that would argue for LESS oversight and regulation, and to them
I would point out the aftermath in the Louisiana gulf coast when a state of the art
facility failed. A more realistic look at unregulated oil production is found in Nigeria.

The tightening spiral of increased military presence in the Gulf and therefore,
increased military consumption of oil seems counterproductive, and expensive.

It's a poor return on our investment.

http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/oil-gas-crude/461

The problem I see Mark is that it does not matter what the Administration, Congress or the whole population of the US thinks about that coin. It is what the debt holders think about it. With it only being one denomination it would reqire Contries that hold the debt like China (35%) i believe and Japan ( 15%) I think who are the largest single debt holders.

If they do not consider it collateral the status quo is maintained not enhaced concerning the debt ceiling. Not to mention it would be in the Supreme Court 2 seconds after he order from the Adminitration to have it minted.

China owns 8% of US debt, not 35%.

Where do you get these SWAGs, Jack - it takes seconds to search for facts.

The real problem is the inter-agency "ownership" of debt which is derived from
FICA and OSADI payroll deductions. This is effectively a forced investment in programs which cannot support themselves, and run at a deficit.

This hides the true cost of dark programs that operated without oversight,
and it's a recipe for ruin. Remember Dwight Eisenhower? He was right.

First and foremost on that list is the DoD. They're not running bake sales.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/moneymatters/ss/How-Much-US-Debt-Does-China-Own.htm

Gee NL sorry, it was suppose to read 25% and 15%. You are using the total debt holders including Americans. I was talking about foreign Countries in respect to them having to believe in the so called coin ignorance that Obama will never even attempt. It is a fools folly. I was also doing it off the top of my head hense the "I believe and I think"; though the estimates for 2012 it is now 26% china and 20% for Japan as Japan has been buying more and China less.

Foreign governments hold about 46 percent of all U.S. debt held by the public, more than $4.5 trillion. The largest foreign holder of U.S. debt is China, which owns more about $1.2 trillion in bills, notes and bonds, according to the Treasury. Oh thats from the same link you have by the way which was the one I was trying to remember when I posted. geesh

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/moneymatters/ss/How-Much-US-Debt-Does-China-Own.htm

In any case NL it matter not what the numbers are in respect to who the 4.5 trillion. What matters is how to solve it and just saying cut the DOD is insanity. You cannot cut that much from the DOD without doing great harm to our national security.

It must be cut from everywhere and yes including DOD. All you ever talk about is the DOD. We live on a planet in a global society and cannot be isolationist and ignore the rest of the world. I am for billing every Country for services rendered when it comes to the use of DOD in foreign Country's.

But if we do not look at the unsustainable social programs it will never be accomplished either. The regulations for enviroment and crippling businesses also need to be redone. There is no simple answer but there are a lot of tough love answers that people better get use to. So many infact that we could put together a 50,000 page book just listing them I am sure.

But instead we will look at taking guns from honest people, gay marriage, anti and pro abortion, class warfare, tax, tax tax, and a million other hings that have nothing to do with solving the deficit and putting the econmy back on track, namely Business creation with JOBS.

Nothing erases debt other than paying it off and not over spending anymore than you take in simple as that.

"But if we do not look at the unsustainable social programs it will never be accomplished either." - JB

Which do you consider unsustainable? Put a dollar value on their cost.

"The regulations for enviroment and crippling businesses also need to be redone. "
American business does not have a positive track record for cleanliness.
Acid rain was denigrated as a scientific fiction, until fish stock plummeted up East.

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/global_warming_deniers_and_their_proven_strategy_of_doubt/2285/

What we're seeing in OUR lifetime is the maturation of America as a Nation that
has just begun to look past the current exploit to the consequences for several generations yet to come.

That implies some curbs to the generous lifestyle offered in the 20th century.

If we're to balance sensible spending cuts with judicious revenue increases -
while we're being serious, we'll also have to consider our personal responsibilities
as well as our individual freedoms.

"But instead we will look at taking guns from honest people, gay marriage, anti and pro abortion, class warfare, tax, tax tax, and a million other hings that have nothing to do with solving the deficit..." You said it - and who's focused on these?

This is a diversion, plain and simple. If the GOP is to be again taken seriously
it needs to abandon the culture wars and deliver the goods.

As it stands, it sounds like nostalgic white guys complaining about The Help.

China tops the list with $1.2 trillion in Treasury securities at the end of August 2012. But the U.S. government has become less reliant on China to fund its gaping budget hole over the past two years, even as the political rhetoric over borrowing from China has heated up.

Two unfunded wars,unpaid prescription drug benefits for those on Medicaid and tax cuts all of which took place during "W's" eight years as president. Place the blame for the national deficit where it belongs, which is the Republican Party. By the way Joe, what programs would you cut to help reduce federal spending?

So, is this just a way to rein in The Fed?

It seems that this won't shrink the money supply back to a realistic level before
the 1987 "DotCom" collapse - and the flood of valueless stock that followed.

If getting a handle on National finances is in order, it might be wiser to start with
a few Pitbulls at the SEC instead lap dogs. Curb Wall Street, first.

Count the coins, later.

This idea is a Ponzi scheme and will continue to devalue the dollar. When gas is $10 a gallon and your grocery bill is half you monthly wage maybe people will catch on .
Debt causes Inflation

Joe, PLEASE read the link from my first post...

http://www.correntewire.com/wake_up_progressives_the_trillion_dollar_coin_can_be_game_changing

If a coin were minted, be it 10, 20, 30 or 60 Trillion dollars, it would be deposited in the Treasury. It would not flood the money supply immediately. Some would be used to cancel the debt, and then spent accordingly, for years to come.

No diversion by me on the gun thing, it is the diversion of anti-gun crowd and the politicians using an evil act to move an agenda against the Constitutional right to bear arms and will not prevent evil acts of criminals. Neither should the other things be on the table at this time either as they also are diversions by agenda driven people. The culture war is the guilty pressure of both sides period, not just GOP but DEMS also. What race has to do with it is yet another diversion to push an agenda oh so called social justice and shameful in my opinion by anyone who would use it.

Time to prepare for Patriot Game party tomorrow, feel free to start the name calling and dirogitory statements against posters opinion rather than have a respectful debate you seem incapable of NL.

Money hasn't been backed by precious metals for a lot longer than that. I believe the last silver certificate was in 1935. Dollars used to have the fact that they could be redeemed for silver printed on them. Silver was removed from quarters in '64. Nickles and pennies can still be melted down for a profit. Of course, that would be illegal. One of the biggest problems to linking the dollar to one commodity is that foreign and domestic entities can be manipulated to destroy the U.S economy. Essentially, though, our dollar is based on the value of the sum total of our tangible productivity, as compared to the rest of the world's tangible productivity. It does all get linked back to something. The big issue with borrowing, in this case, is that we aren't using it to produce. We're using it to extend unemployment and fund retirements and feed the poor non-producers. The value of these things is entirely "social". They don't belong on our Federal expense accounts.