When does the debt become important to you?
 

Title says it all.
The debt is ballooning out of control; the debt ceiling keeps being raised.

I fully understand the political finger-pointing. i.e. "Bush did it", etc
But that sort of thinking ignores the real world reality. Moody's has indicated that they may lower the USA bond rating. Do you understand the implications of that?
We'd end up borrowing more money simply to pay the higher cost of our borrowed money. The figure I heard is that the debt service alone will exceed our GDP. From there, its a fiscal death spiral. Look to Argentina for the pattern.

Its not simply a republican-caused problem, although Bush and the republicans didn't help. Obama has only added gasoline to the fire; his policies are, if anything, even worse. EVERYONE shares some blame. Our political leaders continue to treat themselves like royalty. They will all retire on some fat pension, Politicians are happy to simply " kick the can ( problem) down the road "(until they retire).

So what are the REAL ( non-political) answers? Please try to avoid the standard talking point answers, and the blame game. Regardless of who is.was the root cause, what do you see as the answers?

To me, there are only a few:
Cut what government spends. Causing massive pain.
Raise Taxes--deepening even further the recession
Print more money ruining the savings of those about to retire
Borrow more money--delays the problem, but deepens the same problem.

Do we accept the immediate pain caused by massive spending cuts, or simply pass it on?

The only real solution is to cut gov spending. The gov was never created to help everyone with everything, and it cannot do that. Across the board cuts, and then cut the board. We need to start arguing about which programs will be cut, not which ones we will create.

If you are going to cut, you must cut where there is a lot of spending. Looks to me like the military should get some massive cuts, and then pull them back from foreign wars, and foreign stations. Defend THESE borders.

eliminate the dept of education, scale back epa, thats a start...

None of this will happen; we're fairly screwed.

I dont see the need to keep 1/2 the world alive when the Aid we send them and they stick there middle finger at us in return

The aid money is being borrowed and we tax payers pay for it not the goverment we send it to we never get anything in return NEVER

what happened to the billions sent to haiti and its all gone already YA THINK - they should have given everyone in the country 200,000 dollars and sold them everything we would have been in better shape as well as the people of haiti -- just an example - jz

Well, first we look at the numbers, the private debt is higher than it's been since the 60s (in teams of percentage of GDP). In addition the public (SS) debt is growing.

Regarding the private debt, we do what we did in the post-WW2 era, reduce spending and raise taxes until it flattens out. There is always plenty of fat in government. Start by ending the current "wars" within a couple of years and get the military under control (pre-reagan levels). Significantly decrease domestic spending across the board, and come up with a realistic tax plan that will pay down the debt within about a decade. In other words, do what you would do with the family budget; figure out how to raise income and stop doing stuff you can't afford.

Regarding SS, cut the expenditure by raising the eligibility age significantly and put some type of means testing in place. The fact that I will probably be able to receive SS benefits tells me the eligibility standards are much too low. Raise the bar so most people will never collect from the fund, make it a safety net only (survivor benefits, people who truly can no longer work and truly need the income).

I'm betting that now that corporations can directly influence elections, they will have the country do what corporations do when they make a bad decision- first you see who you can sucker into taking over your obligations, and if that doesnt work, then stop making the payments and walk away from the debt...

X2 on that. To me it is insane to send monetary aid to other countries when we flat out don't have the money. It's kind of like me not being able to afford groceries for my family and using my mastercard to buy groceries for my neighbors. It's not that I don't want to help, but you have to take care of your own first.

Obviously, government spending is completely out of control. The lords are spending more than the slaves can make for them, not to mention obstructing our ability to thrive and compete with ridiculous laws like "cap and trade". If the government ever expects us to be able to recover they need to do what John Galt said; "get the hell out of the way":D

That sort of talk will never get you elected. It is a bidding war out there during election time and people go with the highest bid, which yours is not. Problem is that after the bidding is done and the winner doesn't pay, we don't do anything to them.

How will you entice anyone to want to donate to a fund when you tell them that they probably will not get it? That is the problem. It was sold to us as a forced savings plan.

Who receives the most aid from the USA? Should that be cut off or reduced?

Nothing is going to happen because no one wants to deal with it.


I suspect they are going to inflate it away.

Fortunately, I don't need to get elected. I put myself on a cash basis a long time ago; maybe the government needs to do the same?

That's part of the problem, why does SS need to be a separate fund so it shows up as part of the debt on paper? It's really nothing but an additional income tax and an entitlement program for geezers. It should be structured so a very small percentage of the geezers live long enough to collect; the eligibility age needs to be raised significantly.

Unfortunately, you are probably correct. In that case we should all probably get out of dollars and into something more stable (cheap real estate?).

How are we defining "aid" by the way? From what I see, aid to say Haiti is a dead end. We aren't getting anything from them. "Aid" that is used to by influence or people into our way or thinking, is that considered aid also? Problem is the word "aid" is overused because we don't want to come to grips with the fact that we are doing this to get that. For instance, if we give a country "aid" but we get to use their harbors and ports, is that really "aid"? Sounds more like a barter or sale to me.

Its not that simple. Part of the reasoning that set the ages where they did was to promote opening up positions in the job market. Get the old people out of the way for the young ones to get jobs.
How does government have any credibility to change the system so that fewer qualify for benefits. I've been making payments for 44 years, and now you want to say I can't get benefits? The money was not not a voluntary contribution; its was confiscated with the promise that the government would pay. If I lose my SS benefits, then a LOT of politicians better lose theirs, first.

Define it anyway you want then go back to the question.

That is just it. You don't need to get elected. The officials do. Telling your son he cannot go out to play is not going to make you popular while taking him to his favorite eating place is. Remember when we were kids we didn't understand why that jerk who calls himself our father is giving us such grief for our actions and now we might understand why a little better? Same thing. Fathers are not elected, nor are mothers or kids would be voting for Grandpa and Grandma who gives them everything and never says no.

I think it should be abolished totally. What is it, if not a grand Ponzi scheme where the young workers (new customers) pay to the retired (old customers)? Even Madoff could not keep it going forever. And to those who say "Since you disagree with SS, don't take it when you are able", I say "Give me back what I paid into it with interest and I will relinquish all claims on it".

We are "aiding" people with money we don't have.
At least the private aid is actually real money. Well not, really "real" money, but you know what I mean.

I've been making that offer for YEARS.
Not a chance of it happening.

Before we can answer the question, we need to figure out what the definition of the word is. If you put giving to the United Way in the same category as giving money to others for your food, it might make things complicated. One is a purchase, the other a donation with little expected in return except a tax write off.

What happened when the "old investors" wanted their money back in the case of Madoff and the "new investors" weren't so willing to part with their money?

That's part of the problem, the SS system was originally intended to get the geezers out of the job market an open up jobs for others (including returning veterans). I'm not sure that model makes sense anymore, the "retirement" ages for SS are much too young; the system is supporting many people for 20-30 years after they stop working. It makes more sense for the economy to support geezers by keeping them in the job market, than to pay them to sit home and watch the home shopping network for 30 years.

If we are not willing to get rid of the current SS system (which is what I would like to see happen), we either need to raise the age significantly (maybe by 10 years) and/or means test everyone. I've also been paying the maximum contribution for many years and I don't expect to see a dime, sorry about that. This is simply an entitlement program for a nonproductive portion of the middle class (geezer welfare). It needs to be fixed.

I would be willing to walk away today and call it even, I will never see any money anyway. SS payments are just another tax.

How easy would it be for me to sell you on the idea that you should buy me a new car but you can't ride in it or use it except if your birthday falls on the 29 of Feb and it is a leap year ending in the number 0? Like all govt programs, it starts with a good intention and then morphs into something unrecognizable. Which is why I want as little govt intervention in my life. I cannot afford any more of their "help".

When investors walk away, the ponzi scheme collapses. Further to that, groups of people will suffer. Most notable are politicians who cannot tap into it as another cash pool.

I agree, we need to kill it before it gets any worse; unfortunately, we are the generation that will get hosed when it goes away. Oh well, it's only money.

yup
 

I'd like for there to be a line drawn in the sand regarding the definition of what government does. Once that is in place you can begin dismantling the things it shouldn't be doing. A good source for what the Federal government is responsible for is the constitution. "Any power not given to the federal government is the responsibility of the state"

Right now the Feds are sticking their authority in everything. Since when is the economy the government's job to fix?

I'd like for their to be a freeze on growth for everything except national security. (obviously no one would go for this). Stop hiring, do not replace retirees. Just reorganize as people retire. When there aren't enough people left to run certain programs, that program gets shut down. It is then up to the individual communities to take over those respective duties.

If someone was living on social security and absolutely can not do anything productive, it is then up to that person's family and the community to take over care of that individual.

Well feel free to define it anyway you want then see if you can answer the question.

FWIW, here are some numbers; they are fairly small amounts and concentrated in parts of the world where the US thinks it has a "national interests." In other words, it's not primarily charity:

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s1261.pdf

Like heroine, we have become so dependent on govt intervention for everything. Things were bad at the last election and people were thinking that Obama could solve all the problems. Well, he can't but people don't stop thinking that he can. Yes, you can tell me it is unrealistic but that is life. When the nursing home the wife was stationed at was closing, they had a resident's meeting to tell them. The FIRST question was "Why isn't the govt doing something about it?". That is the mentality that people have these days.

Since the people started deligating everything to the govt to fix. Something goes wrong, they want govt intervention. They don't think that it comes with a price.

I'm guessing you have a desk job. There are many professions requiring physical labor and it's hardly fair to extend the retirement age for them.

Well, the way I define "aid" is that it is help, money, etc, etc, given to someone who cannot be of service to us in the near future. IOW, me giving money to United Way or the Susan G Kommen Foundation is basically aid. If I am getting something back in return, it is no longer aid. It is a sale. You owe me money and I wipe off the interest, it is aid. You owe me money and I wipe off the interest and maybe some principal and you give me your wife for a night (Indecent proposal, sorta) is not aid.

If you want to cut off what I define as aid, go for it. If you want to cut off the barter, trade or whatever you want to call the exchange, you need to be really careful about that.

That's the mentality people have had for about 50-60 years now. We can't solve everything by redistributing domestic wealth, we can't afford to support a military that was designed to fight WW3, and we can't support people who choose to retire in their 60s just because they think they are entitled.

Sorry, life's not fair. If you plan on retiring at 65, save some money for your retirement. It's not my job to support someone for 30 years because they were unwilling to plan for their future.

I do think that we should have some type of disability insurance to cover people who are actually unable to work, regardless of age (not people who just don't feel like working anymore).

You likely have more years to earn than do I, probably.

Now you have your definition see if you can now come up with who you think gets the most US "aid" as per your defination.

I have as many years as I have left, I have no plans to retire. I don't understand why anyone would want to outlive their usefulness. :confused:

And yet, the democrat party wants a health care system that we can't afford.
Sorry, don't mean to be partisan, but if we are borrowing money to meet today's expenses, why are we even considering adding trillions more to what the government spends?
Sometimes "no" is the responsible answer.
And to be fair, Lets cut the military budget. I don't want to harm our security, but we can bring home the troops stationed around the world, and moth-ball a lot of equipment.

How much MORE does the proposed Healthcare plan add to what we spend now?

Regarding health care, we all know that everyone who needs health care in the US is currently receiving at least minimum care and the US economy is currently paying for it (one way or another). We do not have people dying in the streets for lack of healthcare. We also know that we are not going to stop providing basic care for everyone. The only question is how we want to pay for it in the future, and will it be more or less efficient that the current system.

Healthcare is not a new expenditure; what the democrats proposed was a transfer of a private expense to a public expense; I don't know if that's the best answer or not. I agree that the democrat's plan would put this expense "on the books" so it would show up as part of the debt. Now it's hidden in our insurance payments and doctor's bills, but we are still paying for it. I am also concerned that a government run program could have very high overhead costs.

The military and the civilian leadership need to figure out what their current/future missions are and design an appropriate force. They cannot afford to do everything at once. Also, we (both parties) need to stop engaging in military operations that are outside the budget. If it needs to be done, figure out how to pay for it. If a tax increase will be required, tell the public up front.

We're not discussing life here. We are talking about g'ment policy. As long as you and others have an elitist attitude, nothing will be reformed.
SS already provides disabilty payments along with medicare or medicaid for those qualifying for disability.

We can afford the present healthcare system even less. The Republicans don't want reform because they get paid by corporate interests to oppose it.

I understand that, so what's the problem with raising the retirement age to 70 or 75? If someone digs ditches for a living and is unable to obtain another job, wouldn't they be eligible to collect disability if/when they were unable to perform that job? Why do we pay everyone to retire when many (most) could be productive for many more years?

I know lots of pencil pushers who will take their pensions and SS payments and use them to finance a 30 year vacation. That's fine with me, but I don't really want to subsidize their lifestyle choices.

What's difference between collecting disability or collecting SS? There aren't many jobs with benefits open to persons of 65+ age.
I don't know you continue to equate proffession with life style. I don't see any connection.

I am sorry, but that is BS. I am paid by no one. My political views are based on principles; not graft.
There may be some whose affections are the product of corporate graft, but not me.

The difference is that we now pay everyone to quit working at 65, disability would only pay those who are actually unable to work. Many people retire at the peak of their abilities, it's a real waste of resources. The US cannot afford to pay these folks to do nothing.

I'm simply suggesting that most people can (and should) continue to work in their current profession long past 65. I couldn't imagine stopping work at 65, unless it was to start a new career. Most of the very productive people I know are well over 65 and work because they enjoy it.

Of course no one pays you. You're not an elected representitive.

We don't pay everyone to quit working at 65. There are many that continue to work well into their 70's and older, particularly those at the peak of their abilities. Retirement is voluntary.