A Fiscal ‘Tsunami’

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: Cannoneer2 @ 11/15/2007 6:38:43 PM

    Woohoo!!! The same bunch of Baby Boomers that are so enamored with 1968 brought us this mess. It has always been "me, me, me!!!" with this bunch, and will be all the way to the grave, designer caskets and all. The succeeding generations, mine included, will be left to clean up the mess.

  • Posted By: dusher @ 11/14/2007 8:13:54 PM

    I find it astonishing that anyone in Congress is even considering providing free health care, when we are already hitting the wall with medicare and social security. The complete avoidance of tangible, positive solutions in favor of "free health care for children of single mothers (SCHIP) by politicians is equally horrifying. Robert Rector recently pointed out that 75% of poverty would go away if mothers simply married the fathers of their children. And, we are spending in excess of $100b annually on various other social and criminal disasters that fall out of the marriage-absence problem. Since we know that the more we spend entitling social problems, such as divorce and illegitimacy (which are also at the root of our lack of retirement savings), the more of these problems we will get. We must get off our national addiction entitling marital irresponsibility, and complete the two point of reform that were supposed to be handled in the 1996 welfare reforms -- to reduce illegitimacy and improve marriage rates and retention. A two-fold approach, weaning away from entitling social problems, while applying much smaller sums to fund simple programs that encourage and reward marital responsibility, and help a responsible spouse get a troubled one into treatment for problems such as drug and alcohol abuse, will bring about tremendous decreases in social entitlement "needs", increases in savings, decreases in costs for criminal interdiction, troubled children, and schools serving an "in loco parentis" role. David R. Usher, Senior Policy Analyst, True Equality Network, St. Louis, MO.

    • Posted By: pgeorge @ 11/15/2007 5:57:44 PM

      No one is talking about providing "free" health care. Health care would still be paid for. It's just that it would come, fairly, out of taxes which everyone with an income would pay rather than payments to a for-profit system. Given that health care now can cost up to $1,000 per month, per individual, for private insurance - not counting co-pays and deductibles - there is almost no national health system that wouldn't cost less and provide better coverage. The way the system stands, many people can't afford insurance and become a burden to the state anyway, so why not have it honest and up front and say that we, as citizens, believe that taking care of each other is a virtue, as they do in Europe? Otherwise, you are basically saying that some people just deserve to die because they haven't been healthy or lucky enough to not get sick/be able to afford huge amounts for insurance. I, for one, would rather live in a society that cared for all its members, even if it didn't have the "best" for the lucky few. Also, maybe it sounds good on paper to say that premiums should be raised for those with unhealthy habits, but that gets us back where we started. My mother smoked. I do not. But would I want her dying in a gutter, further "punished" for her smoking, because she developed emphysema and couldn't afford higher premiums? And we all know thin people who eat twice as much as fat people, but just lucked out on their genes... It's a complicated issue, but let's keep in mind that we are talking about our own friends and relatives, not some abstraction of people who aren't worthy of being given medical care.

  • Posted By: peterkcarew @ 11/15/2007 5:47:34 PM

    you're absolutely correct- we dont have any leadership. our fall will come sooner than most predict
    i would say our country has about 5 years to get our acts together. but i dont see it happening- our country is divided, and a house divided can not stand. If the human race wasnt so greedy and corrupt i would say we could do it. but i think we have a long way to evolve. I wish it was our fate could have a different outcome.

    Peter

  • Posted By: Saltydog_0 @ 11/15/2007 4:48:44 PM

    "Well, you could decide not to renew the Bush tax cuts, you could eliminate all foreign aid, eliminate all earmarks, eliminate NASA, eliminate the National Endowment for Humanities and eliminate the entire Defense Department tomorrow, and you still wouldn't solve the problem."

    wow. WOW. Are you kidding me?! How did we ever become so irresponsible?!! If debtor's prison were still a reality our legislators would all have life sentences. However, I can't just point the finger at the government. They simply reflect the mindset of our citizen's. We all think we're so special that we're entitled to anything we want, screw the consequences. This is why you don't give a teenager a credit card. They're just too self-centered to act responsibly. It's time for us all to grow up.

    Great interview! But damn depressing. I have zero faith in our ability to act responsibly.

  • Posted By: Ronpen @ 11/15/2007 12:59:44 PM

    The last paragraph of this article says a great deal about why we are having this fiscal tsunami. Our government has involved itself in areas outside of its constitutional responsibilities. This great nation for some reason has abandoned its basic social and philosophical principals. We no longer look for individuals to take care of themselves. We think government should supply basic services, not simply safety nets. We don't look to the individual to develop his talents to achieve his dreams; we look for outside support in the form of government aid packages. This is where it all starts. Once government gets involved special interest groups get involved and the tyranny of the minority begins to wield more and more power. The United States over the last seventy years has strayed into a socialist mind set. In the end this is not compatable with individual rights and the accepting of individual resposibilities.

  • Posted By: mpham @ 11/15/2007 11:36:19 AM

    "Americans are free to be as charitable as they like--with their own money--not someone else's."
    Posted By: markyannone @ 11/15/2007 3:38:27 AM
    ----
    The problem is there's no such thing as "own money" if you know what money is. It's a abstract idea, printed on a paper and nows a day can be created electronically by pressing Enter. It's essentially an function o aggregate belief of all market participants.


    Please read this (written 2200 years ago)

    1. Sun Tzu said: In the operations of war,
    where there are in the field a thousand swift chariots,
    as many heavy chariots, and a hundred thousand
    mail-clad soldiers, with provisions enough to carry them
    a thousand li, the expenditure at home and at the front,
    including entertainment of guests, small items such as
    glue and paint, and sums spent on chariots and armor,
    will reach the total of a thousand ounces of silver per day.
    Such is the cost of raising an army of 100,000 men.

    2. When you engage in actual fighting, if victory
    is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and
    their ardor will be damped. If you lay siege to a town,
    you will exhaust your strength.
    3. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources
    of the State will not be equal to the strain.

    4. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor damped,
    your strength exhausted and your treasure spent,
    other chieftains will spring up to take advantage
    of your extremity. Then no man, however wise,
    will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.

    5. Thus, though we have heard of stupid haste in war,
    cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays.

    6. There is no instance of a country having benefited
    from prolonged warfare.

  • Posted By: Shawn H. @ 11/15/2007 6:34:08 AM

    I'm wondering if we as a nation can turn things around at this point. Will apathetic Americans suddenly take an interest in their own government and the spending of their own money (taxes)? I'm doubtful. I don't see any dramatic change or American renaissance coming in the foreseeable future. I see Americans continuing to be more concerned with Brittany Spears' rehab or the football scores to worry about substantial government reform. We are too self-indulgent, self-centered, and self-involved. I've heard the only time real change occurs, both individually and culturally, is when things get so bad that it affects daily life substantially. That may not happen for a while. When it does, it means things have sunk very low indeed. Perhaps change will begin when the majority of people have to scrounge for food or live in shanty towns.

  • Posted By: jdl51 @ 11/15/2007 1:12:37 AM

    The chickens have come home to roost. Republicans since Reagan have been peddling the line of BS that you can cut taxes and spend like drunken sailors and it will all work out in the end. They have been raping the american people for the past 27 years with this line and then giving literally trilliions away in corporate welfare. Check out how much is spent on farm subsidies, oil tax breaks, no bid government contracts for everything from storm cleanup to serving food to the military. Most of the money spent on the military are just corporate giveaways. I am for a strong military, but the way it's run now is just totally idiotic with no standardization among the services, gold plated hardware, and waste on an unprecedented scale. The problem isn't the paltry few billion spent on social spending, although some of that is a waste, too. The problem is that the politicians are enriching their friends and supporters by the trillion. And this falacy that the budget deficit is shrinking is another crock. The debt ceiling was just increased another 850 billion. All of the Iraq, Afghanistan and Katrina spending and who knows what else, is off budget. It isn't included in the budget figures even though it's added to the debt. It's all a pack of lies. The debt has increased 3.5 trillion and counting since our commander in thief took office. That's an average of half a trilliion a year, so this talk of the deficit down to 180 billion or whatever it is they're claiming, doesn't include the 200 billion for Iraq this year. And the republicans have the balls to call democrats fiscally irresponsible. The last time we had a budget surplus wasn't with a republican administration and it never will be. What they've done and are doing is nothing less than criminal.

  • Posted By: docktorb@aol.com @ 11/14/2007 6:26:48 PM

    Everyone saw what happened to W Bush when he tried to deal with these issues. It will be a long time before anyone will risk that again. And yes, he did bring us the Medicare prescription drug plan to ameliorate the situation that socialist politicians were proposing. It's a real nightmare, but unfortunately one from which we can't awaken. Big biily's comment presumes that only the self employed pay 15% when in fact we all do. The "employer's contribution" is a scam to deceive people about how much they are paying. It is the total compensation that is paid for an employee"s hour of service that an employer looks at when setting a salary. The employer basically is required to lie to the employees salary and secreyly send in the extra hidden 7.5% tax to the government. If you work an hour, the 7.5% is paid. If you don't, it's not. Who earned that 7.5%?

    • Posted By: bigBillyS @ 11/14/2007 10:16:03 PM

      I'm not professing to be an expert on this topic but I am curious because this particular issue means alot to me and SS cap is going to keep coming up in the debates so I really want to understand it. So...question - If I own a 2 person company and I'm the sole owner and your my employee and I made salary of $80k and you as my employee were paid $40K to be my office manager. Isn't it true that I paid 15% of 80K and my employee paid 7.5% on their 40K salary. Let's say this is an operation with hardly any overhead (home-based). Isn't it true that out of my roughly $120 gross revenue (which allows me to pay $80k for me the owner and $40k for you my employee) that I paid 7.5% of the 40K out of my money to match the 7.5% of the employee? Was your point that because I matched the 7.5% of my employee that if I didn't have to do that I could have paid them that much more? I could see that point but then there seems to be a fair market value to the work people do. For instance, if the local market bears $50.00 an hour for a particular job or skillset, how could one be lying to the employee? If the employee was offered $47.00 an hour so the employer could secretly send the $3.00 to the government, then the employee would go else where. Yet the employer is paying 15% of their own salary no matter what. I want to understand your point am I on the right track to understanding yours?

  • Posted By: 1Google1 @ 11/14/2007 9:45:34 PM

    What I don???t understand is how the general population is not outraged by how irresponsible this government has been. This is the first president in the history of the US to lower taxes in a time of war even though both conflicts are expected to cost $3.5trn between 2003 and 2017 ??? a burden of $46,400 for an average American family. We have prescription drug plan the U.S. government has spent $32 billion in 2006, and is expected to accumulate to $797 billion by 2015. This is a drug plan where the US government is not authorized to negotiate lower prices on the purchase of drugs from the pharmaceutical industry and no way to pay for. What are the elected representatives doing to protect the interest of the general population and the livelihood of our children???s future? I fear David Walker is correct on his assessment of the financial outlook of this country. Every year there appears to be some foolish financial blunder that the representatives of this country have voted on and no one is taking any action on the future burden of debt that we owe.

  • Posted By: 1Google1 @ 11/14/2007 9:45:10 PM

    What I don???t understand is how the general population is not outraged by how irresponsible this government has been. This is the first president in the history of the US to lower taxes in a time of war even though both conflicts are expected to cost $3.5trn between 2003 and 2017 ??? a burden of $46,400 for an average American family. We have prescription drug plan the U.S. government has spent $32 billion in 2006, and is expected to accumulate to $797 billion by 2015. This is a drug plan where the US government is not authorized to negotiate lower prices on the purchase of drugs from the pharmaceutical industry and no way to pay for. What are the elected representatives doing to protect the interest of the general population and the livelihood of our children???s future? I fear David Walker is correct on his assessment of the financial outlook of this country. Every year there appears to be some foolish financial blunder that the representatives of this country have voted on and no one is taking any action on the future burden of debt that we owe.

  • Posted By: Aliceinwonderlandzz @ 11/14/2007 9:13:47 PM

    Welcome to the shocking realization that the United States of America and all its descendents have been raped by corrupt officials bent on enriching themselves and their supporters. Congratulations Republicans especially - you've swallowed the line for eight years that you can spend without consequence. Thanks to all of you, Republicans will be remembered in Chinese History classes as the group most responsible for turning the United States into a third world country. Our children on the other hand will be scraping through derelict Ford and GM factories for scrap metal.

    Truly the bovine apathy of our own fat rears in allowing ourselves to be led by the nose by predators like Bush, Cheney and the Congress is what is to blame. My one conciliation is the irony of the thought of narrow minded Republican zealots watching their grandchildren struggle to learn Chinese in the hope of getting a menial middle management position for whoever takes our place.

  • Posted By: agape truth @ 11/14/2007 8:03:32 PM

    I enjoyed reading and agree in concept that we are in deep doo-doo. In a free economy that is run by greed with no or little regulation, has put us in this quagmire. I was taught that taxes were ment to share the wealth for the good of the nation. To bring up the living standards of the whole. That includes health insurance. Now that the wealthy have been allowed to become wealthier on the backs of the middle class and poor why should they care about national health care? This next election will determine if this is a nation with concern for all or just another two bit greedy common weath run by the rich.

  • Posted By: scubadiver4u @ 11/14/2007 7:49:51 PM

    The only presidential candidate who has a handle on this impending catastrophe is Ron Paul. Ron Paul has been warning us about this coming crisis for years, but very few people listened. I'll bet they're listening now.

  • Posted By: WRB123 @ 11/14/2007 4:30:53 PM

    I would like to hear a discussion of our National debt in terms of our National net worth. As individuals, our net worth is the meaningful figure, not just how much we owe. Secondly, are individual retirement plans (401.k; 403.b; etc) accounted for when we hear discussions of individual debt? wrb

    • Posted By: jdhouse @ 11/14/2007 7:42:58 PM

      I've heard politicians excuse their financial shenanigans by saying we should look at all our highways and bridges and other infrastructure as offsetting those obligations . What I didn't hear was where the money was going to come from to maintain all that infrastructure with increasingly inflated dollars now that whole populations have grown dependent on them.

  • Posted By: jdhouse @ 11/14/2007 7:35:29 PM

    We keep hearing about this 'lowest personal savings rate' and in the next breath we hear that the figures don't include tax sheltered savings. What does this mean? That our 'tax sheltered savings' don't count because they don't really belong to us? What is the government trying to pull here?

    You know that when the time comes to transfer our retirement savings to the people who didn't save a dime and are depending on SS for their retirement and the money isn't there those of us who acted responsibly and saved for our own retirement will get the shaft. We will hear lots of liberal populist rhetoric about the greater good being served. Will we get a warning so we can start jumping off the bridge or will we just wake up one morning and our savings will be confiscated? More likely between inflation and taxation our savings will be siphoned away so slowly we don't notice until they are gone.

  • Posted By: malone336 @ 11/14/2007 7:28:12 PM

    I thought that "taking money from one person and giving it to another" was what capitalism was all about. And do you really think that you have an "absolute right" to keep "100%" of your money? If it's true--- and it certainly is--- that taxes are the price we pay for civilization, then this is an argument for barbarism. No schools, no highways, no national defense.... I guess we'll all disperse in the woods and live off grubs. But at least no federales will be messing with our millions!

  • Posted By: michem @ 11/14/2007 7:25:21 PM

    I have intense anxiety about the debt the war in Iraq has bought us, and the 50 years it will take to pay off! It is grossly irresponsible to demand 800 billion for this senseless war, then cut taxes for the rich!

  • Posted By: thomwilbur @ 11/14/2007 6:56:05 PM

    I have to wonder how the comptroller general of the United States does not know how social security works. He states that the social security fund surplus will start to decline in 2009 and will have a negative cash flow in 2017. This is only true if you ignore the millions owed in interest on this imaginary trust fund. The actual negative cash flow date is about 2027. He is clearly trying to stir action now because our politicians in Washington are guilty of massive fraud and theft leaving no trust fund. The current value of that theft is over 2 trillion dollars and climbing.

  • Posted By: US Worker @ 11/14/2007 6:11:59 PM

    It's amazing how none of the candidatess have the guts to raise this issue with the urgency it deserves. And then they have the cheek to talk about how their so called 'leadership' will benifit the U.S. Its a pretty sad state of affairs as far as the leadership of our nation is concerned.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse