jump to last post 1-23 of 23 discussions (212 posts)

Do not Raise The Debt Ceiling

  1. lady_love158 profile image59
    lady_love158posted 5 years ago

    http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?postid=240654

    We need to cut trillions not billions and unless we do we should not raise the debt ceiling! Obama is spending 4 trillion dollars a year even though historically revenues don't exceed more than 20% of GDP which for now is less than 3 trillion. That means we need to cut 1.5 to 2 trillion from the current budget. That wont happen without making changes to medicare and social security and Obama and the democrats will never do it because the only way anyone votes for this socialist slime is if thestuff free stuff!

    1. psycheskinner profile image80
      psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      If they don't raise the ceiling government has to stop and all civil servants (teachers, firemen, soldiers etc) be laid off.  I don't like it either but I don't see a real alternative in the short term.

      1. 62
        C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        "(teachers, firemen, soldiers etc)"

        That statement is not true. Those are not even civil servants.....at least not Federal Civil Servants.

        1. hottopics profile image60
          hottopicsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          CJ

          You said it perfectly

          1. bgamall profile image86
            bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            But how about traffic controllers, or social security employees, or the IRS. These are essential. Military is federal although it is way overpriced.

            You want your family member to be delayed in getting social security?

            I am starting a thread you guys need to read about. There is actually too much money at the top class. It is destroying our economy.

            1. 62
              C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Military spending is poorly understood. 20% of the budget goes to the Military. Thats 28% of tax revenues. However there is "NON DOD" spending lumped in there. That brings the total to 28 to 38% of revenues and 42 to 57% of actual spending. What is it? Some is Classified....who knows.

              My point is that 28% should not be touched. The rest should be determined and cut where needed.

            2. Donna Suthard profile image83
              Donna Suthardposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              In this country, there are people who have amassed billions of dollars..Why would a president recklessly spend so much money? I wonder how much truth is being told to Americans? There used to be a middle class in this country. Now there is only the rich and the poor....Seems to me its the rich, people that need to be taxed more.. Oil companies don't even have to pay taxes?  Why is that?

              1. DannyMaio profile image61
                DannyMaioposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                That is a lie, they pay taxes, Stop listening to BS and research for yourself! God people are gullible.

              2. Donna Suthard profile image83
                Donna Suthardposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I'm glad to hear that the gas companies pay taxes.. I stand corrected.That's the problem with propaganda, and they can tell us anything..and people accept it.. Our government can spend a trillion dollars to assassinate someone, and thats perfectly accepted in our country...

                1. StripedCrunchy profile image61
                  StripedCrunchyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  "spend a trillion dollars to assassinate someone"?? Seal Team Six is getting WAY better paychecks than I thought!

                  And, for the record, no company pays taxes. Consumers pay taxes, included in the price they pay for a company's goods or services.

                  For every gallon of gas you purchase, no matter the price per gallon, the Evil Oil Companies (who keep us in moving transportation, cooked food, warm houses and such) make about .08 cents in profit. Depending on what state you live in, the government takes between .46 & .63 cents in taxes per gallon.

                  If I decide I don't want to buy gas, thereby robbing Big Oil of their .08 cents, the oil companies have no power to make me. If, however, I don't want to pay taxes...

                  Therefor, my problem is with the people who INSIST I'm not paying my fair share, and keep inventing ways to take more and more of what I'VE earned, to feather their own nests and buy votes with.

        2. dutchman1951 profile image60
          dutchman1951posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          CJ, they are considerd Civil Service Workers, Police, Fire, Rescue

          Military is not in that catagory, they are Armed Services.

          1. 62
            C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            They are NOT Federal in any case. That means a Fed shut down would NOT mean fireman stay home.

      2. lady_love158 profile image59
        lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        That simply is NOT true!  The government would simply have to cut spending because they can't BORROW any more money. They would still have revenues and they could use that revenue to pay bond holders. Government would not "stop" for God's sake they're stilling taking in 2 trillion dollars!!

        1. psycheskinner profile image80
          psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Between the time they hit the ceiling and the time they balance the budget and the time that balance is in effect, some bills will not get paid.

          That simply is true.

          The latest budget crisis showed that the bills they will default on first include the salaries of service personnel.

          1. Peter Owen profile image61
            Peter Owenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Psych - I think you are understating the extent of the problem. Read posts further down.

          2. 62
            C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            "Between the time they hit the ceiling and the time they balance the budget and the time that balance is in effect, some bills will not get paid.

            That simply is true."

            Absolutely agree. I don't see how anyone could disagree with that statement.

          3. 62
            C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            "The latest budget crisis showed that the bills they will default on first include the salaries of service personnel."

            This is in question. There are those in Congress who believe that since Defense spending is Constitutionally mandated, Service Personnel Pay should NOT be effected. This is a slippery slope. Who doesn't get paid? Not paying foriegn debtors could have serious reprecussions. World economic collapse leading to world war being the worst case scenario. This issue should NOT be politicised. It should be addressed and addressed quickly. Right now both sides are playing a dangerous game of "Chicken".

            1. lady_love158 profile image59
              lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              There's plenty of money to pay our debts and the parts of government that ARE constitutionally mandated. The real danger here is Americans finding out most of what government does isn't necessary and we can live without it.

              1. 62
                C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I would tend to agree with you on that. It's the "who's next" that I'm not sure about. Although I like the idea of suspending pay for all Federally elected officials.....It's their mess to clean up.

      3. uncorrectedvision profile image59
        uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        No.  If they do not raise the debt ceiling the federal government has to operate on a daily budget not exceeding the incoming revenue.  No teachers, police or firefighters will be directly affected unless their positions are 100% funded by federal dollars. 

        Raising the debt limit will probably result in more threats to sell of our debt by China and Japan.  Disciplining the federal government to live within its means would do far more good than harm.

    2. bgamall profile image86
      bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Cut the military. The Repubs don't want that Lady. And do you know that the rich are putting so much money into hedge funds that speculation is running wild and you are paying too much for Starbucks, gasoline, food at the store, and everything? Did that dawn on you or do you not have a clue?

      Did you know that the housing bubble in Japan and the US were caused by the very same things, too much money for the rich, low interest rates, risky loans?

      1. lady_love158 profile image59
        lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I didn't know the futures pit had bidders for Starbucks! Lol

        I think everyone knows that food and energy costs more and their homes are worth less and they're getting nothing on their savings. I font think its fair to blame this all on speculators after all the fed has been printing money like there's no tomorrow!

      2. StripedCrunchy profile image61
        StripedCrunchyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Wait, BG. Only Republicans want to keep the military? ROFLMAO!!!

        From 2006, the Dems held the majorities in both the House and the Senate. Writing the bills and budgets which our Speechifier in Chief (poor little fella) had to inherit... from his own party. Odd they never mention that last part when they whine about it, huh?

        2006 is also (very coincidentally, I'm sure) when America's economic woes really started building. 2007 saw $4.00 gas, and unemployment over 7% for the first time since Bush took office. But that's not even the point. In 2008, B. Hussein Soweto took office, and it was Democrat Nirvana! 

        No more Nasty Wepubwican arguments to stop Barney Frank from extolling the virtues and financial soundness of Fanny and Freddy. Democrats wrote intelligent, easy to understand budgets which were passed almost magically, with huge support from the whole nation.

        America's prosperity and respect grew exponentially, unemployment reached record lows. Gitmo closed down, the ocean's levels began to lower, wars all over the world were ended, a ##ckin' PEACE PRIZE was awarded and all of the evils which a group like Seal Team Six might visit upon the world, were ended by executive order.

        Well... I could be wrong about some of that, but I'm sure there was a Peace Prize!

    3. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
      Vladimir Uhriposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I believe that we should not cheat an old people. They already paid SS and Medicare. Those old folks cannot go to work any more.  The politician should go to jail, since they voted to take SS money for there programs. Regarding Medicare adjustment must be done. The Doctors are not paid and we lost many of them.  We do not have to buy expensive scooters and car lifters and home care bathroom gadgets, naming few.
      We have to cut salaries and benefit to members of congress and president. We have to bring home our soldiers.  We have to stop foreign aids and tell them there are no money left. An exception would be Israel. Pull out from UN. Stop bail out of factories, now belongs to government.
      Stop control and dictate how to treat patient.  I am medical person and I can tell the stories. Then stop taxing business and deregulate. This is the solution since factories never come back if the same way will continue to do business. Stop socialism in our country.  Stop revolution overseas. Soviets did the same and crashed.

    4. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
      Vladimir Uhriposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Do not Raise The Debt Ceiling!

    5. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Where were you, LOL, when the GOP raised the debt ceiling multiple times during the Bush administration?

      1. StripedCrunchy profile image61
        StripedCrunchyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Ah yes, all the misery and woe of 2005. Gas was $2.00 a gallon, unemployment was just over 4% and Republicans had the majorities in the House and Senate. My personal and business taxes were cut and Federal coffers took in more real money than they ever had in the history of the country.

        Back then of course, we didn't know the Dems were going to retake the House & Senate, and utterly destroy the economy and everything else we'd accomplished.

        It was stupid of Bush to inch up the debt ceiling based on 2004 and 2005's record tax takes. What is even MORE stupid, is to compare that to the spending President Gutsy authorized in his first year in office. B. Hussein Soweto managed to spend more real money than all the administrations which came before him, combined. No mean feat, I can assure you.

        You were saying?

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
          Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Clinton handed Bush a surplus. Bush signed an unfunded Medicare drug program which was a gift to the drug industry; signed a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans; lied us into a foolhardy, unnesessary invasion of Iraq, neglected Bin Laden in Afghanistan; failed to regulate the mortgage banking industry; and ran the country and the world into the deepest financial since the Great Depression. Most of the current deficit is due to two wars, a bloated military budget and diminished recession tax receipts. Medical care cost increases due to the parasitic insurance and drug industries also contribute to the deficit issue which the GOP is using to strip collective bargaining rights for government employees and teachers and ravage state budgets across the country. They have used social conservative issues to dupe ignorant evangelical Christians into voting against their own economic interests. But the realization is spreading that killing Medicare and turning Social Security over to the Wall Street banksters would be a huge mistake, and the GOP is currently running scared without a viable candidate to run against Barack Obama next year.

          1. Mighty Mom profile image91
            Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Hi Ralph.
            So you think Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul and Mitt Romney are not viable candidates to put up against Obama?
            Well what about the "dream team" of Trump/Palin?
            Oh please, oh please, oh please, oh pleas.... lol

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
              Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Romney would be a viable candidate if he could get past the social conservatives Tea Baggers in the primaries. But he wouldn't stand a chance against Obama, IMHO.

          2. StripedCrunchy profile image61
            StripedCrunchyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            This could take a minute, because I'm going to have to plod through each of Ralph's leftist talking-points, one at a time.

            But first to Mom; I want a Palin/ ANY FEMALE Tea Party candidate ticket, if only to watch the left-wing media complex implode in an orgy of misogynist, anti-child, hate-filled rhetoric. Maybe Condi Rice as the Veep, so we could have blatant ugly racism tossed in between sound bites as a pallet cleanser.

            "Clinton handed Bush a surplus." No my friend, he did not. Clinton handed Bush an accounting trick which only the least informed could believe, and the path to 9/11. The trick would take too long to explain here, so I'll just ask you to show me where and when the US Government took in more money than it was obliged to spend, during the Clinton Administration. Good luck.

            "Bush signed an unfunded Medicare drug program which was a gift to the drug industry..." I'm torn on this one. Either you WANT Seniors to pay more for their prescription drugs (Democrats fought tooth and nail for that Drug program) or you think drug companies are evil for having the audacity to make better drugs, and try to make a profit with them. Either way, that doesn't make you sound like a very charitable guy.

            "...signed a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans;" Do you WORK at staying this uninformed? The bottom 50% of income earners in America pay ZERO income taxes. The bottom 30% actually gets more money BACK than they put in. By virtue of the increased private sector productivity those lowered taxes created, the US Treasury enjoyed record breaking tax takes. If the Not Rich are already paying ZERO income tax, how much bigger a break should we give them?

            "...lied us into a foolhardy, unnesessary invasion of Iraq, neglected Bin Laden in Afghanistan;" Now, I'm actually getting a little angry. And you're swimming further out into the complete and utter propaganda deeeeep end. If Bush actually lied, then the intelligence agencies of several other developed nations ALSO lied. All that time we spent talking about building up to maybe possibly getting around to thinking about invading Iraq, we were already in Afghanistan. Boots on the ground.

            Saddam and fam, were so very NOT contained. And if you still think it was a bad idea, I suggest you go speak with any Iraqi woman who finally got to Vote, Read or even speak her mind, AFTER we invaded. We're still destroying ordinance from the hundreds of weapons caches we found throughout Iraq, and will be for a few more years.

            Need I mention the Rape-Rooms, Torture Chambers and mass grave-sites Saddam left behind? Please keep your rhetoric to things you actually know about.

            "...failed to regulate the mortgage banking industry; and ran the country and the world into the deepest financial since the Great Depression." Mr. Deeds? Do you EVER look in the poke, before you buy a pig? Every year, for 7 years straight, President G Dubya went before the Housing Committee and the Finance Committee, and implored them to stop Fanny and Freddy, before they bankrupted the nation.

            Barney Frank and Chris Dodd would hear none of it, SWEARING that those two superbly helmed Government Run Companies were as fiscally fit as the day was long. Why, G Dubya didn't want the poor, or minorities, to ever enjoy the American Dream of home-ownership! That was why he kept spouting doomsday prophesies! Because he hates the poor, and minorities. And women.

            Ralph, I'd finish destroying the rest of your post, the balance of which is filled with equally empty leftist schlock, but I get the feeling I'll be touching an all of these subjects as the months roll on. So stay tuned, my friend. We'll expose you to enough facts over the coming months to correct even the most myopic leftist view.

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
              Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              The current financial hole we are in is attributable to Bush--his supply side voodoo tax cut, his unfunded Medicare drug program which precluded Medicare from negotiating drug prices with Big Pharma, his totally stupid invasion of Iraq and his administration's failure to curb the housing bubble and depredations by Wall Street banksters.

              Cheney's neocon henchmen set up an "intelligence" group that bypassed the CIA in order to provide an excuse to invade Iraq. The mainstream media, including the NYTimes went along with the scam. The truth was that it wasn't in America's interest to invade Iraq even if the little piss ant country had had WMD. Saddam Hussein had no means of delivering weapons against the US and he was smart enough to know that he would be obliterated if he attacked the US, Israel or our other allies in the Middle East. Perhaps the most bald-faced lie floated by Cheney was his claim that Iraq had something to do with Al Qaida's 9-11 attacks. We have lived with Russian, Chinese and other countries' nuclear weapons for 50 years or so. Iraq's alleged WMD were not a valid justification for the invasion, even if the weapons had actually existed. Moblie germ warfare labs? How ludicrous can you get? General Powell made a complete fool of himself before the world with that one.

              Clinton handed Bush a surplus--check the numbers. Most of the increase in the debt occurred during the Bush administration. Clinton, with the help of the Republicans in Congress balanced the budget for the first time in many years.

              1. StripedCrunchy profile image61
                StripedCrunchyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Wow. It's like talking to a teenager. Ask for a fact to back up their blather, and they offer up additional blather.

                OK Ralph. I believe you. Afghanistan was in a far better position to harm America than silly ol' Iraq and they're wacky/fun Dick-Tater.

                And, all the people in this CSPAN you tube video have their D and R on backwards:

                http://youtu.be/_MGT_cSi7Rs

                Because smart guys like you just KNOW it was those Waskally Wepubwicans failing to regulate which caused the Housing Crisis, not the dear and dreamy Democrats.

                I'm presenting you with the real culprits, speaking in their own words. Democrats fighting tooth and nail to defend Fanny and Freddy from evil Republicans, who were bent on curbing the destruction. NOT the other way around, as you've been lead to believe.

                You've been lied to time and again by people who want you dumb and numb, Ralph. Prove to me that you're not some doe eyed teen, posting his grandpa's picture to look more impressive. Examine actual data and listen to the culprits speak. Make an informed Adult decision, not a child-like emotional uninformed rant.

                1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                  Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I'm not inclined to respond to wild assertions and gratuitous insults. Bye, bye.

                  1. lovemychris profile image79
                    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    This one's the worst yet.

                    What is it, a contest?

                  2. StripedCrunchy profile image61
                    StripedCrunchyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Gosh, I'm sorry Ralph. While reading your vitriol filled fact-free posts about how Bush was the cause of our current economic predicament (about which I have provided incontrovertible proof he was, most certainly, not), it never occurred to me that you were the fragile, sensitive type.

                    That being said, I still feel free to correct your misinformation, whenever I come across it. Might I suggest checking facts somewhere other than the HufPo comments section?

  2. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    Technically I should have said 'recipients of federally influenced money'. But as I understand it hitting the debt ceiling would freeze incomes in those areas.

    1. 62
      C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I think it is true that many municipal governments are experiencing the same crunch as the federal government. California and New York appear to be in big trouble. Wisconsin, Michigan and Illinois seem to be as well. Alabama was showing signs of fiscal problems prior to the rash of Tornadoes.....

      1. psycheskinner profile image80
        psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        And a lot of things states do are partly federally funded.

        We need, desperately, to start insisting on balanced budgets.  But I don't know if you can do that overnight without disruption,

        1. 62
          C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          There are grants that are given yes. Those could have an effect. Disruption? I guess you have to choose between the lesser of two evils here. Budget crisis' don't get better on their own. Disruption can't be avoided at this point. It's a matter of how much and when.

      2. uncorrectedvision profile image59
        uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        The big difference is states do not have a currency press.

      3. DannyMaio profile image61
        DannyMaioposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Notice how all of those states you mention are all Democratic run states? Doesn't that say something?

  3. Peter Owen profile image61
    Peter Owenposted 5 years ago

    Psych is right.
    But it is more than just government stopping. Assume you spend more than you bring in, and all your credit cards and home equity loans froze. You have no access to money. What would you do this week to solve the problem?

    For our country that means the value of the dollar will fall drastically since the US Treasury cannot pay its debts - the Treasury would default on all payments owed ie treasury bonds, bills, and the like which are heavily owned by other countries.
    We would see a financial crisis that would be 20X bigger than the 2008 near meltdown.
    The entire world would go into depression.

    1. junko profile image78
      junkoposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Lady Love, If we don't raise the ceiling and Obamacare, medicare, infrastructure repair, financial reform, and all the things democrats support will be defunded. The republican-tea party may than be successful and making Obama a one term president, and Newt and Allen Keyes can lead the fall of America. Lol.

    2. 62
      C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Do you believe that raising the debt ceiling will avoid a crisis completely or simply delay it?

      1. junko profile image78
        junkoposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        C.W. Do you think that America needs another crisis Now??? Delay any crisis now and prepare to solve in the near future. This country and It's people don't need more stress now. This problem has been going on for many years and it will take years to stop and reverse the problem. If the stop is sudden it will turn a problem into a crisis. Think about it.

        1. 62
          C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          We already have a financial crisis. I've Given it lots of thought. Look at it this way. You have a funding shortage with your personal budget. You make 100K a year and are spending 150K a year. What are you going to do? Who is going to continue loaning you money? What do you think is going to happen to your credit rating? Do you think in that position you would easily be able to get a loan? If so would the intrest go up or down? Think about it, because that's exactly where we are. You simply can not spend your way out of a financial crisis. You can defer debt, but it's a risky proposition. It gets more risky the longer you defer.....We have been heading down this road since the late 70's.

          I tend to believe that the spending cuts have to be made first. Then we look to add revenue.

          1. junko profile image78
            junkoposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            C. J.  In today's political climate a corporation and a person are considered one in the same. Now you want me to look at my economics and finances as if I was the United States Of America. There is no comparison, It's Ill-logical. What's really sad and scarey is there are republican-tea party members who think like you and Lady Love, Ill-logical.

            1. 62
              C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              There in lies the problem. It realy is just simple math. There is nothing else. Economic principles are the same for all. So, since the government can simply print more money, it should.

              You couldn't address the issues, you simply made things personal and negative. I simply asked a question. A question you either couldn't or wouldn't answer.

              1. junko profile image78
                junkoposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Ill-logic thought is simple ignorance of facts. I couldn't logically address the issue from my personal perspective. I'm not being personal or negative, realistic only. For every action there is a reaction. I question the reaction the right expects from not raising the ceiling.

                1. 62
                  C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Where did I suggest that we absolutely NOT raise the debt ceiling? I simply stated that we should CUT first. That borrowing is only a stop gap solution, not a permenant one.

                  1. lady_love158 profile image59
                    lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I'll plead guilty to that. Don't raise the debt ceiling! The republicans caved on tax cuts and on the CRs they shouldn't cave on the debt ceiling!

                2. 62
                  C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  You brought zero facts forward. You simply labled my arguments as "ILL LOGICAL". It's distraction through abstraction. It's not a valid argument.

                  1. junko profile image78
                    junkoposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    C. J. This discussion isn't fact based but opinion filled. You're right, you never were absolute in your opinion. I was addressing Lady Love's opinion and you answered for her.  Ms. Love has since answered me and I again ask her what sense does it make to not raise the ceiling this time for the first in history?   Will that action help the American people or stress them more?

      2. Peter Owen profile image61
        Peter Owenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Simply delay it, since there is not enough time to cut expenses. Theoretically, to give time to start cutting expenses. Problem is once the ceiling is raised, congress will ignore the problem again. Obama just wants to leave the problems for the next president - he doesn't have the stomach or character to attack the issue.

    3. thebrucebeat profile image61
      thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Peter has hit it on the head.  It's not about layoffs.  It is about the viability of the U.S. and its credit standing in the world.  We would go into default.
      Ladylove is characteristically poorly informed.  The beat goes on.

  4. iQwest profile image71
    iQwestposted 5 years ago

    Anyone who suggests not raising the debt ceiling is clearly ignorant to the ramifications.  Peter Owen touches on this.

    Secondly, the nonsense about cutting spending, we'd make a serious dent in our deficit if we stopped giving tax cuts to the wealthiest in our society.

    But why do that?  Let's keep asking the poor and middle class to shoulder the burden.

    Hell, the top 1% only controls roughly 40% of the nations wealth, let's continue to give to their charity fund.

    1. lady_love158 profile image59
      lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/rep … and-100-wo

      Taxing everyone making more than 100k at 100% still wouldn't be enough to pay even this year's deficit! Its not a tax problem it's a spending problem!

      1. iQwest profile image71
        iQwestposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Billions of dollars over the next 10 years would be saved by simply letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire.  Of course, one party made it their mission to ensure they were extended.  Let's not discuss bringing the tax rate back to where it should be.

        Did General Electric pay any taxes on their billions of dollars of profit?  Do you think they're alone?

        So, yes, eliminating tax cuts for the wealthy, closing the loopholes they jump through that enable them to pay less than 20% of their after write-off income, and stop providing social entitlements for Corporate America, and you have no deficit problem.

        Of course, the most uninformed segment of our society is okay with these social programs because they're the overseas job creators.

        1. lady_love158 profile image59
          lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I guess you just refuse to do the math. Trillions need to be cut and medicare and social security have to be taken off auto pilot.

          1. Cagsil profile image84
            Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            And you refuse to understand that, while cutting spending it needed....what is not needed is the cutting of civil services that are essential to the operation and protection of many millions people. Many civil services are more required than the spending the government spends on military.

            The government already spends 50% of it's budget on military and about 16% for education. Cutting civil services is only going to make more problems, not less. Cutting from the military budget would make sense. Not to mention, cutting some of the other junk agencies, like Homeland Security has no reason to exist. The FBI and NSA can handle things for domestic and the CIA can deal with what it does.

            There are simply TOO many people working for the government and not enough small businesses. Two problems that could be solved, by cutting agencies not needed and increased education resources.

            1. lady_love158 profile image59
              lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I don't refuse to understand anything! I never said that there's no room for cuts in defense or anywhere else for that matter.

              1. Cagsil profile image84
                Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                No, but your suggestion such as Medicare and Social Security cuts, speaks volumes about you and what you stand for, and what you understand or think. wink

                1. lady_love158 profile image59
                  lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Those programs in their current form are unsustainable. The money for those programs is mandatory, colas mandatory, the liabilities for those programs are completely unfunded.

                  1. iQwest profile image71
                    iQwestposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Of course, you must be referring to the social program and welfare entitlements that General Electric, Exxon Mobile, and the likes take advantage of and abuse to the tune of billions of dollars each and every year.

                    So, yes, to use your words - "the liabilities for those programs are completely unfunded".

                    Whoops.  I'm wrong.  They are funded off the backs of the hardworking American people.  Yes, the 75 year-old-greeter at Walmart.

                  2. Cagsil profile image84
                    Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Unfunded? The government gets constant funding for them, from every person. How it's used or utilized is the problem. It doesn't help the fact that America is BROKE. It has been for a very, very, very, long time.

                    The DEBT already accumulated over the last few generations has built a mountain. The income government has coming in, isn't used properly. It never has been.

                    The Funding citizens give to government for Medicare and Social Security, should be exclusively for those programs, but are not always that way. The government has given loans against Social Security to other countries. That money hasn't been paid back. A lot of money given to other countries on loan, hasn't been paid back either. It makes no sense to give money away to other countries, especially if said governments are riddled with corruption. It's wasteful spending.

                  3. dutchman1951 profile image60
                    dutchman1951posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Lady, you really are not realising what you are asking at all

                    Medicare facts
                    Medicare A ( Free-no charge for it), but deductable is 1132.00 for year 2011
                    Hospital Costs, day 1-60 = 1132 deductable you pay first
                    day 61-90 you pay additional 288.00 dollars a day
                    day 91-150 you pay 588.00 a day

                    that info is straight off the Medicare.Gov site

                    Part B you pay 110.40 per month for year 2011 and it will go up for 2012, and the deductable for that is 250.00

                    Part D Perscription Drug Plans, there are 29 companies that offer it for Medicare recipents, the Gov. does not off a plan but requires you to get one of the plans from these private companies.

                    The premium's are from 52.50 highest to 19.80 lowest, deductable is 350.00 and many have restrictions on the Drugs they allow or pay for!
                    Your Doctors says you need it, they say sorry we dont pay for it!

                    co pays can be 5.00-up to 95.00 and max year perscription cost allowed = 1852.00 max down to 918.00 a year max allowed,  depending on the plan you buy

                    The Seniors "Have" to buy a suplement plan from an Insurance company to go along with all of that and it costs; "Quote today from Blue Cross Blue Shield was 130.50 a mont additional to above to carry the suplement to defray all the costs medicare plans will not cover.

                    If you are coverd by a plan at work, at age 65 you "have" to enroll in both A and B reguardless, and you" have" to notify your company that you did and give them a copy of your card. When that happens your company Insurance moves down to become the second payer, and Medicare becomes the Primary payer after you pay all deductables out of pocket.

                    That means that at age 65 you face, 1132.oo deductable on your part a, 350. deductable on your drugs and 250 on your pa t b coverage up front, that is paid first before any Medicare or secondary payer  will pay any portion of a medical bill

                    also when you hit your max per year allowable on drugs you have to pay out of pocket until you hit the max life time limit, which is set at around 3800.00 for most of the 29 companies. so the do-nut hole they speak of is from 1800 to 3800 dollare if you are in that hole, it is all your cost. no one pays.

                    Retieries do not have it made, they are not riding a Gravy Train and have to pay through the nose. The coverages are not that Great on Medicare.

                    AND-it is broke because Congress and the Senate have borrowed 218 billion dollars from it, to fund special interest projects through the years. as well as some foregin aid package suplements

                    So do we Cut it?  hell no, we re-fund it and make it soluable, yes and keep Politicans hands off of it, no mater how much Interest it makes or how good or tempting it looks, that way "all" of us get a chance at having social security. Now and in the future. There is Money to do that. In Truth, if they can bail out wall street thieves, support illegal wars, and lend aid everywhere, they can most certinly fix this.

                    Learn something ok,

                    running a deficite against world dollar markets affects big Republican Business and Banking, and they pass the Loss to American workers, they lower coverages on health plans and cut penshions to make up for it. Cut work forces, go overseas, dump the bill on the rest of us as Tax write off.

                    Medicare is expensive for a retire to maintain. Look at the Figures above from the Social Security Web site on Medicare. This is not about FOX talking points it affects real people who can not afford it. and have a right to live and enjoy life. We all have that right.

                    Cag is and has been trying to make you see (Teach) something here.

                    The Business and Banks never take the hit. Learn something about all of this, instead of screaming doom and gloom. The very idiots you back are cutting your throat as you get Older, and you will hit, definitly hit, this problem, everyone will, we all age....think.....think..... and think again , will ya please.

                    do not be a puppet for the G.O.P or the Dems. wake up and fire them all.
                    they are killing us, all of us. Wake up and learn, please.

                    This Goverment is "NOT" paying as much as they claim towards a persons medical Bills, and their pay tables drop off to 0 real fast, and They let the Suplemental Insurance Co's take the hit for some of it, and a very big chunk is the Retiree's own to pay. go to that web site, and do some simple math!

                    and the Boomer generation is not growing, it is dying off.  it is a sustainable program if it is funded correctly and not stolen blind from greed and Political Power brokers not knowing what to do to solve other problems but throw money at it, by stealing from Citizens or taking their rights away.

                    My Grand-dad used to tell me, if you'd close your alarming mouth, your eyes mught have enough room to see some of the facts, stop shooting yourself in the foot.

                    and I am sorry to be so direct here, you realy are a good person, I mean that. You pasionate to cause, yes, but a good person-  but I am tired of all this fear talk and non factual garbage.

                    We need good candidates and facts and we are not getting either, while we are making this mess deeper and more slimy every day. It needs to stop. This country needs some strong reality and Truth.

    2. uncorrectedvision profile image59
      uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The federal government could seize 100% of the income for the top 2% and still not eliminate the budget deficit and that could only be done once.  To seize all the income of any proportion of the population gives them a clear message that they are slaves to the state.  The end result would be flight to more rational countries.  If someone who has had their entire income seized remains it would be at a radically reduced income in an effort to keep something.

      Perhaps we should just declare everyone American who works is the slave of one who does not - that should make the parasite class happy.

      There simply isn't enough income to satisfy the ridiculous spending the political class does.

      1. thebrucebeat profile image61
        thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I love this silly argument.
        The fact that the additional revenue brought in by raising taxes on the wealthy would not solve the problem by itself does not mean it doesn't contribute to the solution.  Budget cuts combined with an increase in revenue through taxation is the only way out of this morass, and to try to protect the wealthy during this crisis is irrational and immoral.
        This is class warfare, and the wealthy are WINNING!  They have convinced some of the base that it is patriotic to protect people that simply aren't experiencing the suffering that is endemic in the country right now.
        Genius.

        1. lady_love158 profile image59
          lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Sort of like the lib argument that drilling for oil in our own country wont lower energy prices right? It wont even contribute to lowering prices and even if it did it wouldn't do so right away.

          Like I keep telling you but you don't seem to get it even if you taxed everyone making more than 100k at 100% you wouldn't have enough to pay off this years deficit alone.

          Will taxing the rich bring in more revenue? Sure but it wouldn't account for more than a dew days worth of spending.

          The reality is the American people for the most part do not realize how extroidinarily serious the debt problem is or the extent of which we have to cut to avoid disaster and by disaster I don't mean an inconvenient rise in taxes or a few government layoffs... I mean a total collapse of government a massive economic meltdown! Its really really really serious! This isn't something you can just tweak and keep going the way we're going... Paul wants his money NOW!!!

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            So why suddenly this year?
            Why not last year, or five years ago?
            Why was $15 trillion OK but $20 trillion demands total shut down and total, immediate elimination of the debt?

            1. lady_love158 profile image59
              lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Shoulda been done a long time ago! Bush went crazy with spending and the republicans went along with it and sacrificed their principles in doing so. They paid a price for it though and were kicked out of power. The problem is the democrats were worse and Obama worse still!

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                But not according to the figures!

                1. lady_love158 profile image59
                  lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I don't know what figures you're looking at but Obama has spent more in 2 years than Bush did in 8!

                  1. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    During the administration of President George W. Bush, the gross public debt increased from $5.7 trillion in January 2001 to $10.7 trillion by December 2008. Under President Barack Obama, the debt increased from $10.7 trillion to $14.2 trillion by February 2011.

                    Put another way the national debt rose by near enough 100% during Bush and by around 40% under Obama!

                  2. lovemychris profile image79
                    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Obama put the war costs ON budget. Bush never did.....

                    You think that might add something? Uh---yeah!

                    His stimulus is spending on US! For America. Some Idiotas have the gall to turn it down!--but have no qualms asking us all to pay more so Little Glenny Beck can have 59 mil instead of 57.

                    Howard Dean said 60% of the deficit is the dumb Bush-era tax cuts, which were shoved down our throats under the threat of not funding Unemployment.
                    ....For people who lost their jobs because these same rich people who got the tax cuts took their jobs to another country!

                    We don't have a spending problem--we have a revenue problem.

                    These idiotas took money out of the general fund, to allocate to reaally rich people, who have more money than god--and the working middle class people must make up for that loss!

                    And it's been going on for 30 years. Trickle-up welfare!

                    Ridiculous to argue otherwise.

                    Russshhhhhh Limbaugh and Bill Clinton do not need more money.

                    Stop putting us in hock so they can have it!

          2. thebrucebeat profile image61
            thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Drilling in this country will be a peehole in the snow.  You know why?  The oil that is drilled will be sold on the open market.  We won't own it, the oil companies will, and we will simply have to bid on the tiny amount that is added to the total available oil supply.  It isn't like the U.S. will be drilling the oil and keeping it and relieving the stress on the american public.  It will be sold on the market by oil companies.
            I agree with you that the situation is extremely serious.  That's why the revenue increase is important.  Once again, the argument that 100% taxation on the rich won't solve the problem is a total cunnard, a smoke screen to protect the wealthy from sacrificing in any way toward the goal of fiscal sanity.  It is a piece in the puzzle, not the completed picture.  That is the second time I've made that point.  Why you choose to ignore it I can't imagine.
            Just kidding.  I can imagine.
            So how about defense spending?
            http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percenta … e_military
            Total spending on the military can be assessed as over 50% of our national budget when many of the hidden costs are added into the mix.  Where do you suggest we cut that?
            We spend more on defense than the rest of the civilized world combined.

            1. 62
              C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              "Drilling in this country will be a peehole in the snow.  You know why?  The oil that is drilled will be sold on the open market.  We won't own it, the oil companies will, and we will simply have to bid on the tiny amount that is added to the total available oil supply.  It isn't like the U.S. will be drilling the oil and keeping it and relieving the stress on the american public."

              Some what of a distortion. The Government owns most of the oil that the oil companies drill for. The oil companies LEASE the oil fields from the Government.

        2. uncorrectedvision profile image59
          uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Really, increased revenue merely means more irresponsible spending by the government.  When has the government ever controlled itself?  The danger of government is its inability not to seek ever greater power, ever greater reach.  This is the fundamental argument behind the Constitution - to limit the scope and reach of the federal government.

          What is class warfare?  Class is a construct perpetuated by those who benefit from it.  The liberals and elitists love the idea of class as if somehow, by nature, humans are locked into a level at birth.

          1. thebrucebeat profile image61
            thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            http://www.thefreedictionary.com/class
            Let's start with a definition of "class", which is provided for you here.  Nowhere does it state that classes can't be jumped, that one is permanently assigned to one class or another.  It is a group with certain homogenous characteristics, traits they share.
            With that strawman burned to the ground, we can acknowledge that the idea of class benefits both sides.  I remember Bush saying, publicly no less, "I don't understand poor people."  He was never more honest than at that moment. Class benefited him because he allowed himself a self image of superiority, which was a warm and fuzzy place to walk through life from.
            As for increased revenue, you have changed your argument from it wouldn't solve the problem to the government wouldn't know what to do with it.  Should we simply stop collecting taxes, then, since the use of it is clearly always going to be irresponsible?
            c.j.wright,
            Once we lease the rights to drill to an oil company, we do NOT own that oil, the oil company does.  All we get are the proceeds of the lease.  The oil gets sold on the open market to the benefit of the oil company, not the USA.  The reason people like me think drilling here is rather pointless is there is not enough to increase the global supply substantially enough to effect gas prices.  It's not a matter of what percentage of our oil needs we can drill for here, as the oil doesn't go to us.  It is a matter of how much can the overall supply be effected so the supply and demand can be effected.  Do you get the difference?

            1. uncorrectedvision profile image59
              uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              It is the same argument, raising the debt ceiling would merely result in more money for the government to use irresponsibly while further eroding the value of that money.  We have inflation in food and fuel, already, from out of control spending and "quantitative easing" - another term for debt monetizing (a practice beloved among third world economies).

              The government has no money at all, ever.  It has to take money or borrow money.  Creating money by fiat, as the Fed has done, is a loan against future value - inflation.  The Federal government issues debt to borrow money.  The use of fiat money to pay for Federal Debt is akin to paying one credit card with another with one essential and disastrous exception.  The Federal Government cannot go bankrupt but it can bankrupt all of us, rich and poor alike.

              If there is a class that is destroying America it is not the "rich" it is the "political class".  It is those who believe that more and ever broader government at the expensive of the individual is the perfect answer.

              Be careful when you step on this slope.  Before long if you don't live in a government provided apartment, wear government provided cloths and eat government provided food you will be the one who is rich.  The only protection against tyranny is to keep government muzzled and chained.

            2. 62
              C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              So if you increase the price to lease the land and you actually lease the land. More revenue is generated. Plus more people are working. None of this will ever make any sense to you. You are convinced that the US has an increadibly small amount of oil. I'm not.

  5. Daniel Carter profile image90
    Daniel Carterposted 5 years ago

    Start with congressional pay, perks, pensions, healthcare, and go from there. They are the only ones ever exempt from such massive cuts. The rest of America's special interest groups suffer.

  6. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    Balancing the budget is going to take cuts. But it doesn't seem fair that people who paid into a system don't get what they were promised. So many of these pension schemes suffer from politicians having dipped into them.

    1. 62
      C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Absolutely. I say at this point and time DOD, SS, Medicare and Medicaid should be hands off. The rest needs to be cut to the bone!

      1. lady_love158 profile image59
        lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Im afraid you simply can't balance the budget without adressing those programs. Sorry but the young people are going to have to work longer before they can retire and somebody is going to get the short end but that's life! Its that or its nothing no benefits no retirement no freedom and no country. Take your pick.

        1. 62
          C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          We have to do something substantial NOW.  Take those off the table and let the chips fall where they may.

        2. dingdondingdon profile image60
          dingdondingdonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Very easy for someone whose pension and easy retirement will be funded on the debt-enslaved backs of those innocent young people to say.

          1. lady_love158 profile image59
            lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Well I certainly don't like the prospect of having to work longer to pay for the sins of my elders but what's the alternative?

  7. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    I think a national sales tax would go a long way too.

    1. habee profile image91
      habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Ditto! I think I'm voting for whichever presidential candidate will push for this!

      1. lady_love158 profile image59
        lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        The candidates can push for it but congress will never do it especially the democrats who use the code to a greater degree to generate political support of their base.

        1. StripedCrunchy profile image61
          StripedCrunchyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          As I read your posts here, I fear I may be developing a serious crush. Well spoken, well written, well read and dead right about ohhh so many things. Yup. Thassa Crunchy kinda gal! An absolute pleasure to know your kind are out there.

      2. 62
        C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        This scares me. Why? Because it will be outrageously expensive to impliment. Further we will likely end up with a VAT on top of income tax.

  8. Stevennix2001 profile image84
    Stevennix2001posted 5 years ago

    Although I haven't read all the posts on this forum, I thought i'd throw in my two cents anyways.  I think the problem with our government is that we tend to over spend on too many things that we don't necessarily need, and we get back so little for our money.  Personally, I disagree highly with everyone here that says we should cut military spending, as that's a necessary evil at the moment.  Sure, you can argue all you want, on how we don't need to spend that kind of money on the military, but I think 9/11 showed us that there will always be a need for it.  Unfortunately, we don't live in a peaceful society yet, and we need an army to defend us if the evil ever arises.  To take a quote from "True Romance":  I'd rather have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it.

    However, I do think we need to eliminate little things like some of the traditional government programs that we do.  Like did you folks know that every year around thanksgiving, our president makes a big public announcement about setting a turkey free from being eaten that year, and throws a parade in it's honor?  Did you know that?  Eliminating something as stupid as that would help our government immensely as that's just plain stupid.

    Another thing we can do to save money is eliminate health benefits and programs to aid illegal immigrants.  Seriously, why do we need it, as it'll only encourage more illegal immigration rather than deter it.  That's why I think we'd be better off eliminating benefits to illegal immigrants, as they should try to become citizens first before they should receive any government help.  Another thing we can do is force politicians to spend their own money running political campaigns or make it to where their campaigns come from any donations made rather than using our hard earned tax dollars on those elections.  Besides, if they want the job in office, then why should we help them outside of voting?


    Anyways, i would say more, but i have to go.  my lunch break is fixing to end, and I don't want to be late.  anyways, i'll be sure to add a lot more suggestions, as i have much more to say on this too. lollol

  9. paradigmsearch profile image88
    paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago

    "Do NOT Raise The Debt Ceiling!!!"

    We are basically fxyzed. It will happen in our lifetime, but not in mine.

  10. paradigmsearch profile image88
    paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago

    I am responding because images are blocked? smile

  11. paradigmsearch profile image88
    paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago

    Who wants to odds here?

  12. paradigmsearch profile image88
    paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago

    An Experiment.

    1. paradigmsearch profile image88
      paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Discard.

  13. paradigmsearch profile image88
    paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago

    And what is on second?

  14. paradigmsearch profile image88
    paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago

    I want this thread to go away. Alas, I do not have Ed. smile

  15. paradigmsearch profile image88
    paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago

    Bottom line is that medical is corrupt.

    I have no idea as to fix that.

    1. hottopics profile image60
      hottopicsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      How about cutting the fraud, eliminating those who do not need it, Cut the prices the doctors charge. It would be a good start

      1. DannyMaio profile image61
        DannyMaioposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        In order to cut the doctor prices you have to stop all the lawsuits from attorneys which make the malpractice insurance go down! But your right we have more waste from government then anything else!

        1. hottopics profile image60
          hottopicsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Do you know the difference between a lawyer and a snake?

          Nothing

          1. hottopics profile image60
            hottopicsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Companies pay unemplyment and workers comp insurance. They are a cost of doing business. Doctoers have Malpractice Ins. It is figured into the cost of a office visit. So how is that working. You go to the doctor and they charge you $75 for the offive visit. After seeing you for 5 minutes, he determines you need a shot. He charges you another $100. It breaks down to $50 for the Med that he pays $5 for, and $50 labor. $50 on top of the $75 office visit he already hit you for that covers his expenses including malpractice insurance. But noone says anything. Lets say I come to your home and charge $ 75 per hour. in 5 minutes I determine you need a new thermostat. It takes 5 minutes to change. I give you the bill I charged you $75 for the first hour I was there 20 minutes. I charged $50 for the thermostat and charged $50 to put it on the wall. You would have a fit I charged an extra $50 for labor that fell in the time frame of the $75 charge.
            So why do we and the insurance companies allow that to happen? If they challenge that, the price paid to Doctors would drop.

        2. 61
          33rdn8thposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Insurance is the problem, not the attorneys.  Yes there are SOME frivilous lawsuits, but WE ALL get screwed by insurance. That, however opens us up to a more philosophical question: Should "health" be an insurable commodity?  Not life,  but health.

      2. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Take out the profit element, put patients before shareholders.

        1. hottopics profile image60
          hottopicsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I do not have a problem with Docs making a profit like companies do. I oject to them gouging us like oil companies do

        2. DannyMaio profile image61
          DannyMaioposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Again if there was no profit in it, why would these people spend their money and try to come up with things that will better life? again no incentive! These same people would be lawyers or bankers and we would not see progress! you have a small mind John. You can not see how By making it possible for people to gain everyone gains! but the prices can be lower if the attorneys would stop the frivolous lawsuits and malpractice insurance goes down!

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            How does it benefit me if I pay the hospital fees, the surgery fees, and the shareholders dividends?

            As far as I'm aware shareholders do not need to have any medical knowledge, aren't consulted about medical matters and don't even clean the hospitals.

            1. DannyMaio profile image61
              DannyMaioposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              It benefits you as you get to live longer! you would be dead without it or have a miserable life! that is the benefit! would money even matter if you were dead? You actually shouldn't complain, we subsidize many countries as they benefit from our technology and it cost cheaper for you.

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                It benefits me to pay the shareholders because then I get to live longer!

                Who are the shareholders, Mafia hit men?

              2. hottopics profile image60
                hottopicsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                How does it beniefit me if they charge so much I cannot recieve that woderful Tech? Trust me I know about this first hand

          2. hottopics profile image60
            hottopicsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Danny,

            I agree if insurance goes down the price Docs charge will go down, but not very much. THe biggest problem is their double dipping by charging multiple simes for the same time period. IF the office visit covers say 1/2 hour the doctor should not charge extra time for the procedures he does. Not to mention the double billing of services and charging for services not rendered.

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              There was a little anecdote on a British forum recently.
              A guy who was to have an eye operation had looked it up on the internet and whilst talking about it to his surgeon said he realised that the corneal replacement would involve two operations.

              The surgeon laughed and told him he'd obviously researched it on an American site.
              In the US they did the procedure as two separate operations so they could charge double for it.
              In the UK it was all done in one operation to reduce costs and risks to the patient.

              1. hottopics profile image60
                hottopicsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I do not know about operations in UK, but you are right on about American Doctors. Always thinking of how they can the most out of us.

          3. 61
            33rdn8thposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Danny- Stop believing the campaign tag lines.  They simply are not true.  My wife is a doctor, and i am an attorney, my malpractice premium is actually higher than hers.  The problem is insurance.

            1. DannyMaio profile image61
              DannyMaioposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              If you read I said it was malpractice insurance. They charge doctors so much they need to charge more to pay this ridiculous policy. But you can not deny that without technology we would not have all these wonderful advances.

            2. DannyMaio profile image61
              DannyMaioposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Also if they let you compete across state lines that would bring down costs also.

  16. Peter Owen profile image61
    Peter Owenposted 5 years ago

    a bit hard to swallow. And could never be proven either way.

  17. DannyMaio profile image61
    DannyMaioposted 5 years ago

    I also would not raise the debt ceiling! that would keep these clowns from spending even more money! They still have 2 trillion coming in, make that work! It is more than enough!

    1. 61
      33rdn8thposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      This is all hollow bs.  Why was there no UPROAR about the 5 debt limit increases during the Gush years?  Not even the 2 separate increases in 2002.  You guys are grasping at air... alot of hot air.  Please stop you are looking despareate now.  Face it, the people that you believe in, (the rebups, the tea party, ron paul) are all full of donkey dust, and have been playing a smoke an mirrors hame one you.  Largely based on your lack of memory and ineptitude for understanding history. 

      So go ahead and VOTE NO on the debt limit increases.  I'm fine, because, I did very well by inventing in gold after Bush won re-election on one issue (Gay Marriage) and saw the beginings of our country going to hell in a hand basket.

      1. DannyMaio profile image61
        DannyMaioposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        4 times under Clinton (total increase of $2,480 bln), 7 times under Bush (total increase of $4,785 bln), and three times under Obama already (for a total of over $3,000 bln) -- in just 2 years:

        Date Debt Ceiling Change in Debt Ceiling
        (billions of dollars)
        April 6, 1993 4,370 +225
        August 10, 1993 4,900 +530
        March 29, 1996 5,500 +600
        August 5, 1997 5,950 +450
        June 11, 2002 6,400 [104] +450
        May 27, 2003 7,384 [105] +984
        November 16, 2004 8,184 [104] +800
        March 20, 2006 8,965 [106] +781
        September 29, 2007 9,815 [107] +850
        June 5, 2008 10,615 [108] +800
        October 3, 2008 11,315 [109] +700
        February 17, 2009 12,104 [110] +789
        December 24, 2009 12,394 [111] +290
        February 12, 2010 14,294 [112] +1,900

  18. Peter Owen profile image61
    Peter Owenposted 5 years ago

    I guess I'm not getting thru.
    Again, let's say your own personal debt level can't be raised as of next week. Assume you spend more than you bring in, and all your credit cards and home equity loans froze. You have no access to money. You can't ask friends or parents (ie other countries. Where would you get money to eat.
    All your debts would eventually be called and you would have to default since you don't have the money to pay the debts. Your credit rating would drop to the floor. You would eventually have to declare bankruptcy.

  19. lovemychris profile image79
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    "So know you want to take more from the people who do too much already?"

    Paris Hilton does too much already?

  20. AnnCee profile image78
    AnnCeeposted 5 years ago

    Well I think it's just fascinating that the top two threads you people are still commenting on were both started by LaLo.

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      LOL, no problems, apart from just too many to do justice.
      And you'll notice we're way off topic.

      1. AnnCee profile image78
        AnnCeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        No kidding??

  21. tritrain profile image78
    tritrainposted 5 years ago

    In the short term, I think we need to do what is needed to keep our civil servants working.

    However, I agree that we need to get our spending under control, stop going to war (get out as soon as reasonably possible).

    Then fund R&D in alternative energies, encourage business and public to invest and get away from oil.  It's only going to cost more as it becomes more scarce and difficult to obtain.

    As a whole, this country needs to be more self-sufficient, just like it would benefit the families and individuals to do more locally/on their own.

  22. lovemychris profile image79
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    "B. Hussein Soweto"

    You're going to force me to resort to Shickelgruber Nazi Bush,
    And "Most Dangerous Game, Go F Yourself" Cheney.

  23. recommend1 profile image69
    recommend1posted 5 years ago

    I have no idea what you are all fighting about - the US has reached its debt ceiling and is not in any position to raise it any more. China is reducing its US debt by a couple of trillion and nobody else seems inclined to step in, if any other country was even able step in at those amounts and levels.  And anyway why would anybody lend more to a country that has been in economic decline for over 20 years ?

    It is probably the end of the line for the artificially high dollar and the start of spiralling inflation - which will be a good thing overall as it will result in the drastic reduction of violence all over the world.

    1. 62
      C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I tend to agree. The US will not default directly, but rather default by inflation. Long term this will be good as it allows the cycle to complete naturally. It will be painfull though.

 
working