Their finger pointing is just stupid. Their infighting is annoying and damaging their country. Its just sad to watch.

Republicans claim Obama never had a plan and its all the democrats fault. One I saw even mentioned that its the first time there have been spending cuts with a raise in the debt ceiling but they weren't enough, failing to mention that any time the republicans have raised it in the past they obviously didn't even think to do cuts.

The tea part/republicans are trying to blame it all on Obama, as if every single dollar of this massive debt started when he started his term. Thats just ignorant.


Unfortunately the channel I just watched didnt show a democrat opinion but I am sure they feel its all the republicans fault. perhaps they should accept they are both at fault and work together as Obama wants, and try to solve it >_<

Idiocy and having to see it on tv all the time finally annoyed me apparently :P

Oh yes, and the magazine the economist directly referenced the tea party when talking about what they thought the problem was. GJ on electing those narrowminded idiots -_-
:Rant mode off:

I didn't vote... as no matter who I woulda voted for.. the same thing woulda happened..

i'm sure no politicians anywhere else ever fingerpoint :P

tea party republicans fluffed it up.
they would not budge, compromise and held it all up

democrats and old school republicans were working tog. to solve the issue by compromise and they were doing fine.

we need cuts AND revenue increases ( taxes )

how are we annoying you with our politics? quit the eavesdropping, and you wouldn't have to hear about it.

I like the thread that starts with finger pointing being annoying, and then goes on to point fingers...

we the ppl fluffed it up.... we let the ppl who run the country run it... /me points to self

,,

It is lazy buggers that are the problem. Worse still if they vote, as morons shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Too lazy to bother making the effort to understand the issue, just seeing a commotion and declaring "All are to blame!"

so the problem is the people that are too lazy to vote, but they shouldn't vote? :P pick a damn side

Your face is annoying

Technocracy for the win!!!!

Let the people with brains rule, the idiots can be the working force.


really, don't bother, stupid people that don't know about the issues shouldn't be allowed to vote on anything, they should be in the cotton farms O.o

It is a little of everybodys fault for taking so long and making it so messy but here is my take as a right leaning american.

to single out the tea party as "holding it up" is ignorant, they got voted in to change the system, as that was the platform they ran on , and they were trying to change the system.

to blame it on republicans is meh, they really messed up by extending bush tax cuts while he was still president and they paid for it in Obamas first 2 years. that being said, they did propose a few bills here but they were too much cutting of entitlements that the dems wouldnt let go of.

the democrats did eventually;y come around and step up to the plate after all of the mess and obama was quick to take credit for bringing them together. but what is funny is that in the 2 years that the democrats ran congress they passed 0 budgets, passed 0 finance reforms raised the debt limit numerous times without increasing taxes AND extended the bush tax cuts (that were intended to be ended in the middle of bush's 2nd term) i think everybody here can do that math on that one, it wont add up.


that being said they all have a stake in this for different reasons. but its laughable that they are trying to blame a tiny part of the far right for holding this whole thing up when it could have been passed 2 years ago with absolutely nothing the republicans could have done about it. similar to Obamacare. except somehow that still got caught up and the republicans were to blame...



also i found this quote today, made me get that vomit taste int he back of my throat


“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, "the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better” Senator Barack H. Obama March 2006

Everything sounds easy when you don't hold the power, but when you do, you realize you truly have no power at all.


There are many powers that force you to play ball, if you don't they take their ball home, and you are left alone in the street waiting for that drunk driver that will put you out of your misery.


Honestly, Everything is complex only because they refuse to shake and destroy the establishment, no true change can happen without revolution and revolt, take a look on the past...

Insomnia is a fluff

Two years ago, Democrats simply refused to believe that Republicans are stupid enough to deliberately blow things up. The $30B increase in cost for US debt (T-bill rate increase) is directly attributable to the TP. At one point, Obama thought Republicans actually wanted to work -- instead, it's quite clear that the person willing to be extremist is the one with the power. The fun thing is, of course, two can play at that game.

Interesting note about the negotiation: The law as currently stated ends the Bush taxcuts at the end of 2012. If this whole thing doesn't get negotiated again - then the Bush taxcuts end, and that's 3.5 trillion more of revenue.

I do suppose that democrats and others around the world thinks that the US being 25 trillion in debt would solve this problem *rolls eyes*.

It is quite obvious that our entitlement programs will bankrupt this nation and yet for some reason(corruption and buying votes) democrats and establishment GOPers won't reform them. Anyone with a brain can see what is coming down the pike and yet we want to kick the can down the road yet again. The problem is you can't kick the can down the road anymore. Our entitlement programs are bankrupting the federal government. Our pension programs are bankrupting the state and local governments. Simply put, government for decades has negotiated by building pyramid schemes that would kick the can down the road. They took the money and spent it for votes. Now that the largest generation is knocking at the door for payment, the politicians have already spent the money. Those politicians should have been lined up and shot for doing what they did and now our entire nation will pay the price.

To say this is all tea party is ignorant beyond belief. Spending cuts are exactly what is needed to possibly right ship and everyone bar tea partiers are not willing to make the difficult decisions and solve any problems. There is no can to kick, the problem ends here and now. Either we solve it or we don't because we have reached the end of extending this pyramid scheme.

i blame religion

if you all accepted pastafanarianism we would be saweet.

It's not the "entitlement" programs that are the problem - it's the uncontrolled borrowing from those entitlement programs to fund other areas of the government that they were never intended for. Look at the math, they really can work if we just quit stealing from the pot for other things.

PS - the U.S. is not 25 trillion in debt, our current national debt is approximately 14.6 trillion, without adjustment, approximately 13.6 of which was passed on from the previous administration.

PPS - Republicans have increased the national debt 10x that of Democratic administrations in the past 30 years. As a matter of fact, the only president that can claim a balanced budget during his administration in the last 30 years is a Democrat.

PPPS - The entire tea party IS ignorant - it's a party founded on ideology based on a flawed assumption regarding a historical event, an incorrect interpretation of the constitution, a poorly thought out platform, and funding/organization by sensationalistic mass media whose primary goal is to raise revenue. If you believe in tea party ideology, you may officially consider yourself part of the lowest common denominator in the US....and that's really saying something in this day and age.

PPPPS - Democrats and Republicans are also retarded....just slightly less noticeably so than tea party members.

I think it's funny that American's even think they have a Democracy. 2 party systems are an absolute joke.

NOW3P:

As I said, they kicked the can down the road so they could collect taxes and use them for something that is down the road. Why would we trust politicians instead of privatizing any of this? It is quite obvious this would happen if we have politicians running our entitlement programs. Hence the reason government causes all these problems.

In case you didn't understand our budget we passed will send us another 8+ trillion into debt, which would be 23 trillion. Do you think I would think that is accurate? No, we would be at least 25 trillion in debt if we followed the passed budget. Would you be okay with that?

Republicans are not innocent, I never said they were. Hence the reason the Tea party even exists, they are working to change the spending republicans. And you mention Clinton and yet why did that happen? It is clear you would know that Newt forced a balanced budget down Clinton's throat. So why would you bring it up when that balanced budget was actually the work of Republicans?

If you could please put any actual thought behind your insults of the tea party that would be great. Blank insults pretty much pigeonhole you into the talking points bucket which would show your ignorance. Which is quite ironic given your post.

And 13.6 trillion from Bush? Lets hear where that came from...I already know the numbers, but I want to see how far you are willing to stretch this lie.

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!

Sorry CK, the Tea Party just really isn't worth any more brain cells to insult for me. I really hope after reading my post that intelligence wasn't the first thing you thought I was after...

We trust politicians over privatization because some things done in a society should not be done with profit as the over-arching goal behind them. This is a concept lost on many, but vitally important to any functional society - even the founding fathers that the tea party claims to be channeling are on record as having said exactly that.

So far as the debt issue, without adjusting debt to a percentage of GDP, it's a rather pointless conversation. We could easily carry 14.6 or 23, or even 100 trillion in debt if our GDP was high enough to repay that debt. In the case of Bush The Younger, our debt was 92% of our GDP the day he left office - which, I think you'll find, works out to approximately 13.53 trillion dollars....

Regarding the budget - FY2012 budget will not be completed until September at the earliest, and budgets are done and redone on an annual basis - please provide a link regarding what you're referring to. Currently, President Obama is proposing 3.7 trillion dollars worth of spending cuts between now and 2020 in the interest of working back towards a balanced budget, and has not officially signed any significant budget increases thus far that I'm aware of, so I'm a little lost as to what "budget" you're referring to. Perhaps a spending plan or budget forecast? I hope you're not referring to the recent debt ceiling increase, because then we're just done with this conversation....

PPPPPS - I don't provide references because I can't be fluffed to. This is AT, not a college composition course. If you think that alone is an indication of "talking points" or lack of intelligence, I'm guessing Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann will be a painful disappointment to you in the long run.

Just one quick addition - kicking the can down the road may be giving too much credit. I think there is just a complete lack of fiscal foresight in government today, not necessarily an intentional attempt to pass the buck to someone else.

NOW3P: "We trust politicians over privatization because some things done in a society should not be done with profit as the over-arching goal behind them."

Why does it have to be black or white. Why can't it be one of numerous shades of gray. There are numerous business models government could follow that are non-profit or charitable. Privatization does not have to equal Profit-ization.


VIPx: "I think it's funny that American's even think they have a Democracy. 2 party systems are an absolute joke."

Long ago we demanded geographical representation. Unfortunately it turned out to be at the expense of sound ideological representation.

NOW3P - "...a complete lack of fiscal foresight in the United States today..."

FTFY.

Seriously, this issue is way beyond gov't. Individuals, households, communities, education, states, corporations, everywhere. Nobody is looking past the next 4 quarters.

Can you point to any part of the U.S. with a realistic 10-yr strategy?

Ok, so you start your post essentially saying you were trolling...nice touch there N3.

So your view of government is they do things for the right reasons and a businessman won't. Please tell me, what is different about a politician and a CEO? A politician can be bought by lobbyists for all sorts of special interests. They can FORCE their will upon you where a business can only ask you participate. Government is a monopoly where business is not. Essentially they are the same, but you just cannot figure it out. Government no more looks out for the people than any other group does. I think you should reread some history before you come to that conclusion.

You claim inflation is measured solely by GDP lol. Your numbers are incorrect however. He left with 70% debt to GDP ratio, but alas real facts won't get in your way I'm sure. In fact I posted up an excel sheet awhile back showing exact numbers from the government website. I'll use 2008 numbers since 20 days won't make the difference.

2008
GDP:14.394 trillion
Debt:9.98 trillion

So, lets do some math 9.98/14.394=69%

Care to try again N3?

You do realize that they didn't pass a budget, but they passed cuts on the budget. You act as if spending cannot happen without an actual budget and yet here we are, without a budget and spending more than ever. So Obama proposed 3.7 trillion in cuts(mind you not actual cuts, just cuts on the 8% increase that automatically happens). Ok, so lets figure out how those cuts will go down(if they even happen).

Baseline budgeting means we have 8% automatic increases in spending each year. Our 2010 spending 3.456 trillion.

Lets lay down that baseline for each year now, which is what we are following.

2011:3.73
2012:4.03
2013:4.35
2014:4.7
2015:5.08
2016:5.48
2017:5.92
2018:6.4
2019:6.91
2020:7.46

Lets add that up. 54 trillion in spending. Now Lets give our politicians the benefit of the doubt here and say that aren't complete idiots. The 10 year estimation is closer to 46 trillion so I will use that. subtract 3.7 and we have 42.3 trillion in spending still. That is in the interest of working back towards a balanced budget? An 8% cut on the total spending after the aggregate baseline yearly 8%? No, obviously he isn't even attempting or the democrats would have done that prior to this whole mess when they had control of both houses. Republicans didn't either, but there is far more dirt on the hands of democrats.

You can stick to no references N3, but don't expect your lies to live out.

Viceroy - I agree. In fact, I think if you take a closer look, you'll see that today's gov't privatizes a number of its functions. I'm not saying it should be one or the other, only that some things lean more towards one end of the spectrum or the other.

Atryn - I think Minnesota has done reasonably well financially. As much as we may be laughing stocks for other goings on, we did produce a balanced budget for FY2012.

Well, if you'd like references, here's a nice one from the US Treasury. It lists US Debt held by the public during each fiscal year that Bush's budgets were in place. In case you're not following the logical conclusion, on the last day of the Bush administration's final fiscal year (aka Sept 30, 2010, aka the end of Bush fiscal policy, and beginning of Obama fiscal policy, aka the dawn of the great white hope), the US Debt was......

US Debt Held By Public

09/30/2010 13,561,623,030,891.79
09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/...tdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm


Concerning the "budget" you keep referring to, it's starting to sound more and more like a budget FORECAST, not an official budget. Again, please provide a reference if you want to discuss the specifics of it.


Happy now? Have I finally proven to you that just because I don't bother take you seriously doesn't necessarily mean you're not wrong?

What I really don't understand is the insane anti-tax mentality that these teabaggers seem to have. It's just... like from another planet.

had the bubble not burst in 2008 like it did, the bush tax cuts would have expired on time (like they were intended to) and bush would have handed over a surplus as he had cut the deficit very significantly the previous 3 years. up until the financial bubble had burst the economy was doing well.

if you cant agree with that you are clueless.

here is a chart for you to see for yourself

http://www.davemanuel.com/...-in-the-united-states.php

*posts*

NOW3P - while I agree with you overall, I don't think you were responding to my post? I asked for any example of any U.S. entity, private or public, with a realistic 10-yr strategy and you responded that Minnesota has a balanced budget for FY2012? Where is their 10-yr strategy as a state?

CKHustler: "Please tell me, what is different about a politician and a CEO?" Seriously???? That isn't obvious to you?

Assuming a public company, a CEO typically reports to his BOD who represents the shareholders profit motive. Positive growth of financial returns to shareholders is the only important goal.

A politician (elected) may be influenced by special interests, but they report to the electorate (who may also be influenced by special interests) but NOWHERE in there is there an economic drive as in a capitalist enterprise. This means politicians are motivated not to turn a profit, or to break even, but to get re-elected or move on to higher office or to secure a post-politician job/gig/speaking circuit.

The two are COMPLETELY different. While I am no fan of politicians in general, the fact remains that there are issues in society which CANNOT be addressed by a capitalist model. And in today's global economy, the capitalist model is failing the United States horrendously (or vice-versa depending on your view of cause and effect).

Fact: as a capitalist, there are better investments available outside the U.S. (whether FDI, outsourcing, etc.)

Fact: increasing returns to capitalists will provide them with more capital to invest back into "the economy"

Fact: capitalists will invest those extra returns where they derive the best economic returns

Conclusion: In the current global economic environment and investment horizon, returning MORE money to successful capitalists will NOT improve the U.S. They will invest that money in enterprises taking advantage of better opportunities outside the U.S.

This is what has been plaguing our country for years now. We have a short-term horizon system (quarterly earnings) and a medium-term horizon system (stock/option/performance incentives that go 2-5 yrs at the most) where the best short-to-medium term returns are ABROAD. This means the capitalist system WILL NOT re-invest in "fixing" the problems in the United States -- because that does not deliver the best short-medium term economic returns for THAT enterprise.

This is pure capitalism, rearing its ugly head. Capitalism is GREAT at what it does -- directing capital to the most efficient economic returns. But if that "most efficient" opportunity isn't in your backyard -- you are SCREWED.

Oh, I see N3, you are now moving the goal posts.

"In the case of Bush The Younger, our debt was 92% of our GDP the day he left office - which, I think you'll find, works out to approximately 13.53 trillion dollars...."

Ah yes I remember those good ole days with Bush in office last September. *Rolls eyes* Before we move to Obama, who's budget did Bush sign? Republicans last budget was with a 171 billion deficit. I know your bent on giving democrats credit for everything whenever possible, but they drove that conversation and congress has a larger part to do with the budget than the presidency, especially when both houses are with the same party.

So, lets talk about what happened for the first 20 months Obama took office. Would you say he had anything to do with the spending increase? Is Bush now on the books for Obama's stimulus plan? Is he held accountable for the spending Obama pumped into the economy? If your telling me Obama added nothing to this presidency until October 1st 2010, well, lets talk about that then.

Concerning the budget. How about we debate the budget we are operating under right now? Oh wait...we aren't. See, there are no references because democrats refuse to submit budgets. Well not true, Obama submitted a 3.7 trillion(did you notice the budget forecast amount) budget that was rejected 97-0. Sounds like he is really pushing for a balanced budget. If you want to have a gotcha type of conversation, perhaps we can start one of those?

If you want to debate fantasy we can N3, but it is much more fun to debate reality. Perhaps I should just wait until someone else comes on here that wants to do just that. As it stands all your points are in wonderland and there isn't any reason I should waste my time on that.

Atryn, your post is full of logical flaws, I will point out a few.

"This means politicians are motivated not to turn a profit, or to break even, but to get re-elected or move on to higher office or to secure a post-politician job/gig/speaking circuit."

And that is different how? They are both worried about job security over anything else. Enron fakes profits while politicians buy votes using entitlement programs. CEO's are beholden to the public to purchase his goods, a politician is beholden to votes. At least a businessman doesn't have a monopoly like the government does.

"And in today's global economy, the capitalist model is failing the United States horrendously (or vice-versa depending on your view of cause and effect).

Fact: as a capitalist, there are better investments available outside the U.S. (whether FDI, outsourcing, etc.)

Fact: increasing returns to capitalists will provide them with more capital to invest back into "the economy"

Fact: capitalists will invest those extra returns where they derive the best economic returns

Conclusion: In the current global economic environment and investment horizon, returning MORE money to successful capitalists will NOT improve the U.S. They will invest that money in enterprises taking advantage of better opportunities outside the U.S. "

Um, you call what the US has as capitalism, when in fact we aren't even close. Would you say that the high taxes and regulations we have here is capitalism? Would you say that the highest corporate taxes in the world is capitalism? How can you even discuss capitalism if you fail to notice what is and isn't capitalism? We are currently 8th in overall economic freedom with even Canada above us and we wonder why investors aren't parking shop here? You've got to be kidding me.

How about we remove all the roadblocks we have set up and see how capitalism really does?

I would really like to hear of these things that the capitalist model cannot address. Lets lay down a list of things that freedom cannot address. Lets lay down a list of things that the government must oversee for anything to happen. I would rather not be prostrate to the whims of politicians thinking that every thing they come up with the government must do.

CKHustler - MY post was full of logical flaws???

"They are both worried about job security over anything else."... Umm, this is like saying that a person stealing food and a person working for the income to buy it are just the same because "they are both worried about feeding their family over anything else."... Your logic there makes no sense.

"CEO's are beholden to the public to purchase his goods, a politician is beholden to votes." Another major logical flaw. A CEO is beholden to shareholders to deliver a profit, which is not always derived from the sale of goods to the public. More so, it is not always derived from the sale of goods to the U.S. public. Even more so, it is not derived from the sale of goods to the U.S. voting public or to a given jurisdiction's votic public (to whom the politician is accountable). So their audiences are wholly different. And despite what some libertarians assert, people do not (for the most part) "vote with their wallets". Meaning, they do not tend to look at a companies social practices when shopping for every good or service.

Do you really think that the CEO of Halliburton or GE and a local district congressman are answering to the same individuals???? That's absolute lunacy.

You say we aren't even close to capitalism -- please cite who you think is closer to what you are looking for? Are you saying we should have a governmental system more like Canada's (your only citation)? Do you believe that is more capitalist vs. socialized?

"highest corporate taxes in the world" - that is a total fallacy and anyone in business knows it. Tax rates and taxes paid are completely different things. We also have less hidden costs due to non-tax fees and corruption. Look at GE's "effective" tax rate with all the breaks they got.

The U.S. tax rules on depreciation of long term assets, especially debt-financed assets bring down the effective marginal rate significantly. Tax strategies (loopholes, some would call them), deferred taxes, hiding profits overseas, etc. all play a role in making the actual tax bill paid so different that the "rate" is almost meaningless.

Some reading: http://www.smartmoney.com/...rate-is-misleading-22463/

Check both World Bank and GAO reports here on the difference between a statutory tax rate and an effective tax rate:
http://mediamatters.org/research/201004260006

If you still think the statutory tax rate is what a company pays, I sure hope you don't ever plan to be a CEO (or especially CFO)...

Debt @ end of:

Nixon's term (8y) = $0.5T
Ford's term (4y) = $0.6T
Carter's term (4y) = $1.0T
Reagan's term (8y) = $2.6T
Bush 1 term (4y) = $4.0T
Clinton's term (8y) = $5.7T
Bush 2 term (8y) = $10.7T
Current = $13.6T

Plenty of blame to go around.

These are not adjusted for inflation, which would of course flatten out the curve a lot. Of course, these numbers are the REASON that we have inflation so they really should not be adjusted anyway.

Business 101!!! :P

For corporations:
CEO's are only beholden to the board of directors of the company and is usually appointed by them. The board of directors are beholden to the shareholders in proportion to the number of shares held. In many cases the board of directors are the majority (or close to the majority) share holders however not always and not the case for the my current employer nor the last (very large) corporation I worked at.
The object of a corporation is to maximize profits for its shareholders. This can be done in a variety of ways but does not necessarily have to involve the production/sale of goods/services. The CEO is the person designated to be in charge of fulfilling that objective. This objective is neither good nor evil in general but should not be confused with always being in line with good public policy.

Remember that at the end of the day financial institutions are corporations and fall clearly into the above. There is an added complication with them in that they are also responsible to policy holders (be it account holders, other types of lenders/borrowers, or some other type of contract such as insurance). The thing is that policy holders and share holders typically have competing interests and hence there is a regulatory environment whose objective is to ensure that these competing interests don't cause everything to implode.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And I should note:
Canada is hardly "socialist" compared to the US in many respects. There is less regulation in many things including environment, financial industry and far less government subsidization of things like research, infrastructure projects, and agriculture. Additionally the corporate and investment tax rules in Canada are different and don't really average out to higher than they do in the united states. The are really only two areas where Canada has more government intervention and that would be health care and a lesser extent fire arms. Comparison is hard because the division of powers between federal and state is very different in the US than it is in Canada (Canada doesn't have a national set of driving licensing for example but all Criminal law in Canada is Federal).

A CEO is beholden to the public(wherever they may be) to buy his product. Can you please describe a business that does not sell anything? I would certainly like to get into that business model. You cannot get around the fact that they must provide a quality product, no matter how it is done. Their social practices don't come into most minds because the quality of the product is numero uno. A businessmans jurisdiction is anywhere he can make money, a politicians is anywhere he can be elected. To say their social practices are in the lime light here would be equal to accusing a politician of consorting with lobbyists...lots of talk, nothing done.

You bring up Halliburton, yet who are they beholden to? Would you say the government, their consumers?

The fact that they have different constituents means nothing. Does a local state senator have the same constituency as the president? Obviously not, so why are specific geographical locations in the discussion at all?

Governmental system has nothing to do with economic freedom. You would think it does, but only the rule of the land at that moment in time is the economic freedom scale. Hong Kong for example is communist and also the most economically free part of the world and they are thriving.

So I see how this goes, you think that because there is loopholes in the system that it is capitalism. I wonder, how did these loopholes get in there? I know my Dad's small business cannot use many of those loopholes...would it be because he either isn't A) large enough to move his assets around or B) he doesn't have a personal lobbyist in DC? Loopholes = crony capitalism which you apparently equate with actual capitalism. Government collusion with business is not capitalism and that needs to be set straight with the public. If anything it is closer to fascism than any other. You bring up GE, now why did they have that low tax rate? First of all they keep any profits they can outside the US because of the tax rates. Second they had major losses the year before, then add in all the subsidies from the government and here we are. You might as well bring up Google and say that our tax code is letting them off easy lol.

So we can see why you think we are capitalistic. Loopholes create essentially by lobbyists allow for certain businesses to scape out on taxes and lower their rates, thereby giving them an upper hand on small businesses. Capitalism, can you smell the freedom?

"Of course, these numbers are the REASON that we have inflation".
Not entirely although that's a chicken/egg type question. The largest % debt increases over the period are not at all correlated with the largest inflation rates.

Where are doobie and tar heel when you need them. This thread would have lit up like a christmas tree. :/

not sure that doobie ever fully recovered from responding to the naked person in the bathtub incident.

I just don't like it when people think politicians are always looking out for the people. There will always be some businesses that are doing all they can for the public(it does benefit them sometimes) and ones that aren't, just as there are some politicians that are and some that aren't. They are fundamentally similar though and to put your trust in either is not a good idea.

CKHustler: I never used the word "always". But Government is there to do things that are in the public interest and not easily handled by the private sector. We've seen countless examples of bad corporate behavior that was only checked by government intervention.

Examples: NRC, EPA, FDA, DoJ and industry regulatory bodies like the FCC, FAA, etc. Whether you agree with ALL of their policies or not is not the issue. What is the issue is a suggestion that we can just "abolish" these things in favor of some idealistic laissez faire system.

The Halliburton example was because a substantial portion of their revenues come from foreign governments and markets -- conflict of interest example. American consumers don't have any voice in what they do or don't do. If you argue that they do because the U.S. Government is a major customer and the U.S. Government is accountable to the people -- then you just suggested our elected officials listen to the people, contradicting your own argument.

Do you know anyone who works for the government? Do you really think they all go to work just thinking about how to screw over joe public?

The Tea Party lost all sympathy I had toward their cause after the Mike Castle/Christine O'Donnell debacle. They are utterly unfit to govern, but sadly they are doing their job as they are representing the policy demands of those that voted them in. Those people happen to be idiots, but that is sadly how our system is designed.

You are aware that Fiscal year 2012 begins in October of 2011, correct? Obama submitted his budget proposal back in February. Congress for I believe the 3rd consecutive year failed to pass a budget.

You can't really believe that Obama has not requested any increases in spending have you? Perhaps I'm misreading what you said. Bush's last budget featured 3.1 trillion in spending while the government spend 3.8 trillion last year. That last Bush budget had 2.7 trillion in revenue while the government took in just 2.1 trillion last year.

I absolutely believe he's requested spending increases. I'm just questioning the numbers CK's throwing around, as he continually refuses to provide any sort of reference for them.

Well, that and an administration putting together an actual budget that spans 10 years is not likely - fiscal plans, planned spending summaries, budget forecasts, sure...but I'm not aware of an actual budget spanning that far into the future - and even if it did, it would probably be modified over time as any budget made now would have to assume no legislative/tax/revenue change over the span of its intended use.

Also - I've been told that the 3.8 trillion doesn't give credit for the 780 billion that has since been paid back from bailout funds. Actual spending is closer to 3.2, as I understand it. I'm no economist/accountant though, so I won't claim to know if that's accurate or not.

CK - no one is saying that politicians are ALWAYS looking out for the public's best interest first. That would just be ludicrous, and downright naive. I have worked in governments with corruption beyond anything you could even begin to imagine, and know first had just how fluffty politicians can be - but you have to understand that despite how prolific they seem in mass media, they are a small minority. For every 1 Rod Blagojevic or Rahm Emanuel, there are 100 other folks who go to work, do their job, and try to put in an honest day's work to make government work better. You just don't hear about those other 100, because they don't pull the ratings that the 1% does.

With that said though, it is also a matter of priorities. No one expects a CEO to be socially responsible. His one and only job is to ensure continued increasing revenue for his company - he only answers to his share holders and board of directors, and has no obligation to uphold any sort of social well being. There are good CEO's who do this out of a sense of obligation, and there are terrible CEO's who would check-raise their own grandmother if given the opportunity - the point is, they are under no obligation to do so, and therefore are not able to guarantee social well being on a level that a government which is obliged with that task can. Government risks favor being sold to the highest bidder....but privatization guarantees it.

Just to clarify, I don't think we need 10-year budgets, but it would sure be nice to have a coherent 10-year plan at least...

There was a citation about Hong Kong being communist, which is amusing. I was there in 1996 right before it was handed back from the British Empire to the Chinese. The Chinese extended semi-autonomous rule for another 50 years (the same term as the original deal with the British). They are not afraid to plan in 50-year increments. But Hong Kong is not like the rest of China.

N3, the numbers are from the government website. When Bush left office there was a 69% debt to GDP ratio, it is undeniable, so I'm not sure what you are trying to prove with your point. The democrats pushed that budget and Bush signed it. Much like Clinton with Newt. Regardless of the point though, I can accept Republicans are not blameless, but can you see that democrats had no intentions of reigning in spending until the Tea Party forced the issue. Obama wanted a free raise of the debt ceiling. He wanted a 3.7 trillion budget. He was obviously kicking the can down the road.

I mentioned Hong Kong precisely because of what you said Atryn, they are under communist rule and yet they are the most economically free place in the world...and they thrive for that.

It seems we are in a catch-22 on Halliburton, because by your logic, they are beholden to the people already, thereby dismissing your entire argument against them. By mine, they aren't. So which is it?

See this is where the similarities are. Not all businessmen look out for the people, some take advantage(remember that most of the time it is mutually beneficial). Politicians are the same, except one major point. If a business takes advantage of the people what happens? They make money and a local event occurs. If the government takes advantage of the people we end up in the mess we are right now. It goes back to what started the housing crisis because no doubt you will blame the banks, when in fact they just went with what the government gave/forced them. I never said abolish everything, but create an atmosphere for prosperity, which considering the regulations all those agencies put on us, they clearly aren't.

I can see why we differ. You(each of you) believe people are held to a higher authority, the government, while I believe people are fundamentally free. For you it is up to the government to control people for they know not what they do. The plebs must be taken care of for we cannot tell a fair contract from being skinned alive. Without all those agencies Atryn named we would surely fall into anarchy and our air would turn to smog.

Go ahead though, stifle freedom, the entrepreneurs will just leave and do what Google did. Pay their taxes outside the country...

Oh and about screwing over joe public...no, they are looking to screw over joe businessowner. Clearly by all the policies the democrats are looking to enact that would raise taxes on small businesses.

joe small business owner. they don't want to deal with startups that can't afford to bribe them.