"Both parties are advocating default" - David Stockman

[joeydb]

You guys are not going to believe this interview - the video on the referenced page below. Watch now before it is removed.

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/dav...ing-us-default

[dellinger63]

Couldn’t agree more. Unlike AIG and General Motors no one will bail the U.S., it will be all up to us and will take both parties to accomplish.

Right now raising taxes or removing the Bush/Obama tax cut extension in an effort to pay down the debt would do nothing but drain personal savings as the money brought in would be spent before the checks cleared on things like wrecking used cars and giving billion dollar aid packages to foreign governments. Taxes, even new taxes are going to have to be a part of paying the debt down. But first some sort of yearly budget cap has to be decided on and then when taxes are raised, 100% of that money would be solely used for paying off the debt. We also have enormous untapped oil reserves on land (not deep in the gulf) that can be harvested and leases could be another painless source of revenue that again 100% would be assigned to paying off the debt. Not to mention the ceasing of economic aid to less than friendly countries who are despicable in their treatment of women, a win-win!

Medicare is a sneak preview of the feature 'Obamacare' and right now the country can't afford it without some safeguards in place like a maximum amount for subsidies, say $5 billion. We need to get economically stable before we start throwing more huge government programs/slices of the budget pie, into the mix.

Simply put, like a sinking ship, we need to plug all the holes before we begin bailing. Obama & Co.'s budget plan of spending to prevent bankruptcy is equivalent to bailing seawater into the ship so it won't come in through the holes. Doesn't work very well, in fact doesn't work at all.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Right now raising taxes or removing the Bush/Obama tax cut extension in an effort to pay down the debt would do nothing but drain personal savings

No. It would cut our debt by about 1/3 to 1/2 within 10 years.

The position of demanding we correct out financial situation and debt without increasing our income is ludicrous and simply physically impossible. Thinking we can "cut our spending" to being debt free simply can't be done. It's simplistic idealogical demagoguery and unsupported by any objective fact whatsoever.

David Stockman has admitted the policies of Reaganomics were an utter failure, too, when you catch him in an unguarded moment. History certainly objectively shows that. Thanks, Stockman, for starting us into this mess with your absurd financial policies. We dreaded the result at the time, and years later, it's come true.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

No. It would cut our debt by about 1/3 to 1/2 within 10 years..

No it has the potential to but under this administration would be burned.

Now just imagine if the taxes cutting the debt by about 1/3 to 1/2 in ten years were matched by an equal cut in spending. In 10 years, we'd have 2/3's to all of the debt paid instead of increasing it. Both parties are going to have to want to dance.

They don't have the nerve. Pass it on to the next empty suit that takes their place.

Most of them are tyrants.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

No it has the potential to but under this administration would be burned.

That's your imagination and ODS talking.

Now just imagine if the taxes cutting the debt by about 1/3 to 1/2 in ten years were matched by an equal cut in spending.

Yeah, but that's not gonna happen, because we don't want to go back to putting old people on the street to die without medical care.

Oh, wait, no, that's not true - that is exactly the Republican budget plan for Medicare

Your ideas are noble, but like Rand and Ron Paul, completely unworkable in real life.

As an aside, do you read any political history books? Any objective histories of the different administrations? Perhaps you would find them interesting. A good current one is, "Too Big to Fail: The Inside Story of How Wall Street and Washington Fought to Save the Financial System---and Themselves" by Andrew Ross Sorkin. It's pretty inexpensive on Amazon.

We want to keep old people alive with our tax dollars. In rest homes, on life support, etc.

We're bleeding heart idiots. No personal responsibility whatsoever.

Let's allow General Mills, Unilever, etc. to put high fructose corn syrup in our food so we can all grow old, fat and diabetic.

Then our stupid a.ss children and grandchildren can deal with the bill.

Because we're compassionate in the NOW. We don't give a f.uck about he future.

It's ME ME ME.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

Because we're compassionate in the NOW. We don't give a f.uck about he future.

It's ME ME ME.

our collective government certainely does not give a fucl< about the future of the United States of China.

[Riot]

David Stockman ... the financial guru? History says not successfully. The guy was a 30-year-old kid in the Reagan administration. The author of "supply side economics", a coverup to give tax breaks to the rich, started us on our countries financial disaster. Clinton tried to pull us out, but George W put us right back in the toilet.

Stockman emerged as one of the most powerful and controversial OMB directors ever during a tenure that lasted until his resignation in August 1985. Committed to the doctrine of supply-side economics, he took the lead in directing passage of the "Reagan Budget" (the Gramm-Latta Budget), which Stockman hoped to be a serious curtailment of the "welfare state", gaining a reputation as a tough negotiator with House Speaker Tip O'Neill's Democratic-controlled House of Representatives and Majority Leader Howard Baker's Republican-controlled Senate.

Stockman's power within the Reagan Administration waned after the Atlantic Monthly magazine published the famous 18,246 word article, "The Education of David Stockman",[4] in its December 1981 issue, based on lengthy interviews Stockman gave to reporter William Greider. It led to Stockman's being "taken to the woodshed by Reagan" as the White House's public relations team attempted to limit the article's damage to Reagan's perceived fiscal-leadership skills. Stockman was quoted as referring to the Reagan Revolution's legacy tax act as: "I mean, Kemp-Roth [Reagan's 1981 tax cut] was always a Trojan horse to bring down the top rate.... It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down.' So the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory." Of the budget process in his first year on the job, Mr. Stockman is quoted as saying: "None of us really understands what's going on with all these numbers," which was used as the subtitle of the article.

After Stockman's first year at OMB and on the heels of "being taken to the woodshed by the president" over his candor with Atlantic's William Greider, Stockman became inspired with the projected trend of increasingly large federal deficits and the rapidly expanding national debt. On 1 August 1985, he left OMB and later wrote a memoir of his experience in the Reagan Administration titled The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed, in which he specifically criticized the failure of congressional Republicans to support a reduction in government spending as necessary offsets to the large tax cuts, in order to avoid the creation of large deficits and an exploding national debt.

Fiscal legacy

Four and a half years into the Reagan administration, upon Stockman's resignation at the OMB in August 1985, the gross federal debt level had nearly doubled with the national debt standing at $1.8 trillion on 9 September 1985.

Stockman's OMB work within the administration in 1981 up to August was dedicated to negotiating with the Senate and House on the next fiscal year's budget, executed later in the fall of 1985, which resulted in the national debt reaching $2.1 trillion at fiscal year end 30 September 1986 and reaching $2.6 trillion at fiscal year end 30 September 1988.

They're all the same. Outside of the social issues they don't differ much.

Guiliani, Hillary, Gingrich, Romney and Obama are all pro-police state, pro-socialist health care, pro war.

It's why Paul is labeled as the crazy one. A man who has delivered over 4000 babies, worked for peanuts before medicare, defends our constitution.

They can all go f.uck themselves. None of them are half the man Ron Paul is...except Hillary.

[randallscott35]

We should selectively default all of our China exposure immediately simply based on their militarism, posioning of the environment, and stealing of American patents.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

We should selectively default all of our China exposure immediately simply based on their militarism, posioning of the environment, and stealing of American patents.

But we can't let them hold GBBob as a hostage - we have to make sure he's out of country at the time