Without the debt, he’s just another third world kid with no education and no rights, living in a land of vast poverty, ignored by a handful of greedy, rich people.
I’d rather inherit a big debt and have a good education and a viable infrastructure than to be debt-free, ignorant and living in a country that’s falling apart.
Of course, if we raised revenue we could leave them educated, debt-free and with a viable infrastructure.
the President’s budget was legally due the first of February.the Democrat Senate budget (missing the last 4 years) is released by the Dem.Chair of the Budget Committee….the url above is an analysis article of 10 years of Democrat’s spending plans….annual increases from FY 2013 $3.6 Trillion to FY 2023 $5.7 Trillion….an increase of spending of 62% between the 2013 total and the 2023 total. This article does not compute the INCREASE IN THE DEBT, or give the annual deficit estimates.-IMO America cannot afford the Democrat budgets.-(and I was complaining that Ryan’s Budget allowed a 3.4% increase! I believe the GOP must recalculate for annual DECREASES in spending)
http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-things-politicians-will-never-understand-about-poor-people/-91% of people on federal assistance a. work, b. are elderly, or c. are disabled. 66% of children living in poverty have at least one working parent. 84% of people living in poverty have at least one working member in their household. Facts cited in the article.-Also, the vast majority of charities can’t even handle what is donated to them well enough. It takes a higher overhead to run a good, large-scale charity. Do some research on inner city food banks and how much work goes into actually getting things done.
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”― Alexis de Tocqueville
mickey1339 said, about 2 hours agoThis brings to mind a quote on Democracy:“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury….."-Thank you, mickey!but IMO it is the majority of voters, not the minority I have been voting with since Ike’s re-election; we vote for the conservatives who lose elections to liberals promising “freebies” from the Public Treasury, PLUS the D and R party members, and the long list of Presidents who passed and signed legislation authorizing To The Moon Spending “budgets”!-The MSM also aided and abetted and promoted every Liberal Spending scheme….and leads the screams if any official says “let’s cut” even when it isn’t a cut of the total spending!D.C. must be full of “creative accountants” that violate every rule of honest bookkeeping! For years “cuts” mean only a lower amount of INCREASED SPENDING.-We need a Vaccine preventing lying, for every person elected to run government. Every congressional Hearing should require a shot of Truth Serum just before testimonies. It would also help if candidates for office were required to take the Truth Serum…….
Obama has come out of the Closet: “There is no Debt Crisis”. .He believes this. To him, this is truth..If consequences happen, complainers will be blamed..His supporters will drink the Jonestown kool-aid, too..Nero fiddled while Rome burned. History repeats itself.
Good post. Thanks. I think most people on both sides of the fence, if they are rational thinking people and not knee-jerk finger-pointers, would agree with at least most of your post.
The problem that I see is that this system of “advisors” telling people to earn less so they can keep benefits, etc., is so well-entrenched. Although it may be happening everywhere, I am sure that this is not written in any policy manuals. (At least I would like to be sure….)
Although it could be addressed by cabinet-level or higher personnel, as it should be, it still remains up to the local offices to police their own. Since very few civil servants leave their jobs, chances are that a lot of locals are just propping up “their own”, rather than following directions. So everyone in management has to be “re-educated” to make sure that everyone under management’s purview is following the rules.
I don’t know about welfare. I was out of work for a couple of months, and despite my advanced degree, I was awarded the maximum of $385 per month in unemployment. Although I am not complaining, I can tell you that this does not begin to cover most obligations entered into when I was more flush (the mortgage, for example). If I had had to depend on it long-term, I would have lost everything. Welfare may indeed be more generous, and I think disability is even more flexible; and I agree, there are too many non-disabled people receiving disability benefits.
I believe there should be a thorough review of standards for qualifying. I believe that there should be a maximum number of months of assistance available, and a maximum number of times that assistance can be granted. I believe all managers should be required to ensure that their people know the rules, and that there will be disciplinary action if rules are intentionally broken.
I believe most people who need assistance will only need it for moderate periods of time, assuming we have a decent job market. Those who want benefits to last beyond their lifetimes should have to realize this is temporary; a help, not a handout.
Your idea of removing the right to vote is a good one on the surface. It would help to know if a) welfare cheats really do vote at all (it is, after all, a responsibility, and welfare cheats are not likely to be responsible) and b) what to do about convicted felons, since nothing would change if their right to vote was suspended. I know that there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that cheats will vote for “free stuff” but I have no statistical proof that they bother to vote.
And, again, there is such stupid stuff. I understand you can’t get a job if you can’t see, so i don’t have a problem helping Medicaid patients. But in Virginia, Medicaid beneficiaries get help for contact lens fees. In my opinion, with rare exceptions, no one NEEDS contact lenses, and it aggravates me no end to see how much this is abused. I’m willing to help them with glasses. You want contact lenses? Pay for them.
It gets better: Medicaid will only pay for eye exams every two years in Virginia, but federal law (don’t get me started) requires that contact lens prescriptions only last one year, unless you can prove medical necessity. You can’t imagine the hollering and tantrums that we hear from Medicaid patients who have run out of contact lenses, the prescription has expired, yet have another year to wait before getting another “free” exam. I am reminded about what my grandfather said when he paid his debts with less than what he owed: “Be glad you got that much.”
“What rubbish. If you Rednecks REALLY cared abou the next generation, you’d pay your bills yourself and NOT saddle your kids with debt. Hell, YOU ran up the debt in the first place.”
I love it when you get in their faces about this! My point of confusion is when I talk to people that talk about decreasing a “margin of debt growth” as a form of fiscal reform. I always thought you reduced the core of the debt when you wanted to reduce it. It’s a form of “fantasy accounting” the government practices. Their math goes like this:
Base year spending 1,000
Next years proposed 1,300Reduction in increase (150)Next years budget net _______of spending reductions 1,150
Somehow this is indicative of reducing spending? I know that is a simplistic example but that’s the way these cretins calculate spending and somehow think they will magically balance the budget over time. It would be comical if it wasn’t such a pathetic situation.
Real leaders don’t blame others or care about their legacy. They lead. They fix. They work with others. I am fed up with politicians and media types who can’t reason with logic and call the Debt what is as, as Mr. Ramirez aptly does – a future killer. As lat as 2002 I was close to 100k in debt, mostly from investing in my own business. I didn’t spend or borrow my way out of debt. I worked within my means. Today I am debt free. I owe nobody a dime. How many of you reading this can honestly say you’re debt free? Our Government certainly can’t.
“…the goal of O… bankrupt America…” I respectfully disagree. The O believes there is NO Debt Crisis. He has fired a lot of advisers that have been wrong too many times. He is wrong again, but to give him credit that he actually has a goal is more than he deserves.
@ Corzak: Okay, 3 responses to my one post. A little unusual, but okay. I’ll play ball. Your first post: I do not deny the elderly are pulling more from SS than they put in. That’s the flaw of the system when it was created. But, at the same time, life expectancy when it was first created was such that people were on SS for only a few years. Now you have elderly living for 20+ years past their retirement point. I personally expect the SS system to bankrupt itself in the next 5-10 years because people refuse to make any sort of structural reform to it. I don’t refute it’s becoming unaffordable for us to keep having SS. But we can’t also, at the same time, yank the rug out from under those who rely on it now. It’s a complex issue for the system, mostly because a lot of those currently on SS failed to plan appropriately for their retirement, and now expect it to be there. But, in fairness to them, they did pay in their entire working lives into the system, so they should be permitted to draw out of it.Second Post: I have never argued against the Iraq or Afghanistan war, and never will. In the entirety of the two wars, in which I participated, we have spent less in 12 years than our government overspends in two and a half years. These were good and just causes, and I’ve seen the positive impact we have had, despite the Media’s attempt at painting them as bad. And I ask the question: Would you rather have us trained warriors fighting and dying 6,000 miles away, or our children dying 500 miles away? The tab for both wars is relatively small compared to our “entitlement” programs. Even the democratic “budget” (and I’m being generous calling it that) projects we’re going to “save” only $240 billion by ending the Afghanistan war in the next decade. That’s less than our government spends in a single month. Also keep this in mind: The federal government is responsible for protecting the nation (it’s enumerated in the Constitution — Common Defense). It is not responsible for providing a retirement plan for people, nor is it responsible for providing free xyz program, especially for illegal immigrants (something that is not enumerated in the Constitution).Third post: What is fair? Your definition of fair is probably skewed. Is it fair because they have more? Why is it fair for you to take which you did not earn? Why is it fair for the government to take from someone who likely mortgaged their home to start a business and found a niche that allowed them to succeed? What’s “fair” enough? 50%? 80%? 100%? How is it fair that just because you didn’t work as hard as them, you can take what isn’t yours? How is it fair that because they put in 90-hour weeks to grow their business that you feel somehow entitled to a piece of their pie?You exemplify the attitude that rubs me frigging raw. You feel justified in demanding something from someone when you did absolutely nothing to earn it. You think it’s not fair that they have money and you don’t. Remember my aforementioned greedy and capricious attitudes? Yeah, you’re a perfect example of it. Just because you don’t have it and they do, you feel like you deserve more of what they have. How dare you? Your actions and beliefs (shared by a large segment of the population) are what are causing the “class warfare” in the first place. You are making it into an “us versus them” thing, and politicians are milking you for all it’s worth. Instead of complaining about it, about how unfair life is (because life is unfair), maybe you should go out and make it happen, just like they did and still do. Then maybe, just maybe, you’ll see what it’s like to earn that much, and will realize just how unfair it is that the top 5% of earners pay half this country’s tab.
And yet no-where did anyone mention what gives them the right to take something did did not earn from another person. What you are asking for is theft, pure and simple. And to answer your question, I am a small business owner (part time) and an auto claims adjuster. I’m not exactly high off the hog.
hypernova about 11 years ago
And the goal of Republicans is to concentrate the wealth in the hands of a few, the rest of us be damned.
They’re both good at their jobs, and we’re all getting screwed either way.
cjkinsey about 11 years ago
Until this comic strip is putting up details of global climate change, any concern about future generations are a fraud.
Chillbilly about 11 years ago
Without the debt, he’s just another third world kid with no education and no rights, living in a land of vast poverty, ignored by a handful of greedy, rich people.
pdchapin about 11 years ago
I’d rather inherit a big debt and have a good education and a viable infrastructure than to be debt-free, ignorant and living in a country that’s falling apart.
Of course, if we raised revenue we could leave them educated, debt-free and with a viable infrastructure.
disgustedtaxpayer about 11 years ago
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/proposed-dem-budget-increases-spending-62-over-next-decade_707579.html
the President’s budget was legally due the first of February.the Democrat Senate budget (missing the last 4 years) is released by the Dem.Chair of the Budget Committee….the url above is an analysis article of 10 years of Democrat’s spending plans….annual increases from FY 2013 $3.6 Trillion to FY 2023 $5.7 Trillion….an increase of spending of 62% between the 2013 total and the 2023 total. This article does not compute the INCREASE IN THE DEBT, or give the annual deficit estimates.-IMO America cannot afford the Democrat budgets.-(and I was complaining that Ryan’s Budget allowed a 3.4% increase! I believe the GOP must recalculate for annual DECREASES in spending)
d_legendary1 about 11 years ago
When Dems are in charge: Scream about the debt because its the biggest problem we have. Won’t someone think of the children?
When Republicans are in charge: What debt?
locoboilerguy about 11 years ago
Wouldn’t it be fun to just tear the whole thing down and start over again.
Stormrider2112 about 11 years ago
http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-things-politicians-will-never-understand-about-poor-people/-91% of people on federal assistance a. work, b. are elderly, or c. are disabled. 66% of children living in poverty have at least one working parent. 84% of people living in poverty have at least one working member in their household. Facts cited in the article.-Also, the vast majority of charities can’t even handle what is donated to them well enough. It takes a higher overhead to run a good, large-scale charity. Do some research on inner city food banks and how much work goes into actually getting things done.
Mickey 13 about 11 years ago
This brings to mind a quote on Democracy:
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”― Alexis de Tocqueville
DavidGBA about 11 years ago
Take pity on us whose savings are inflationed away, not the kids who pay our debt with inflated dollars.
disgustedtaxpayer about 11 years ago
mickey1339 said, about 2 hours agoThis brings to mind a quote on Democracy:“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury….."-Thank you, mickey!but IMO it is the majority of voters, not the minority I have been voting with since Ike’s re-election; we vote for the conservatives who lose elections to liberals promising “freebies” from the Public Treasury, PLUS the D and R party members, and the long list of Presidents who passed and signed legislation authorizing To The Moon Spending “budgets”!-The MSM also aided and abetted and promoted every Liberal Spending scheme….and leads the screams if any official says “let’s cut” even when it isn’t a cut of the total spending!D.C. must be full of “creative accountants” that violate every rule of honest bookkeeping! For years “cuts” mean only a lower amount of INCREASED SPENDING.-We need a Vaccine preventing lying, for every person elected to run government. Every congressional Hearing should require a shot of Truth Serum just before testimonies. It would also help if candidates for office were required to take the Truth Serum…….
Fuzzy Thinker Premium Member about 11 years ago
Obama has come out of the Closet: “There is no Debt Crisis”. .He believes this. To him, this is truth..If consequences happen, complainers will be blamed..His supporters will drink the Jonestown kool-aid, too..Nero fiddled while Rome burned. History repeats itself.
I Play One On TV about 11 years ago
@wraithkin:
Good post. Thanks. I think most people on both sides of the fence, if they are rational thinking people and not knee-jerk finger-pointers, would agree with at least most of your post.
The problem that I see is that this system of “advisors” telling people to earn less so they can keep benefits, etc., is so well-entrenched. Although it may be happening everywhere, I am sure that this is not written in any policy manuals. (At least I would like to be sure….)
Although it could be addressed by cabinet-level or higher personnel, as it should be, it still remains up to the local offices to police their own. Since very few civil servants leave their jobs, chances are that a lot of locals are just propping up “their own”, rather than following directions. So everyone in management has to be “re-educated” to make sure that everyone under management’s purview is following the rules.
I don’t know about welfare. I was out of work for a couple of months, and despite my advanced degree, I was awarded the maximum of $385 per month in unemployment. Although I am not complaining, I can tell you that this does not begin to cover most obligations entered into when I was more flush (the mortgage, for example). If I had had to depend on it long-term, I would have lost everything. Welfare may indeed be more generous, and I think disability is even more flexible; and I agree, there are too many non-disabled people receiving disability benefits.
I believe there should be a thorough review of standards for qualifying. I believe that there should be a maximum number of months of assistance available, and a maximum number of times that assistance can be granted. I believe all managers should be required to ensure that their people know the rules, and that there will be disciplinary action if rules are intentionally broken.
I believe most people who need assistance will only need it for moderate periods of time, assuming we have a decent job market. Those who want benefits to last beyond their lifetimes should have to realize this is temporary; a help, not a handout.
Your idea of removing the right to vote is a good one on the surface. It would help to know if a) welfare cheats really do vote at all (it is, after all, a responsibility, and welfare cheats are not likely to be responsible) and b) what to do about convicted felons, since nothing would change if their right to vote was suspended. I know that there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that cheats will vote for “free stuff” but I have no statistical proof that they bother to vote.
And, again, there is such stupid stuff. I understand you can’t get a job if you can’t see, so i don’t have a problem helping Medicaid patients. But in Virginia, Medicaid beneficiaries get help for contact lens fees. In my opinion, with rare exceptions, no one NEEDS contact lenses, and it aggravates me no end to see how much this is abused. I’m willing to help them with glasses. You want contact lenses? Pay for them.
It gets better: Medicaid will only pay for eye exams every two years in Virginia, but federal law (don’t get me started) requires that contact lens prescriptions only last one year, unless you can prove medical necessity. You can’t imagine the hollering and tantrums that we hear from Medicaid patients who have run out of contact lenses, the prescription has expired, yet have another year to wait before getting another “free” exam. I am reminded about what my grandfather said when he paid his debts with less than what he owed: “Be glad you got that much.”
Mickey 13 about 11 years ago
“What rubbish. If you Rednecks REALLY cared abou the next generation, you’d pay your bills yourself and NOT saddle your kids with debt. Hell, YOU ran up the debt in the first place.”
I love it when you get in their faces about this! My point of confusion is when I talk to people that talk about decreasing a “margin of debt growth” as a form of fiscal reform. I always thought you reduced the core of the debt when you wanted to reduce it. It’s a form of “fantasy accounting” the government practices. Their math goes like this:
Base year spending 1,000
Next years proposed 1,300Reduction in increase (150)Next years budget net _______of spending reductions 1,150
Somehow this is indicative of reducing spending? I know that is a simplistic example but that’s the way these cretins calculate spending and somehow think they will magically balance the budget over time. It would be comical if it wasn’t such a pathetic situation.
Davit_O Premium Member about 11 years ago
Real leaders don’t blame others or care about their legacy. They lead. They fix. They work with others. I am fed up with politicians and media types who can’t reason with logic and call the Debt what is as, as Mr. Ramirez aptly does – a future killer. As lat as 2002 I was close to 100k in debt, mostly from investing in my own business. I didn’t spend or borrow my way out of debt. I worked within my means. Today I am debt free. I owe nobody a dime. How many of you reading this can honestly say you’re debt free? Our Government certainly can’t.
Fuzzy Thinker Premium Member about 11 years ago
“…the goal of O… bankrupt America…” I respectfully disagree. The O believes there is NO Debt Crisis. He has fired a lot of advisers that have been wrong too many times. He is wrong again, but to give him credit that he actually has a goal is more than he deserves.
trm about 11 years ago
Thanks to the leadership of Comrade Obozo, how good a nearly-bankrupt government feels!
Dtroutma about 11 years ago
Yes, the legacy of Reaganomics, that folks like Cheney, Rove, and Paul Ryan only want to make worse.
Wraithkin about 11 years ago
@ Corzak: Okay, 3 responses to my one post. A little unusual, but okay. I’ll play ball. Your first post: I do not deny the elderly are pulling more from SS than they put in. That’s the flaw of the system when it was created. But, at the same time, life expectancy when it was first created was such that people were on SS for only a few years. Now you have elderly living for 20+ years past their retirement point. I personally expect the SS system to bankrupt itself in the next 5-10 years because people refuse to make any sort of structural reform to it. I don’t refute it’s becoming unaffordable for us to keep having SS. But we can’t also, at the same time, yank the rug out from under those who rely on it now. It’s a complex issue for the system, mostly because a lot of those currently on SS failed to plan appropriately for their retirement, and now expect it to be there. But, in fairness to them, they did pay in their entire working lives into the system, so they should be permitted to draw out of it.Second Post: I have never argued against the Iraq or Afghanistan war, and never will. In the entirety of the two wars, in which I participated, we have spent less in 12 years than our government overspends in two and a half years. These were good and just causes, and I’ve seen the positive impact we have had, despite the Media’s attempt at painting them as bad. And I ask the question: Would you rather have us trained warriors fighting and dying 6,000 miles away, or our children dying 500 miles away? The tab for both wars is relatively small compared to our “entitlement” programs. Even the democratic “budget” (and I’m being generous calling it that) projects we’re going to “save” only $240 billion by ending the Afghanistan war in the next decade. That’s less than our government spends in a single month. Also keep this in mind: The federal government is responsible for protecting the nation (it’s enumerated in the Constitution — Common Defense). It is not responsible for providing a retirement plan for people, nor is it responsible for providing free xyz program, especially for illegal immigrants (something that is not enumerated in the Constitution).Third post: What is fair? Your definition of fair is probably skewed. Is it fair because they have more? Why is it fair for you to take which you did not earn? Why is it fair for the government to take from someone who likely mortgaged their home to start a business and found a niche that allowed them to succeed? What’s “fair” enough? 50%? 80%? 100%? How is it fair that just because you didn’t work as hard as them, you can take what isn’t yours? How is it fair that because they put in 90-hour weeks to grow their business that you feel somehow entitled to a piece of their pie?You exemplify the attitude that rubs me frigging raw. You feel justified in demanding something from someone when you did absolutely nothing to earn it. You think it’s not fair that they have money and you don’t. Remember my aforementioned greedy and capricious attitudes? Yeah, you’re a perfect example of it. Just because you don’t have it and they do, you feel like you deserve more of what they have. How dare you? Your actions and beliefs (shared by a large segment of the population) are what are causing the “class warfare” in the first place. You are making it into an “us versus them” thing, and politicians are milking you for all it’s worth. Instead of complaining about it, about how unfair life is (because life is unfair), maybe you should go out and make it happen, just like they did and still do. Then maybe, just maybe, you’ll see what it’s like to earn that much, and will realize just how unfair it is that the top 5% of earners pay half this country’s tab.
Wraithkin about 11 years ago
And yet no-where did anyone mention what gives them the right to take something did did not earn from another person. What you are asking for is theft, pure and simple. And to answer your question, I am a small business owner (part time) and an auto claims adjuster. I’m not exactly high off the hog.