Forum Thread

Lake Sinclair Topics

(Lake Sinclair Specific)

159 messages

Updated 10/7/2021 12:53:01 PM

Off-Topic

Lakes Online Forum

83,606 messages

Updated 4/30/2024 9:09:31 AM

Boat Maintenance

Lakes Online Forum

5,193 messages

Updated 4/3/2024 3:47:36 AM

Lake Sinclair Fishing

(Lake Sinclair Specific)

2 messages

Updated 7/11/2016 10:27:09 AM

Jokes

Lakes Online Forum

4,169 messages

Updated 4/15/2024 11:05:05 PM

Sports

Lakes Online Forum

4,260 messages

Updated 3/24/2024 9:24:45 AM

Grilling & Recipes

Lakes Online Forum

2,976 messages

Updated 3/20/2024 11:53:43 PM

Tallapoosa River Topics

Lakes Online Forum

98 messages

Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM

Forum Usage Rules

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	The Democrat Debt Downgrade
Date:	8/8/2011 9:27:59 AM

Well things continue to get worse and of course, since the Dems in the Senate and the Messiah blocked meaningful reform to reduce the spending of the federal government while increasing our debt limit, we of course get downgraded by S&P. Can anyone remember the last time we had good news on the economy that didn't get downgraded later? HOPEless and CHANGE for the worse. Can we just get rid of the Messiah and his incompetent administration? Can we just send Dingy Harry Reid back to Minority Leader status? Can we just admit that America took a hope on change and it was a monumental mistake? Even Hound, GF and Archie have wisely stopped being apologists for the most hopeless, feckless and incompetent administration in the last 100 years. Finally Jimmy Carter is starting to look slightly less worthless than before. Rant over..........

Name:	Concerned Xitizen -	Reply
Subject:	The Democrat Debt Downgrade
Date:	8/8/2011 10:57:04 AM

I suggest reading the "research update" provided to the Financial Time by S&P, which says the following:

"have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act."

Now you can agree with S&P or not, but it is hypocritical to say we got downgraded because of President Obama and leave one of the main reasons (the GOP) out.

Name:	Old Crappie -	Reply
Subject:	The Democrat Debt Downgrade
Date:	8/8/2011 11:49:04 AM

Yeah- you're right. The fact that we're $14.4 trillion in debt and going further into debt by $1.4 trillion a year doesn,t have anything to do with it. Can you afford to repay your $51,000 portion of the debt?

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	I don't think so....
Date:	8/8/2011 12:14:48 PM

Not sure where you read this but facts are stubborn things and here are the facts. Democrats originally proposed $0 in spending reductions in their original proposal. S&P and other rating agencies stated before the downgrade that "spending needed to be cut by $4 trillion" in order to provide a credible first step in maintaining our AAA rating. Democrats fought spending reductions every step of the way and in fact, had it not been for "Tea Party" freshmen in the House we would have had zero in cuts and the credit rating drop would have been a fait accompli and likely much worse. Here is the rationale provided by S&P to refute your cherry picking of a single point. By the way, cherry picking doesn't work on this forum....too many educated people. "We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process. We also believe that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the general government debt burden by the middle of the decade." Now let's see, they mention reduction in spending first and for good reason and mention the revenue side more as an afterthought. In 1902 revenue to the Federal government was at ~3% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Today it is running at over 30% of GDP. So under our current tax laws revenues are not the problem, spending is the problem and the GOP did what they could, given only controlling the House to reduce spending. The government takes in way more of our hard earned dollars than they should but they piss it all away like drunken sailors (my apologies to drunken sailors everywhere). The fact is we could greatly improve our debt situation simply by returning to the spending levels of 2006. AS best I can recall, things were pretty good back then and the roof didn't fall in.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	By the way
Date:	8/8/2011 12:36:08 PM

Here are the revenue and spending numbers for the last several years so explain to me how this is a revenue problem. Year Revenue Spending 2007 $2.57 trillion $2.73 trillion 2008 $2.52 trillion $2.98 trillion 2009 $2.11 trillion $3.52 trillion 2010 $2.16 trillion $3.46 trillion 2011 2.17 trillion $3.82 trillion (projected) So let's see, revenues are down by $400 billion since 2007 because of the economy is in recession and spending is up $1.1 trillion but its a revenue problem. Yeah, right......... It looks even more stark as a spending problem the further you go back. If we reduced government spending to 2006 levels when the world didn't come to an abrupt end and instituted some real reform so businesses could again feel confident and hire all would be joyful. That can't happen with the Messiah in the White House and Dems controlling the Senate. By the way, these are OMB numbers.

Name:	Barneget -	Reply
Subject:	The Democrat Debt Downgrade
Date:	8/8/2011 1:02:40 PM

The majority of Republicans resisted raising taxes. The majority of Republicans wanted measurable spending cuts. The same Republicans in Congress have actually passed a budget, as required by the US Constitution. MaObama submitted a budget calling for increased spending without any new taxes, and it was promptly voted down, in a true bipartisan fashion, by the US Senate, 97-0. That same US Senate has failed to pass a budget of its own for nearly 850 days, and is well satisfied with institutionalizing MaObama's FAILED stimulus. Where did S&P lay the blame for the downgrade of Fannie and Freddie bonds, and what role did they, S&P play in the overexposure? Where does the blame lie for the downgrade in USDA bonds? I too am a concerned citizen, concerned about the future of my family, my business, my country. The party in control of the White House and US Senate isn't concerned about me, or mine, as we are not democrap fund raising execs at Goldman, we did not invade from south of the border, we are not union radicals, we are not employed by the government at any level, not transgendered or some other protected class, nor do we receive direct housing, food, medical, education or cell phone subsidies. We just work hard daily to earn a living, pay down personal and business debt, pay our "fair share" to an ineffective beauracracy, and set a little aside for when Social Security won't be there. Unfortunately for me, mine, and the millions like us, MaObamas efforts to fundamentally transform this nation have been successful to the point that providing for a family, paying down debt, buying more ammo, and setting a little aside have each become much more difficult. These downgrades compound the problem. So, S&P is right in the sense that it is a Republican problem, as we, the producers, are now nearly exclusively tasked with the accumulated debt repayment.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	And finally....
Date:	8/8/2011 1:04:06 PM

Can you explain to me who is responsible for the lack of revenue? Even when Democrats controlled the White House and had super majorities in both the House and the Senate for two years in a row not only didn't they raise taxes they didn't even pass a budget! Talk about fiscal irresponsibility. And then when the GOP does the right thing and provides specific plans that will restore fiscal sanity you call me a hypocrite?!?!? Pot....meet kettle..... Even the Messiah's so-called budget, such as it was, didn't get any support in the Senate from either party it was so irresponsible.. Even worse, the lower revenue numbers were caused by the housing meltdown resulting from government distortion of the credit markets. These programs were protected and expanded by the Dems so in fact they are also responsible for the revenue reductions. I could go on and on and would educate you on all this but I have done so in the forum elsewhere for you to find. Now you can see why Archie only drives by with his libtard comments......

Name:	Barneget -	Reply
Subject:	And finally....
Date:	8/8/2011 1:07:48 PM

Archie only posts when his meds run out....

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	The Democrat Debt Downgrade
Date:	8/8/2011 1:25:21 PM

OK, I'll play your game.

Here is another quote:

"We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the
prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related
fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the
growth in public spending, especially on entitlements...is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process."

OK, so I left a little out to try to make a point.

And you left a LOT out.

So are you GF or Archie with a new moniker?

For those interested in a fair and balanced review of the Financial Times article here is the URL:

http://www.ft.com/cms/af2c4fac-bfc2-11e0-90d5-00144feabdc0.pdf

URL: Financial Times S&P Research Update

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	The Democrat Debt Downgrade
Date:	8/8/2011 1:57:11 PM

MrHodja: Most likely he intentionally left out the "..." in order to try to mislead us. Sadly, he now knows that we are way too intelligent to let him get away with that. I had not considered it was a new alias for Archie or GF. I just thought we had a new poster who needed some education.....

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	The Democrat Debt Downgrade
Date:	8/8/2011 2:47:45 PM

Well, the poster said I should read the article in the Financial Times so I did. One could very easily read the statement about the Republicans not raising taxes as a fact - there was no "spin" at all as to whether the Republican position was good or not.

The point CX, GF, et al miss is it is the Dems' egregious increases in spending that got us where we are...so why should the Republicans reward bad behavior?

And now the libs are all blaming the Tea Party. Heck, I think they should thank the Tea Party for protecting them from themselves.

Name:	rude evin -	Reply
Subject:	With all due respect...........
Date:	8/8/2011 4:37:35 PM

to some great posts, I think you guys may be at a too macro level.........let's approach this issue at the Federal Budget 101 level.

Let's remove 8 zeros from the numbers from the Fed budget and make this the house hold budget for CX:

Total income for the CX family $21,700
Total money CX family spent $38,200
Amount of new debt to credit card    $16,500
O/S balance on credit card    $142,710
Amount cut from budget by CX $    385
to impress his banker

So yeah CX needs to bring more greenbacks in...........get another job making $16,500 so he can continue his spending way...........and then he needs to get 3 or 4 more jobs so he can begin to pay back his credit cards.......poor ol CX ain't gonna last long..........

Name:	Tall Cotton -	Reply
Subject:	With all due respect...........
Date:	8/8/2011 5:08:08 PM

Rude, Dave Ramsey laid out what ruined our credit rating. • "If the US Government was a family, they would be making $58,000 a year, they spend $75,000 a year, & are $327,000 in credit card debt. They are currently proposing “BIG” spending cuts to reduce their spending to $72,000 a year. These are the actual proportions of the federal budget & debt, reduced to a level that we can understand." - Dave Ramsey
Should a family in this situation expect to be considered a great credit risk? I think not! And to your point, you can't work long enough or hard enough to cover the shortfall and service the debt, much less reduce it. At some point you have to live below your means to make headway on the debt.

Name:	Concerned Xitizen -	Reply
Subject:	With all due respect...........
Date:	8/8/2011 5:20:48 PM

Ya'll sighted the S&P credit rating change and I just quoted the report verbatim. If you don't put any stock in S&P's credit rating then it seems there is no point in caring if er are downgraded or not. If you do then it would seem apropo to read some of the reasons why they said it was downgraded and the Republicans decision to oppose all revenue increases is one of the several reasons they mentioned. Just feel like they deserve some of the blame, bot excusing the Democrats wholesale mismanagement if the budgetary process the past year (in particular).

P.S. There shouldn't have been a "..." I just left off the "We" that should have been there on accident.

Name:	water_watcher -	Reply
Subject:	The Democrat Debt Downgrade
Date:	8/8/2011 5:22:30 PM

GF ... I also saw an interview this sunday of S&P and they said that if the first bill the house passed that included a balance budget amendment passed, they would not have cut the rating reguardless of the budget cuts since they feel the states will ratify. They were then asked would the raise the rating if a balanced budget amendment passes and their response was it would definitely make a difference and would be looked at very closely.

This is now a time for Obama to lead and work with the republicans and get this fixed and stop with the class warfare that does nothing to solve the problem.

I posted this before .... if Obama raised the taxes to 100% on those making over $250K (or as he likes to say the millionares and billionares - what a joke) ... in other words every penny made goes to the government ... it would only cut this years deficit by 45%.

So lets get real .... it is a spending problem, not a revenue problem. He and the other dems can talk about oil company tax breaks and corporate jets, etc ... those talking points only make a difference to ignorant people ... from solving the problem it does nothing.

In fact his tax payers paid "bus tour" is a bigger waste.

Name:	water_watcher -	Reply
Subject:	With all due respect...........
Date:	8/8/2011 5:33:40 PM

Now jellyfish ... regardless of what you read ... you need to try and use common sense ... as many have pointed out ... it is not a tax problem, it is a spending problem. Now if your taxes went up, would you spend more or less? Assuming you said less .... would that help or hurt the economy by giving the government more of your revenue? Now if it would hurt the economy, do you think that would help or hurt job creation?

Now I know this concept is difficult for a small mind like yours ... but try to understand and stop making a fool out of yourself.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	With all due respect...........
Date:	8/8/2011 5:36:59 PM

Rude: I don't disagree with your analysis except to say that there are three ways to balance a budget. Cut expenditures, increase revenue or a combination of the two. As I pointed out in my previous post for every dollar of lost revenue we have had almost three dollars in increased spending. In my house when revenue drops I immediately look to reduce expenditures, particularly when I have over borrowed and can't get access to or don't want to take on additional debt. We don't have a revenue problem that can't be fixed by a better economy, we have a spending problem that is only going to get worse. Obama and the big government leftists want to spend more to create more dependence on government to create continual electoral success for Dems. If we keep going this way we will become like the Europeans where the difference between liberals and conservatives is how much largesse to give away, not fiscal responsibility versus irresponsibility. And we will very quickly be resigned to accepting 10% unemployment, debt crises every time there is a hiccup in the economy and the ultimate and most highly prized and sought after job will be with the government, just like the Europe of today.

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	With all due respect...........
Date:	8/8/2011 5:38:14 PM

OK, so I looked an found the two places the report mentions Republicans. Here they are, in context

"Republicans and Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on
discretionary spending while delegating to the Select Committee decisions on more comprehensive measures"

"Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act."

Please read the quote carefully, especially the part that says "a position we believe Congress (emphasis added) reinforced by passing the act." Last time I checked Congress consists of the House and the Senate, only one of which is controlled by the Republican party. So basically they revised these projections for something that won't happen for almost a year and a half.

I still maintain that we shouldn't raise taxes to pay for the Democratic Congress' intransigencies as they try to buy votes with their entitlement programs.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	That is NOT what it says
Date:	8/8/2011 5:38:47 PM

You are misreading what they said. If you read the entire rationale it mentions the spending first. How can you restate a view that has been demonstrated to be wrong? Its mind boggling.

Name:	4691 -	Reply
Subject:	Debt and Spending Problem
Date:	8/8/2011 6:36:33 PM

I am becoming more convinced that the U.S. may soon pass a financial tipping point if there is not a major change made as a result of the 2012 elections. The downgrade is nothing compared to what is to follow unless spending is cut significantly. Does anyone actually believe cutting $2.5T or even $4T over 10 years is going to solve the problem long-term?

Name:	Concerned Xitizen -	Reply
Subject:	With all due respect...........
Date:	8/8/2011 7:29:54 PM

I think the first part of your quote emphasizes my original point,

Name:	Concerned Xitizen -	Reply
Subject:	That is NOT what it says
Date:	8/8/2011 7:30:45 PM

I was just trying to say that there is plenty of blame to go around and that they didn't just blame spending. Nowhere did I say it wasn't a problem.

Name:	Mack -	Reply
Subject:	Suppose for Just a Minute That>>
Date:	8/8/2011 7:39:14 PM

every member of Congress, the Pres, their staffs, the Pentagon,,,, everybody in DC got sprayed by a magic Fairy Dust that made them ALL, every one of them, Motivated to work on this big problem?? (I know, just give it a rest)
There is a problem with revenue, but the bigger problem is Spending. Right?? Solve the Spending Problem first.

The quickest answer in the Business world is to cut Payroll. For the Business world, the last 3 years of recession has pretty much trimmed off most of any fat, thus the Unemployment rate. DC added payroll at the same time.
So, given the tranquilized state of Congress/DC,, where do they cut spending?? Specifics, not rhetoric.

The big targets are Social Security, Medicare and Defense? Homeland Security? Welfare. Many others.
How do they cut these necessities and "entitlement programs" in a way that makes sense?

A proposal for an all Republican DC will not wash. The "Spend Money You Don't Have" disease has been around for more than 40 years, involving both parties. I am a registered Republican, and I ain't happy for 2012,,,,, Yet! I think bashing Obama ain't gonna' work either. A Demo candidate with the RIGHT Answers could sweep it.

Answer my question. What SPECIFIC CUTS in spending could be made to at least begin to reverse this slide toward financial disaster?

Name:	rude evin -	Reply
Subject:	Suppose for Just a Minute That>>
Date:	8/8/2011 7:52:46 PM

Not smart enough or knowledgable enough to give a cogent answer...........however, go to www.nationalreview.com and look for the Charles Krauhammer article "The Solution"............he has an interesting take on how this could be achieved IF rational people were involved.................unfortunately I think it's going to take a land slide election in the Pres race and the Congress for some of this to get done. I'm against one party ever controlling our gov't again.

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	Suppose for Just a Minute That>>
Date:	8/8/2011 10:04:26 PM

You have a point there. I was utterly dismayed when Newt and his gang took over, then promptly started spending like there was no tomorrow.

The only way a one party congress and president would work would be if they all had Tea Party motivations...put some common sense into Government...it could well be that Herman Cain's time has come. No nonsense, no political Bovine Shinola, just do what makes business sense.

As to Social Security, raising the age of eligibility a year or two could make a huge difference. Many SS eligible people like me are still working and plan to do so for at least several more years. I think it was Hound that said "well, not everyone is as fortunate as you to be able to work and have a job". That is true, so if hardship can be shown, let them go ahead and start. But right now I could - if I wanted - start drawing Social Security, but I don't need to. Make Social Security eligibility under, say 70 years, needs-based.

Medicare is another entitlement that should be looked at. Although I have health insurance coverage through my company, I am still eligible for Medicare Part B. Maybe I shouldn't be.

Finally, a good deal could be saved if the Government would expect more of its citizens...right now it seems the Government promotes eligibility to Government programs. Maybe the attitude should be changed so that requests for assistance are met with a jaundiced eye...for instance that requests for SSI "crazy checks" must meet a higher standard instead of a teenage daughter who urinates all over herself when her mother tells the case worker that the daughter pees uncontrollably.

End of ramble....

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	That is not what you said
Date:	8/9/2011 8:59:41 AM

What you said was that S&P blamed the GOP and I was a hypocrite for blaming Obama and the Dems. Go read your initial post and you will see what I mean. My point is that we do not have a revenue problem. The federal government takes in way more than it needs to do what it ought to do. Over the last 30 years Democrats and way too many Republicans have expanded the scope and size of the federal government and it needs to be pared back. Go look at the Ryan plan and you will see a detailed plan that not only controls government spending but doesn't take any more hard earned money from the productive to give to the parasitic class. Look at what the GOP tried to do in the House with the Cut, Cap and Balance legislation that Dingy Harry Reid and the Dems in the Senate blocked. These are real reforms that do what needs to be done to reign in an out of control federal government. All blocked by Democrats. So there is plenty of blame to go around but 95% of it goes to the Democrats in the Senate and the Messiah. And you can see how the markets have responded to their blocking of meaningful reform and Obama's pathetic speech. Try this on for size, do a google search for "Obama blames". There are hundreds of articles because he cannot accept responsibility for his failed policies and hard working Americans are suffering everyday because of him.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Suppose for Just a Minute That>>
Date:	8/9/2011 9:35:20 AM

We need to be realistic about where the real issues are. It is not defense spending. That only represents ~6% of GDP. Where we have real problems is with Social Security, Medicare/Medicade and Obamacare, but mostly the first two. These so-called entitlements are what is driving us off the financial cliff. If we can address these then modest cuts in the others would be all that is necessary. First of all, I would allow those under the age of 55 to leave the social security system altogether and would not change anything for those over 55. That is essentially the Ryan plan but Dems have already lied about it to scare seniors. For those under 55, I would allow them to keep 2/3rds of their FICA and put it into a private plan with the understanding that they will not participate in Social Security. I would take that deal in a heartbeat and that would free up a tremendous amount of cash, much of which would likely go to equities which would be a huge boost to the markets. The second thing I would do is to gradually raise the retirement age (i.e., the age you are eligible to draw SS benefits) to 70. It would take 5 to 10 years to complete this transition. Given the increase in life expectancy most people that are not financially well off work long beyond age 65 anyway. Based on the projections I have seen these two very reasonable steps would make the Social Security system solvent. On Medicare, I would means test access to this program and make it for the most part a catastrophic insurance program. I would also privatize as much of it as possible and reduce the inefficient government bureaucracy. If you look at demographic data, those over age 60 are the wealthiest population group. Why do we have struggling young families paying for the health care of the wealthiest segment of society, including people like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates? They should pay for their routine care and insurance should pay for catastrophic care. If they can afford it there are plenty of gap policies that they can buy if so inclined. On Obamacare, it should be repealed in its entirety as a majority of Americans want and replaced with targeted, sensible reforms to address the bigger issues with our health care system. This is obviously a simplistic explanation but reforming these two programs and repealing Obamacare will go a long way to solving our spending problems. Until Democrats give up the scare tactics to achieve their electoral goals there is no way we can effectively reform any of these entitlement programs. That is the only reason why we need the Tea Party inspired GOP to control the House, Senate and the WH. Otherwise it will never happen. And even with them controlling the federal government it may not happen.....but at least there is a hope.

Name:	Barneget -	Reply
Subject:	o blame search
Date:	8/9/2011 11:02:02 AM

Thousands of articles on hundreds of issues...... For shots and grins, google obama "unexpectedly" and scan results. The pattern becomes clear. Unaccountable academics (including MaObama) should have their sphere of influence limited to campuses and fluff committees, never again as advisors to the executive branch of government. Hell, we should keep them 11 feet away from the courts and congress too.

Name:	4691 -	Reply
Subject:	Suppose for Just a Minute That>>
Date:	8/9/2011 7:32:27 PM

Would that 2/3's be made up of the total contribution by the individual and by the employer on behalf of the employee? If so, that might sound like a good plan. But in order to pay all the people that opt out of SS, wouldn't the government need to borrow more money from China or maybe just print more?

Name:	Mack -	Reply
Subject:	Suppose for Just a Minute That>>
Date:	8/10/2011 7:25:45 PM

Good question. And the answer is? Won't work. There is no balance in the SS Fund. What comes in today is shipped out the next.

Quick Links
Lake Sinclair News
Lake Sinclair Photos
Lake Sinclair Videos