Is America's financial collapse inevitable?

[Dan J 277]

The US will probably eventually go bankrupt.

I believe that Congress (and the states of course) needs to amend the Constitution to read that for the President to submit a budget that results in a deficit, the same shall be an impeachable offense.

We did have Budget Enforcement Act in place at one time, but it expired in 2002 and was not renewed. Bush would have not been able to do his tax cuts if it was still in place.

Edited January 15, 2010 by Dan + Gemvita

[Sc0tt28 26]

We did have Budget Enforcement Act in place at one time, but it expired in 2002 and was not renewed. Bush would have not been able to do his tax cuts if it was still in place.

Yeah, but it didn't actually hold any weight. They still had deficits when the law was in effect.

Excerpt from the Declaration of Independence - "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"

I don't think anyone would disagree that the government has spent so much as to be described "destructive to its own end". The only problem is to abolish it would of course be treason. To alter it (via elections) is much less bloody but getting everyone to go along with it is the hard part.

[Dan J 277]

Yeah, but it didn't actually hold any weight. They still had deficits when the law was in effect.

Excerpt from the Declaration of Independence - "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"

I don't think anyone would disagree that the government has spent so much as to be described "destructive to its own end". The only problem is to abolish it would of course be treason. To alter it (via elections) is much less bloody but getting everyone to go along with it is the hard part.

There are times when deficit spending is justified. And there are times when its not.

Its OK for the government to spend money at a deficit when getting out of a recession, as long as its paid back when the economy recovers. The problem is we are pretty bad at doing the second part. Whenever the government has extra money, its politically benifical to those in power to just give money back to the tax payer or cut taxes, instead of paying down debt and or building cash reserve.

[Cheryl & Medo 3]

http://www.teapartyexpress.org/home/

Don't just complain about the spending......DO something about it........There is 300 million people here and just ONE goverment.

Check out the link I posted

[Dan J 277]

http://www.teapartyexpress.org/home/

Don't just complain about the spending......DO something about it........There is 300 million people here and just ONE goverment.

Check out the link I posted

The tea party are just opportunists. They didn't form because the government spending is out of control, they formed because Republicans lost control of government. If they were really principled about anything, they would go about forming a real third party.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Democrats: Just raise the debt ceiling and keep on spending!

[Kevin and 10]

The tea party are just opportunists. They didn't form because the government spending is out of control, they formed because Republicans lost control of government. If they were really principled about anything, they would go about forming a real third party.

Really?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[alienlovechild 75]

No suggestion to cut the largest department of them all, DoD. Bombing people is noble, helping the poor, not so much. It's always interesting how fiscal responsibility is only now an issue, when it wasn't during Bush's 8 years in office. Bush had the best opportunity in the last 10 years to get the country in a position with a lot less debt, but he squandered it.

Largest single department maybe, biggest expenditure- no. There's no end to entitlement programs and they will take up a larger share of spending but least even the longest wars end.

Government spending and the economy were way down on liberals' to do list and only an issue in the fall of 2008. Remember Obama ran on the Iraq War as an issue and has no zero experience in economic matters. Obama has outdone Bush's spending so the the Democrats have lost any chance to speak on the subject with any authority now.

Government Spending

in the United States

Fiscal Year 2010

Government Pensions $1.0 trillion

Government Health Care + $1.1 trillion

Government Education + $1.0 trillion

National Defense + $0.9 trillion

Government Welfare + $0.6 trillion

All Other Spending + $1.7 trillion

Total Government Spending = $6.4 trillion

Federal Deficit + $1.3 trillion

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/breakdown

[Dan J 277]

Really?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

The tea party didn't really exist until Obama was elected. Bush made some of the worse spending decisions of any president, but Obama takes more critisim. Deficit spending to get out of a recession can be justified, deficit spending during a growth economy cannot.

The tea party is just a place for people who are just beginning to realize how badly they got screwed. They are finding that their values of hard work means nothing when their job is shipped overseas. Even though most of that was caused by mostly business and investors, many of whom are Republican, anger is direct at democrats not because of economic values, but because they are currently in power, and because for many of the affected group, they don't find the same social values.

[Dan J 277]

Largest single department maybe, biggest expenditure- no. There's no end to entitlement programs and they will take up a larger share of spending but least even the longest wars end.

Government spending and the economy were way down on liberals' to do list and only an issue in the fall of 2008. Remember Obama ran on the Iraq War as an issue and has no zero experience in economic matters. Obama has outdone Bush's spending so the the Democrats have lost any chance to speak on the subject with any authority now.

Government Spending

in the United States

Fiscal Year 2010

Government Pensions $1.0 trillion

Government Health Care + $1.1 trillion

Government Education + $1.0 trillion

National Defense + $0.9 trillion

Government Welfare + $0.6 trillion

All Other Spending + $1.7 trillion

Total Government Spending = $6.4 trillion

Federal Deficit + $1.3 trillion

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/breakdown

Those numbers are very misleading, which isn't surprising considering the source features pages about the tea party. Some of the numbers include local/state spending while others do not.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

No suggestion to cut the largest department of them all, DoD. Bombing people is noble, helping the poor, not so much. It's always interesting how fiscal responsibility is only now an issue, when it wasn't during Bush's 8 years in office. Bush had the best opportunity in the last 10 years to get the country in a position with a lot less debt, but he squandered it.

Bush was as big a spendthrift as any politician. The problem is that we expect one breed of pig over another breed of pig to push away from the trough when the pigs control how much food is put into the trough.. It will never happen. You have to stop putting food in the trough, not change the pigs. The only difference is the quantity of pig manure we receive.

Bombong people is the job of the federal government, feeding people is not the job of the federal government. As we see, the federal government is really good at bombing people and really bad at feeding them. After 50 years of the war on poverty, we have more poverty than ever. In the same time we ended the cold war, Viet Nam war, 1st Gulf War, Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Balkans and well into the 2nd Gulf War and Afghanistan. Still the same old war on poverty.

Get the pigs out of most of our business and cut back the feed in the trough. who needs so many pigs anyway?

[Dan J 277]

Bush was as big a spendthrift as any politician. The problem is that we expect one breed of pig over another breed of pig to push away from the trough when the pigs control how much food is put into the trough.. It will never happen. You have to stop putting food in the trough, not change the pigs. The only difference is the quantity of pig manure we receive.

Bombong people is the job of the federal government, feeding people is not the job of the federal government. As we see, the federal government is really good at bombing people and really bad at feeding them. After 50 years of the war on poverty, we have more poverty than ever. In the same time we ended the cold war, Viet Nam war, 1st Gulf War, Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Balkans and well into the 2nd Gulf War and Afghanistan. Still the same old war on poverty.

Get the pigs out of most of our business and cut back the feed in the trough. who needs so many pigs anyway?

Poverty will always exist. Its a reality of the economic system. If the government is to be responsible for its citizen, then it must provide for its poorest.

War/Conflicts, at least the recent ones, have often been by choice instead of necessity. Often driven by those who are to profit most suppling the contractors, ammunition and tools used by the military to conduct the war.

[scandal 951]

But if taxes are off the table, Afghan war costs are inexorably rising and cuts in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and entitlement programs are politically impossible, as pressure builds for a second stimulus, how does one reduce a deficit of $1.4 trillion?

By Patrick J. Buchanan

He's right that touching entitlement programs has always been the third rail of budget restructuring.

But it's also true that it's unavoidable, and the longer we postpone it the more dire the choices become.

I, for one, would be happy to support a change to the normal retirement age at which Social Security benefits are granted.

It's current 67 for anyone born after 1960.

We live longer and healthier lifespans,with typical life expectancy now somewhere in the vicinity of 77 - 79 for males and females.

Long gone are the days when a person would expect to retire, kick around for 2-3 years, and die.

If normal retirement age was bumped to age 70 and SS benefits kicked in at that age we could fix a big chunk of the entitlement gap without defaulting SS entirely.

Similar restructuring to Medicare will be needed as well.

[thongd4me 69]

In a word, yes.

The Daily Reckoning

The Empire of Debt