Republicans add a trillion dollars to national debt: Well, the "balanced budget" that conservatives and republicans always bray about isn't about to happen with this group of...

DJRich Loc: Western Pa

Well, the "balanced budget" that conservatives and republicans always bray about isn't about to happen with this group of republicans in the house.

A trillion dollars that the next president, whoever that is, will get blamed for by the idiots and the uninformed.

It is obvious that the republicans are the real big spenders and have no idea of fiscal restraint when it comes to buying votes.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/5/house-republicans-adding-to-debt-as-balanced-budge/

Zyro0713

What are they spending it to purchase? Social security has been attacked illegally for years. Social services programs have become rudimentary sinkholes.
National security.., well, I need not go there.

I wonder if Perry would have carried the same blame that has been laid onto Obama, if he had been elected?

We need solutions, not more blame-laying and political posturing! Damn people; don't you get it? We are sinking, and it's getting serious!

Dummy Boy Loc: Michigan

Zyro0713 wrote:

What are they spending it to purchase? Social security has been attacked illegally for years. Social services programs have become rudimentary sinkholes.
National security.., well, I need not go there.

I wonder if Perry would have carried the same blame that has been laid onto Obama, if he had been elected?

We need solutions, not more blame-laying and political posturing! Damn people; don't you get it? We are sinking, and it's getting serious!

This isn't a political issue....I assume this is what you are saying...unfortunately: we voted for politicians. Regardless, of the innate common sense the voting blocks may seem to possess, politics kicks that to the side of the road, until the end of the road is blocked.

What are your solutions?

My home state has struggled with communities that have attempted bankruptcy. Due to the fact that bankruptcies at the government level tend to destroy any borrowing capability: the bankruptcies are managed by a finance director and the political nonsense gets shunted until a budget can be created for community necessities. That is my solution, no politics, every budget will be right sized, every job in Washington will be deleted as necessary to correct spending. It will be a business "exit" or to your point, "let's stop looking over the edge and get back to safer ground."

JMHO Loc: Utah

DJRich wrote:

It is obvious that the republicans are the real big spenders and have no idea of fiscal restraint when it comes to buying votes.

True, both sides are guilty of deficit spending and running up the national debt, but your attempt to make the Republicans "THE BIGGEST SPENDERS" doesn't hold water. Obama has ran up $7 trillion in deficit spending in just 5-1/2 years, the most of any president in history. And, Bush would be second, with $5 trillion in eight years. If interest rates climb just a couple points, the interest on the national debt will be larger than the military defense budget.

Both sides need to restrain spending. I would start with eliminating some government Departments (Obamacare, HUD, NEA, EPA, Education, Homeland Security, etc.) and reform entitlement programs (SS, Medicare, Welfare, Food Stamps, etc.) turn the power back to the states.

Dummy Boy Loc: Michigan

JMHO wrote:

True, both sides are guilty of deficit spending an... (show quote)

...and what states do with SSA benefits?

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

Dummy Boy wrote:

This isn't a political issue....I assume this is w... (show quote)

A balanced budget means no deficit spending (borrowing). To balance a budget, you need to know what the income is. That is a question Congress NEVER asks. The conservatives would have a budget that contained only a few items; defense spending, federal retirement, Congressional expenses ( including increases in staffing and a raise ) and 25% for " discretionary" funds ( political payback slush fund ). There would be NO domestic spending.

As long as borrowed money continues to be traded for votes on personal agendas, neither party is in a position to do anything different. There WAS a balanced budget amendment under Clinton. The Congress began dismantling it after he was gone, until none even remember it anymore. Where there is a will to "get mine", there is a way to rationalize it, on the backs of middle America.

JMHO Loc: Utah

Dummy Boy wrote:

...and what states do with SSA benefits?

Okay, we're now going to cherry pick, and nit pick...blah, blah, blah. Like a vulture sitting on a limb...get a life.

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

JMHO wrote:

True, both sides are guilty of deficit spending an... (show quote)

I know entitlement programs are the "step child" of the budget and popular themes for conservatives trying to get emotions involved. The truth is, those programs only account for 12% of the budget, a hardly significant amount, so should be considered LAST.

It is VERY true that there are entire Departments that could be eliminated, such as DHS, ATF, DEA, USDA and EDU. Many of those functions are duplicated and could be rolled into others ( IE: USDA into FDA, DHS, ATF, DEA into FBI ). Each current bureau, agency or department needs a lot of "fat" trimming, as there is a LOT of waste at the top, with 1000's "retired in place".

Dummy Boy Loc: Michigan

lpnmajor wrote:

A balanced budget means no deficit spending (borro... (show quote)

Again: we explore that question via a bankruptcy procedure-that way politics are out of the picture. The sovereign wealth funds that fund our ever ballooning budget needs to challenge our president personally, which will not only destroy him politically but put a great deal of pressure on voters to force this task. There are no more options from middle America to pay for this: case in point, creditors are trying to go after art at Detroit Institute for the Arts and still only covers 25% of the bill. Does the US have 17 Trillion in Assets-No.

alex Loc: michigan now imperial beach californa

DJRich wrote:

Well, the "balanced budget" that conserv... (show quote)

do you idiots ever read the garbage you print, the house makes up only 1/3 of our govt. they can't pass a thing without the approval of the other 2/3

Dummy Boy Loc: Michigan

JMHO wrote:

Okay, we're now going to cherry pick, and nit pick...blah, blah, blah. Like a vulture sitting on a limb...get a life.

Why are you being such a jackass? SSA benefits cost 800 billion annually-Is the SSA going to go away and the states get the money. I'm all for that I guess, but you're just pushing costs up by allowing states to administer the benefits, since they aren't set up for it.

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

Dummy Boy wrote:

Why are you being such a jackass? SSA benefits cost 800 billion annually-Is the SSA going to go away and the states get the money. I'm all for that I guess, but you're just pushing costs up by allowing states to administer the benefits, since they aren't set up for it.

The SSA is funded by it's own tax. The only expense on the Federal budget are the "buy back" of treasury bonds the idiot Congress forces SSA to purchase with that tax money. The attempt to do away with SSA, is an attempt by the Congress to default on it's financial obligations to 300,000,000 Americans, who did what they were told to do.

alex Loc: michigan now imperial beach californa

Dummy Boy wrote:

Why are you being such a jackass? SSA benefits cost 800 billion annually-Is the SSA going to go away and the states get the money. I'm all for that I guess, but you're just pushing costs up by allowing states to administer the benefits, since they aren't set up for it.

s/s was never a state function but welfare is and the federal govt. needs to get out of it