First and foremost, Greece got itself into its present sticky financial situation due to severe austerity. Simply, they thought not spending money along with severe spending cuts was the correct path. It was not.

How to put our fiscal house in order? As usual you want a 100% fix to a complex problem. Nonetheless, I would begin by cutting spending by eliminating spending that does not benefit the nation as a whole. I.e., subsides to big oil and farm subsidies as two examples.

As I said there are no 100% answer to a complex problem. One economist suggested that one quick fix would be to cut all spending by around 42%. That would work for you I am sure -- until military spending was included in that number.

Business as usual? You seemed comfortable with that when Bush and the GOP took a balanced budget and money in the bank and turned it into a recession.

You know, I have to wonder where you get information from.

Greece got itself into its present sticky financial situation due to spending money it didn't have over an extended period of time. The only people who seem to disagree that financial austerity is the solution to the disaster they spent themselves into are those who believe that spending worthless paper somehow keeps an economy afloat. The IMF, World Bank, and the people who are actually stuck financing this disaster that Greece has spent itself into are all in favor of austerity. Now, the people of Greece don't like it much. But then again, they've been living beyond their means for a decade or more.

Not at all unlike the United States.

That is funny you talk about the balanced budget in the 90's but you want to keep on Obama's plan of spending over a trillion dollars a year above what is taken in. We need spending cuts far more then a rise in taxes but I say we go 3 fold: Spending cuts across the board including defense, Cut loopholes in the tax code caped at 50,000, and tax hike back up to 39.6.

If you really want to do it right you scrape the tax code and put the FairTax plan into action. It's the closes to a fair plan then anything else out there.

The debt ceiling involves money the country plans to borrow and spend in the future.


It's more like borrowing  $50,000.00 on your credit card and getting angry because they won't give you a $60,000.00 limit while you spend $140 for every $100 you earn after already agreeing you won't go past $50,000.00 and with no sign of any increasing earning potential. (flat GDP growth)






U.S. GDP vs. Revenue vs. Spending
http://www.thestreet.com/stock-market-n … nding.html

Let us not forget that it isn't that many years ago that we had a budget surplus.  Republicans are the ones that complain about the deficit, but in the modern era, they are the most responsible for using having it.  Beginning with Ronald Reagan, republicans brought in large deficits and then subsequent democratic administrations were blamed for not taming them.

To be fair, while Obama inherited a $1.4T deficit from Bush, he has done his share of spending to try to stimulate the economy.  He has cut taxes for everyone and put in infrastructure programs.  He also had TARP and the other things that he got from Bush.

I think you stop borrowing when the economy is back on its feet and no longer needs propping up.  Then you put in plans to get the deficit under control through increased revenue (which doesn't necessarily mean rate hikes) and moderation in spending. 

The debt ceiling has nothing to do with it.  The debt ceiling is just a lever for the right to use to try to get cuts in programs they have hated for years.

Not just money that the country plans to borrow and spend, but money that the country has already committed by law to borrowing and spending.  I agree about limiting the debt, but Congress can't pass budgets that require borrowing and then refuse to do the borrowing.

Actually, we haven't had a budget surplus since before the Great Depression. Not really.

The only reason the claim is made that we had a surplus during the Clinton years is because the interest on the debt is not included in the budget.

Look at the National Debt in real dollars (not as a percentage of GDP). If we had a real surplus (not a bookkeeping entry or a projection) than you should see the debt go down.

Good luck with that.

The budget surplus had nothing to do with the debt.  It simply means that more money was coming in than was going out.  If the surplus had been applied to the debt, then the interest on the debt would have been reduced.  If we had continued down that road for the last dozen years, the economy could have been much stronger.  Instead, the incoming Bush Administration wanted tax cuts to reduce revenue, while funding two wars.

Well, since we haven't had a budget since before Obama took office, there is no budgeted spending...so there shouldn't be any spending going on with or without borrowing

not that our leaders do anything the right way....the debt ceiling is a game of chicken with our future...

When Obama took office the debt was around 10 trillion. He has increased it by half that amount.

"Obama's plan"? You act as if Obama is spending money for grins and giggles? The nation has bills. We don't have the cash on hand to pay the bills so we borrow the money. Obama did not run-up the money on the nation's credit card. He inherited the credit card bills.

There is a choice. The GOP could refuse to increase the debt limit. The nation would default on its bills.

There. Happy?

Simple? The US had an A credit rating until the GOP threatened not to raise the debt ceiling as which time our rating went to -A I believe?

People/nations who borrow money and repay the money as scheduled maintain an excellent credit rating.

Yeah, like Republicans don't spend? I suggest you go back a bit to the George Bush era and track what he and his Republican fellows spent -- without the means to pay for the spending.

Over the cliff? I hope so. The president will benefit as he can then send a tax reduction bill to the floor that cuts taxes for the 98%. This leaves the GOP in the position of (a) voting with the president or (b) voting against a tax cut for the middle class with the excuse "We want tax cuts for all."

The tax breaks for the wealthy expire automatically in January anyway, so there's no fight over that and the president wins -- period.

Wins what?

Taxing the top 2% DOES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to solve our financial problems.

Zip, ZERO, nada.

It was an election con on the American people.

Cutting entitlement programs would be a good start though..

Are you suggesting that the credit rating of the US has no bearing on the amount of money that we print and/or borrow and that our ability to repay the debt isn't a consideration? It seems like that's your opinion. If so, it's wrong. Credit ratings are something lenders look at...the same as if you applied for a mortgage. Going deeper into debt, doesn't improve a credit rating. Printing more money doesn't improve a credit rating. Balancing a budget would help. Spending less helps. Borrowing less helps. Being solvent helps.

Your statement, "The US had an A credit rating until the GOP threatened not to raise the debt ceiling as which time our rating went to -A I believe?" clearly indicates that you have no clue as to what you are talking about. However, that doesn't prevent you from blaming the Republicans. S&P cut the United States to AA-plus from AAA on August 5, 2011...and because of discussions to raise the debt limit. Moody's and Fitch both currently rate the US as either AAA and Aaa respectively.

Here's some quotes from people who really understand this stuff...

"If no budget deal is reached in the early part of next year and the debt trajectory just continues to rise ... then we'd be looking at a downgrade of a notch to Aa1,"  ~Bart Oosterveld, managing director for Moody's sovereign risk group.

"Temporary measures to stave off the budget shock without a credible strategy for the years beyond could earn the country a downgrade." "The country needs a combination of increased revenue and reduced spending"
~David Riley, managing director for sovereign ratings at Fitch.

"In the absence of a sustainable, coherent medium-term vision for the U.S. federal budget, which has produced deficits above $1 trillion in each of the last four years, the rating will fall. "
~Reuters.

"No pecuniary consideration is more urgent than the regular redemption and discharge of the public debt; on none can delay be more injurious, or an economy of time more valuable."
~George Washington

“Then I say the earth belongs to each of these generations during it’s course, fully, and in their own right. The 2d. generation receives it clear of the debts and incumbrances of the 1st., the 3d. of the 2d. and so on. For if the 1st. could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not the living generation. Then no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of it’s own existence.”
~Thomas Jefferson

"The National Debt stood at $10.626 trillion the day Mr. Obama was inaugurated. The Bureau of Public Debt reported today that the National Debt had hit an all time high of $13.665 trillion. The Debt increased $4.9 trillion during President Bush's two terms. The Administration has projected the National Debt will soar in Mr. Obama's fourth year in office to nearly $16.5-trillion in 2012. That's more than 100 percent of the value of the nation's economy and $5.9-trillion above what it was his first day on the job."
~Mark Knoller CBS News October 18, 2010

"The best time to get started addressing the problem was 10 years ago. There’s still time to fix it. But ignoring the problem — just like hanging up on the debt collector — is not a great way to go.”
~Ben Bernanke Federal Reserve Chairman (2007 statement to Congress).

Moody's continues to be focused on our $16+ trillion in debt. If Congress and the president can't figure out a way to stabilize and eventually reduce the debt, now at $16 trillion, Moody's will likely cut the United States' current Aaa rating.

Where the hell is he going to get leadership skills? He's busy talking all day. Are there night courses he could take?  Or are you suggesting that he merely becomes more dictatorial?

Gee, that election still got you down, huh? Maybe there will be a recount? Shouldn't be hard to overturn the President's 5 million vote margin of victory. Maybe the President's Kentan birth certificate will surface?

Until then President Obama is the President of the United States and very far from any "dictator" you can name.

Yup, those millons who voted for Obama were "conned." Same for 2008 I guess?

Your theory is that adding revenue (taxes) does nothing to solve our financial problems? Hmmm, let's see? As an example, we add a triilion dollars in tax money to the coffers and that only snds us deeper into debt? Better example. A person is strapped with debt and suddenly inherits $100,000.00, and that makes his financial worse?

Just trying to figure out your logic -- other than the I hate Obama factor.

Also would like to know do both he and she trump-up these wild visions that have nothing to do with reality or do you do divide up the time on the keyboard and come up with collective fantasies?

With all due respect, you are uninformed.

These revenue increases are so small they do NOTHING. They run the federal government for like 8 days.

It was just part of the dividing of America by President Obama. It was a con on the American people.

Please do some research and then come back and apologize to the group.

Thanks!

Since this is a thread that YOU started, you should realize that it's not about election results, yet you seem to want to derail your own thread. I suppose it's easier to focus on election results than the credit rating, because, with all due respect, you clearly don't seem to understand how the country's credit rating works. Are Republicans to blame for your lack of understanding too?

lmao, sometimes I feel like Geithner is the only cool head in the room

bernanke and congress running around like chickens with no heads

condemn the house

First off, your "Total Budget Cuts So Far" should be $385, and not $38.50.

If I'm the head of household in that situation, I realize that a balanced, gradual approach must be taken to correct the situation.  One thing that needs to happen is that all possibilities are on the table. 

An increase in revenue is needed, as is a reduction in spending.  Gosh, where is all the money being spent?  Well, Grandma's medicine is costing us a lot each month, because her co-pay is very expensive.  Hmm.  We're also spending a lot on defense, because the neighbors are assholes and we need to make sure that our property is surrounded by ramparts and battlements.  Ponder, ponder....

While I wouldn't say it has no impact, it's worth noting that on August 5, 2011, the yield on a 10-year Treasury was 2.58%. It immediately fell after that and hit a record low this July, making it easier for the government to sell its debt. As of yesterday, it stood at 1.77%.

Obvious indeed.

The government is not a household, and shouldn’t be run like one

Thank you for the sound of sanity.  Finally.  Someone proposed a simple common-sense approach.

You might want to go look at the figures available at treasury.gov

And while you are at it, find out what spending isn't included in the "budget". Then you will understand what fiction our government tells us.

Required by treaty. Courtesy of James Earl Carter. Congress can cut it and the Supreme Court would have to reinstate it.

And none of that would stop the deficit spending.

You could ELIMINATE all discretionary spending (what most people think of as the government) and not eliminate deficit spending.

In order to actually balance the budget, massive cuts MUST be made in Social Security, Medicare and Defense.

Anything else is just bandaids.