@atl134For the last 4 years a Senate budget has been non-existentMurray’s budget might as well be non-existent because it will go
nowhere@Lew ScannonTechnically counter intelligence refers to
efforts made by intelligence organizations to prevent hostile or enemy
intelligence organizations from successfully gathering and collecting
intelligence against them.I just use the term because smart (intelligent)
people reject (counter) vapid politically correct bullyingBut I suspect
you knew that
Nate"The problem is trajectory. After Bush took office,
debt-per-percent-GDP ramped up. After Obama took office, it ramped up even more
steeply."Nobody is disputing "trajectory," which is why
even the Democratic budget turns trajectory around the other direction.
"Only for a time"... well, that's a bit nit picky. So are you
implying that Ryan's budget will forever cure the problem of debt?
"beyond 2023, deficits begin to rise again." Says who? Isn't that
up to the Congress seated at that time?"The problem for these
countries isn't austerity itself. Their problem is, they waited too long to
begin correcting their course."That is an opinion that is NOT
shared by any respectable economist I can find. Even Mitt Romney recognizes that
you cannot "cost cut" a company, or a country, into prosperity. That is
a fundamental principle of economics as well as business.
May I remind you all that the government's income is not equal to the GDP,
unless you want all 400 million people of the US to go naked, homeless,
heatless, transportationless, and foodless. The federal government's income
averages about 17% of GDP, meaning our current national debt is almost 7 times
the annual revenue. Try running any house or business on that ratio.
@southmtnman "The absolute amount of debt is not the issue. ...[T]he more
income you have, the more debt you can handle."I don't
think anyone is arguing this. The problem is trajectory. After Bush took office,
debt-per-percent-GDP ramped up. After Obama took office, it ramped up even more
steeply. What we are talking about is changing the trajectory before it becomes
too late. Our current course is unsustainable."[T]he Democratic
plan DOES drop the national debt in the right direction."Only
for a time. Looking beyond 2023, deficits begin to rise again."Now is not the time for 'austerity' (which has not worked in
Greece, Spain, or Italy)."The problem for these countries
isn't austerity itself. Their problem is, they waited too long to begin
correcting their course. Let's not make the same mistake.
Ryan's budget isn't balanced. He doesn't list a single tax
loophole he'd close, just pretends that we can just close a bunch of them
and be fine (twice as much as Romney/Ryan would've needed to close). He
keeps all the taxes and Medicare cuts in Obamacare, getting rid of everything
else (you know, the things people like in Obamacare) as if Republicans would
support that.@Counter IntelligenceApparently you can't
read since this editorial talks about Murray's budget (so that's
Republicans are frightened by false fire. The absolute amount of debt is not the
issue. Just as with any business or household, the more income you have, the
more debt you can handle. The country's "income" is measured in
GDP, and the national debt must always be talked about relative to GDP.With that in mind, the most important part of this article is the part that
states:"As a share of the economy, the debt Democrats envision
would hardly shrink at all - going from 77 percent of gross domestic product
this year to 70 percent in 2023. The Republicans, by contrast, would slash it to
less than 55 percent of GDP - much closer to the historical norm."We are in a global economic downturn. Now is not the time for
"austerity" (which has not worked in Greece, Spain, or Italy). And the
Democratic plan DOES drop the national debt in the right direction.The biggest problem with Republicans these past two election cycles has been
their stubborn insistence on all-or-none thinking. They have become so radical
they have eliminated "compromise" and "moderation" from their
vocabulary.What a shame the GOP is no longer grand.
Dictionary definition of "counter": contrary, opposite.Dictionary
definition of "intelligence": the skilled use of reason, the ability to
learn or understand new situations, mental acuteness.You've got
me confused. Does this mean you mean the exact opposite of what you say?
@Kent C. DeForrestyes - The Ryan budget is far far better than the
non-existent Democratic Senate budget and the irrational Obama budget proposals
that are even laughed at by DemocratsAlso: Mountainman is correct
@Open Minded MormonSince Mountanman has used up his allotment --Congress consists of two houses. They both should be held responsible
for the budget, along with the president who signs it into law. There's
plenty of credit and blame to be shared by both parties.@Eric
Samuelson "Decrease unemployment, and the budget will balance
itself."Your comment hits the nail squarely on the head. A
thriving economy goes farther to generate federal revenues than any other
factor. Pro-growth policies, including tax polices, are the best way to close
the deficit.Instead of waging war on our productive individuals (and
taxing and regulating the life out of them), we should get government off their
backs and let them produce. Our leadership needs to end its hostility toward
prosperity. One of the reasons the Great Depression lasted so long, is that the
big money decided to stay on the sidelines and wait Roosevelt out. Similar
decisions are being made today. It doesn't have to be this way.
@mountaimanInteresting string of theories mountainman but what does any of
that have to do with my comment?
MountanmanHayden, IDFirst of all, Bill Clinton did not balance the
budget during either of his terms, Newt Gingrich and the Republican House did
that during Clinton's second term. The President does not produce the
budget, congress does that, (when they actually do their constitutional job).
=========== So then, Second of all, John Boenher
and Republican House should be held responsible for the budget deficeit,
sequesture, and budget impass.[but somehow, I don't think you will
ever man up and own it that either.]Like you said, The
President does not produce the budget, congress does that, (when they actually
do their constitutional job).
The Democratic budget is not at all unrealistic. It reflects the needs of our
society and stimulates economic growth at the same time. The Republican
austerity budget cripples GDP growth, as we are seeing in Europe right now.
I cringe when people claim that Clinton had a balanced budget. The best clinton
did was reduce the deficit to $23 billion. There was still a deficit.The other problem here is the reporting on the debt that the US holds. This
article is doing a dis-service by reporting the debt held by public accounts.
That means that everything taken from SS is not included in the debt. If you
look at the gross federal debt, we are sitting around 105% GDP.If
the problem is to be fixed deficits must be eliminated and surplusses generated.
This will require cutting entitlements.
@MountanmanAgain, it takes two to Tango. Congress cannot spend
without the President signing it into law (unless the veto is overridden) and
the President cannot spend without Congressional Approval. Placing blame fixes
nothing. Even if you could pin the entire collapse of our economy on Barney
Frank, what does that fix? Does that re-employ people? Does that put money
into my pocket?We need to move on to finding actual working
@ Darrel. According to the constitution congress passes all spending budgets.
The President can and often does propose budget items but congress must pass
them into law. The last budget Obama proposed never got one Democrat vote from
either house of congress!Which party controlled both houses of
congress in the last year of GWB's term? Which party implemented the so
called sub prime mortgages for unqualified home owners that ultimately caused
the housing bubble to burst and the domino effect of the recession? If Barney
Frank’s unethical relationship with the government-run mortgage giants he
supposedly regulated is a Democrat, you have your answer.
"The President does not produce the budget, congress does that,"========Then why is Mitch McConnell -R Kentucky saying the
Senate cannot act on a budget until the President presents one? To
give the Republican Congress credit for the balanced budget in the 90's and
then blame the Democratic President for the mess in 2009-Present is nothing but
partisanship at its worst.Both parties have shown their incredible
ability to spend. Both Parties got us here, and it takes to both the Congress
and the Executive to spend money. We need to stop trying to assign blame, and
start trying to fix the problem. Trying to come to agreement on blame 1) will
never happen 2) if it did, still does nothing about our situation.
@ Pharanc. Our founding fathers called it the balance of power! Wisely designed
to keep dictatorships and tyrants from becoming established in this country. The
sad irony is the Senate and the SCOTUS have been taken over by liberals and only
the House of Representatives remains to keep a dictatorship from occurring. Then
there is the media (first amendment freedom of the press) that have advocated
their responsibility to hold government leaders accountable, as per Benghazi,
fast and furious and White House intelligent leaks, out of control spending and
on and on!
So, the Ryan budget, which is based on pure fiction and fantasy, is better than
the Democrats' budget simply because it pretends to produce a balanced
budget in ten years? Pleeeeease. Paul Ryan has no credibility at all, except
among those who are severely arithmetic impaired and blinded by bad ideology.
@mountaiman I thought you and the right thought that Obama had no right to
demand anything since it is the houses that gets to decide the budget.
Unable to fault the policies of government that are beneficial to people as well
as business, the republicans and their conservative backers, attack the
people’s benefits from the view of the costs. Yet they cannot provide any
evidence that costs, budgets, balance has ever had any effect on the lives of
Americans or it’s business. All they have is their phony predictions. Republicans and their conservative backers have heaped the blame of the
stagnant government on President Obama when in reality it was the republicans
and their conservative backer that prevented any meaningful action on
Obama’s part. The unified position and goals of the republicans and their
conservative backers was to prevent any action by Obama and to remove him from
office as soon as possible. The question for voters in 2014 and
2016 is whether to proceed with the American experiment or return to the
government of the rich and powerful as proposed by the republicans.Yea Eric Samuelsen.
Decrease unemployment, and the budget will balance itself.
@ Spring Street. Obama has never called for a balanced budget nor has the
Democratically controlled Senate produced a balanced budget, only ever more tax
increases and more spending as far as the eye can see! Paul Ryan (R) from the
House has proposed a balanced budget, twice! And you are aware of the reaction
from the Democrats! Point proven!
@mountainmanSo then we are not going to have to read any comments from you
blaming Obama for the failing state of or federal budget right?
First of all, Bill Clinton did not balance the budget during either of his
terms, Newt Gingrich and the Republican House did that during Clinton's
second term. The President does not produce the budget, congress does that,
(when they actually do their constitutional job). Secondly the Democrats will
NEVER balance the budget because if they do, entitlement growth will decrease
and increasing entitlements is the only way they can win elections. Go figure!