it doesn't matter what the voters think. shiat - not even reality or common sense matter anymore. Both parties know what has to be done to salvage our long term economic future....but neither party has the will to do what must be done.

So instead they'll do the usual song and dance. The Republicans will cry 'SOCIALISM!', the Democrats will shout 'tax the rich!' and then the rank and file will bleat and stamp their feet in time with the music. meanwhile nothing will actually change and our debt spirals out of control.

pathetic.

Subby doesn't understand modern Government economics. It's okay for the government to spend mountains of money printed from thin air. That's a good thing. But it's bad for businesses and private individuals to spend beyond their means.

Got it?

The third mortgage is for getting drunk in Cancun, subby. The fourth is to cover the divorce.

And the submitter apparently does not know how to spell "ceiling" correctly.

GaryPDX: But it's bad for small businesses and private individuals to spend beyond their means.

FTFY since big business has the lobbyists needed to get a good bailout.

GaryPDX: It's okay for the government to spend mountains of money printed from thin air

Who, exactly, is saying this? Necessary to prevent a Great Depression II, yes. Good? No.

GaryPDX: It's okay for the government to spend mountains of money printed from thin air

Actually I think it comes from cotton.

GaryPDX: But it's bad for businesses and private individuals to spend beyond their means.

I know you're just Gary being Gary, but there's a whole bond market out there wondering just what the hell you're talking about.

theorellior: GaryPDX: But it's bad for businesses and private individuals to spend beyond their means.

I know you're just Gary being Gary, but there's a whole bond market out there wondering just what the hell you're talking about.

Those actually get paid back. Usually without having to issue more bonds to cover. If a business keeps on spending beyond their means year in and year out, just issuing more bonds every year, the bond rating goes into the shiatter, they can't get any more money, and they fold.

Hell, businesses even have to follow much more stringent accounting rules. If the fed.gov had to follow GAAP, the national debt would probably double or triple without spending one more thin dime. Businesses have to carry future liabilities on their books. The fed.gov doesn't.

lennavan: I mean, one of those options will actually do something about the debt. You may not like how it did something about the debt but again, one would actually do something about it.

Not in any meaningful way. You have to first find $1t in revenue before you've quit adding to the debt. Taxing the rich won't build that much revenue. In order to actually "do something" about the debt, you'd need to begin to REDUCE it. To do that in any meaningful way means finding no less than an additional $500b in revenue. At that rate we'd still be talking nearly 30 years before we eliminated the debt entirely, and that still doesn't recognize the increasing burden of Social Security.

Neither party has any kind of a meaningful plan. Taxing the rich won't do much, screaming socialism is worse, but ultimately it's going to mean difficult and deep cuts for all. The more you feed at the government trough, the more it will hurt, whether you're a retiree, a military contractor, or a school.

akula: Those actually get paid back. Usually without having to issue more bonds to cover. If a business keeps on spending beyond their means year in and year out, just issuing more bonds every year, the bond rating goes into the shiatter, they can't get any more money, and they fold.

Businesses don't have taxpayers, for one. They also roll over their debt quite a bit more than you assume. Governments also have longer time horizons. Ten years ago bond markets were a little nervous that the supply of Treasures was going to fall behind demand. Now there's too much of a good thing. Maybe in 2020 interest rates will be 21% and we'll be drowning in red ink. Maybe we'll be talking about the 2015 New Widget Boom and how it balanced the budget.

Debt, by itself, is not an evil thing. Sometimes you have to borrow. You just have to manage it properly. Knee-jerk responses like "No deficit spending EVAR!" are quite counterproductive.

I'm not saying the present trajectory is a good thing. Our political leaders need to make a deal akin to the '86 tax code revision or the '91 "no new taxes" raise. Soon enough, we will come to that point, and I'd prefer it to be sooner than later.

lennavan: The government plays a vital role in society and to suggest otherwise is simply dishonest. I cannot imagine you'd propose cutting funding to schools, medicare or social security. These are vital functions and promises the government has.

Let's agree, balancing the budget and continuing Democratic policies is fully possible. The last Democratic president left us with a projected budget surplus. He did so without cutting social security, without cutting medicare and without cutting school funding.

1) Until the government has spending and revenue at levels that are sustainable in the long term, nothing can be considered sacrosanct. Sorry, but yes, that means schools too- I don't go in for across the board cuts (the same amount to every program, regardless), but every citizen had a hand in creating this mess. Every citizen will end up feeling the pain of the cuts. Those who don't depend on the government for their daily bread will feel the hurt in higher taxes. Those who do will see less daily bread. The problem is to the point where the nation almost needs a Ramsey-esque financial makeover. That means not only cutting the cable bill and selling the luxury car, but going to plain label foods.

2) A "projected" surplus isn't a surplus. I'm not going to defend Bush's financial policy, I think it was indefensible. That doesn't mean the financial policies of the Democrats were right on. There's a reason politicians project out savings over 8-10 years... by the time those savings don't come to be, they are either forgotten or they're long gone. If they want to impress me, they need to come out with something showing savings before they're up for reelection, not when their successor will be running for term #2. And as I said, there was no actual surplus; it was counting Social Security monies as general revenue- a neat trick at the time, but we're damn close to where that is biting us in the ass.

3) As for your whining about cutting funding for Grandma's medications, that's part of why Bush's budget deficits were so bad. Medicare Part D started on his watch and was one of his programs. I have seen calls to examine military spending- as we should. But it isn't possible to cut our military to zero (something very few people think is realistic- not saying you are claiming this, just using it as an example) won't even balance the budget. Grandma, Junior, and those po' folks down the road are all going to have to hurt while we're smarting from the higher taxes. No other way for it.

theorellior: akula: Those actually get paid back. Usually without having to issue more bonds to cover. If a business keeps on spending beyond their means year in and year out, just issuing more bonds every year, the bond rating goes into the shiatter, they can't get any more money, and they fold.

Businesses don't have taxpayers, for one. They also roll over their debt quite a bit more than you assume. Governments also have longer time horizons. Ten years ago bond markets were a little nervous that the supply of Treasures was going to fall behind demand. Now there's too much of a good thing. Maybe in 2020 interest rates will be 21% and we'll be drowning in red ink. Maybe we'll be talking about the 2015 New Widget Boom and how it balanced the budget.

Debt, by itself, is not an evil thing. Sometimes you have to borrow. You just have to manage it properly. Knee-jerk responses like "No deficit spending EVAR!" are quite counterproductive.

I'm not saying the present trajectory is a good thing. Our political leaders need to make a deal akin to the '86 tax code revision or the '91 "no new taxes" raise. Soon enough, we will come to that point, and I'd prefer it to be sooner than later.

Point. But businesses ultimately have to pay at least the interest on the notes. We're perilously close to having to borrow to meet just the interest payments. At that point we're well and truly farked.

Everything only gets more painful from here. I agree that the economy coming back will help, but I still think we aren't going to be able to tax our way out of this, not by taxing one particular group. Everybody shares the pain. From the rich folks and upper middle class feeling the bite through higher rates and removal of the FICA cap to the discontinuing of refundable income tax credits at the low end. If the government expects me to pick up more tax burden, I expect others to help shoulder this load too.