Trying to understand

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by truckie270, Mar 3, 2011.

Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. truckie270

    truckie270 New Member

    I may be in the minority here, but why is it so hard for people to understand that the states and federal gov. are broke under a crippling debt problem?

    Why do so many people think that increased taxes are the way out?

    Seriously, at what point do people start to think that maybe the gov. should stop spending so much money it does not have?

    I am all for taking care of those who cannot take care of themselves, but holy crap we are spending our children into servitude.

    I am also fully aware that we spend way too much money on defense and other items (I will not respond to the blah blah blah "illegal war" tangent because it is what it is and is an intellectually-lazy argument).

    That is it - I am just frustrated that so many people I encounter lately are only concerned about what is in it for them.
     
  2. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator

    Recently I watched a speech by Chris Christy, the Govenor of New Jersey. He was saying exactly what your saying. He was making so much sense. I think that the debate becomes a matter beyond "do we cut or do we not?" but instead becomes "what do we cut?" I think that this is the issue that's unfolding in Wisconsin. The Governor there (don't remember his name) has handled it badly and in so doing has probably set his cause back a decade.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 3, 2011
  3. jeff532003

    jeff532003 New Member

    I agree. I fully understand that in order to keep our influence in the world we have to spend money on the world but we have to start spending a lot less on everyone else. Our infrastructure is falling apart, our energy dependence is out of control, so many things are wrong. We need to tax less, spend more at home and start to let some of the other new world powers step up when it comes to policing and supporting the world.
    I read an article the the other day about how analysts at Citi think the US will be the number three economy by 2050 outpaced by India and China with India taking the top spot by 2070. It makes me wonder what influence we will have anyway if China is top dog and owns our asses through all of their US debt securities they own and continue to buy.
    I think the worst part is I see no one in politics on any side concerned who has enough majority to do anything about it.
     
  4. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    The U.S. economy should be smaller than India's or China's as each of them has four times the population of the U.S. It's amazing to me how everyone has this mercantilist view of international economics these days, forgetting that their economic development also makes them better markets for American goods and services.

    -=Steve=-
     
  5. StefanM

    StefanM New Member

    Not being the dominant economy doesn't bother me. Being deeply in debt is the issue.
     
  6. mattbrent

    mattbrent Well-Known Member

    In one of my classes at WNMU, we read Zakaria's "A Post American World" which actually talks about this. It's a good book.

    -Matt
     
  7. mattbrent

    mattbrent Well-Known Member

    I'm not so sure it's a state problem. States have to have balanced budgets, whereas the Federal Government doesn't. Congress can keep spending until the cows come home. Should they? Heck no! But they do...

    You know, I'm not so sure we can blame the government. After all, WE'RE the ones who put them there. If anything, we should blame ourselves. (Or at least the people who voted for the guys who won... hahah)

    -Matt
     
  8. Ian Anderson

    Ian Anderson Active Member

    Many states balance their budgets each year by issuing bonds. Someday that pile of bonds is going to collapse.
     
  9. truckie270

    truckie270 New Member

    The mentality is becoming a state problem. Look at Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and the rest to fall like dominos shortly. I am a public worker with a public pension. Pensions and public salaries are being made out to be the cause of the debt problems facing these states. The problem is that the workers did not cause the problem in these states - the states spent the money that was statuatorily obligated to be set aside in pension funds (social security on a smaller scale).

    I don't like the response to eliminate collective bargaining and reduce public salaries/pensions, but what is the alternative? It is interesting to me how those in fed. gov. see fit to weigh in on these state issues when fed. workers do not have the ability to collectively bargain.
     
  10. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    In Wisconson the issue is not balancing the budget. The Unions have already agreed to all the financial cuts proposed. The protests are because the governor wants to destroy the union. He wants to destroy the unions simply for political reasons. For example the police union he says he won't touch. Obviously because the police union supported him in the last election. It is a pure political hatchet job trying to destroy organized support for Democrats in future elections within the state from the unions that typically supported the Democrats.
     
  11. truckie270

    truckie270 New Member

    I am well aware of Gov. Warner is trying to do, but can we get past the rhetoric for a second?

    What states have the highest labor costs? Blue states with strong organized labor. What states have the highest unemployment rates? Answer - same. What states have the biggest budget problems right now? Answer - yep, the same states.

    Regardless of Gov. Warner's reasoning or agenda, he has a very significant point - states have cut to the point where they no longer have the discretionary spending avaialble to make any further cuts. Any more cuts are going to have to come from non-discretionary spending. True, supported, and irrefutable.

    Now, I understand the WI pension and HC concessions will go a long way towards balancing the budget, but what about next year? The year after that? In order to make any meaninful changes in budgets at the state level, a Gov. needs to have the ability to either generate additional discretionary income or reduce non-discretionary spending. Period.

    I am a strong supporter of organized labor. I am a union member and I work in one of the above mentioned states. But I am also very well versed in the subjects of administration, public management, and public sector finance. The current course of action cannot continue. The general public will grow tired of the "poor me" from unions because the avg. Joe does not have a pension, affordable health care, COLA raises every year etc. If you want proof of this, log on to any news website where WI, OH, etc. are being covered and read the story comments from the vast majority of people who fall into the average Joe column.

    As for Govs. Warner, Christie, Kasich, Daniels, et. el. - I am sorry, but it really does no good to shoot the messagers.

    It is hard for me to buy the political retaliation argument against unions as a union member because every year I watch my dollars go to candidates I have no desire in supporting. Unions are political in nature and there is only outrage when things are not going their way.

    Where were all the protestors during the card-check debate before the Dems. lost control of the House? Answer - there were not any because organized labor is just that, organized when something impacts them. Have you seen the interviews with the people in the WI capital? The majority of those intervied could not even explain why they were there and had no idea how the legislation even impacted them. Astroturf.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 3, 2011
  12. Ian Anderson

    Ian Anderson Active Member

    My buddy is a lawyer from Wisconsin and that is what he told me.
     
  13. truckie270

    truckie270 New Member

    It must be true then..........

    Is he available for citing in my dissertation?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 3, 2011
  14. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    Indeed, the guys who win are Democrats and Republicans, the two parties that have shown for decades they won't think of the future. Yet even now most Americans won't "throw their vote away" on independent candidates, as if they weren't already throwing their votes away getting more of has already been shown not to work!

    -=Steve=-
     
  15. truckie270

    truckie270 New Member

    Political parties are a major part of the problem. The discussion invariably leads to who did what to who rather than an examination of what is occuring. Spending is not a democrat or republican problem - it is our problem.

    Term limits and a balanced budget amendment are two of the best options we have for correcting our current course.
     
  16. jeff532003

    jeff532003 New Member

    I do believe I expressed myself poorly as I was trying to reply on my phone. I agree with you that their economy's should be bigger. What I was trying to say was that as their respective economies grow they need to take more world responsibilities than they currently are. As we shrink we can not maintain our current foreign policy. I understand that these growing countries open up more markets for us. I am all for free trade but I am also quite frankly getting a little tired of our country slowly falling apart. There is no reason for Social Security or Medicare to be in the conditions they are in or for seniors to have to collect cans to buy their pills or for bridges to fall down or massive power outages as we fix up the rest of the world.
    I'm a moderate who tends to lean more liberal but still something has to give. I don't want my kids or grand kids to be left with nothing.
     
  17. jeff532003

    jeff532003 New Member

    I couldn't agree more but I'd like to add a few more points. Lobbyist's should be extremely limited in donations. I don't see how the people's representation should be for sale. Also, I'm curious as I gather your more conservative than me, where do you think the cuts should come from for the balanced budget? I am all for it but when our legislature talks about eliminating pell grants, eliminating birth control for the poor at planned parenthood, cutting the federal funding for public education... I'm not so sure they are looking in the best area's for cutting the fat.
     
  18. Abner

    Abner Well-Known Member

    Agreed.

    Let's destroy the unions and lower everyones standard of living, what the heck. The Koch brothers will save us!

    Abner
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 4, 2011
  19. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    Which part of the rest of the world do you think the U.S. is fixing up? Almost all spending on international issues is military, foreign aid is a minuscule part of the federal budget. I'm not saying don't cut it, I'm just saying that it's not going to help balance the federal budget. Nothing will solve the budget crisis other than sweeping entitlement reform and dramatic military cuts, and I don't see political will for either part of that.

    -=Steve=-
     
  20. Abner

    Abner Well-Known Member

    You probably know about this already, but I will post the link anyway:

    Caller posing as major GOP contributor dupes Walker - Sacramento Living - Sacramento Food and Wine, Home, Health | Sacramento Bee

    Abner :)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page