CBO Warns of "Sudden Financial Crisis"

[k0xxx]

CBO Warns

"The report said the nation's debt is on pace to equal the annual size of the economy within a decade. It warned of a possible "sudden fiscal crisis" if it is left unchecked, with investors losing faith in the U.S. government's ability to manage its fiscal affairs." Can you say currency collapse?

And just think, we currently have to borrow an amount equal to about 20% of our total debt each year, just to pay the interest on the debt and to fund government expenditures.

"The study reverberated throughout the Capitol as Biden and senior lawmakers spent several hours behind closed doors. The talks are aimed at outlining about $2 trillion in deficit cuts over the next decade, part of an attempt to generate enough support in Congress to allow the Treasury to take on new borrowing."

Hmmm..., They want to cut $2 trillion over ten years, but we are currently adding $1.7 trillion in new debt every single year, and that amount is forecast to increase. That means (at current levels, and if interest rates don't rise) our debt will only be $15 trillion higher than it is now. WOW! We're saved.

 

[Boogity]

It has been shown over and over again that the typical politicians we elect are total morons when it comes to fiscal responsibility. These clowns are either lawyers or lifetime career politicians with absolutely no knowledge of how to conserve funds. They don't even know how to balance their own checkbooks.

Maybe it's time we fire all these creeps and hire some seasoned, business minded people who know how to balance a budget. A single mom who knows how to scratch out a meager lifestyle with seriously limited income would be a great candidate. Or how about a small business owner who has grown their business to great profit. I'm sure there are thousands of potential candidates out there who would make our dumba$$ed lawmakers look ridicules.

Sometimes I think we need to have a complete makeover in the way Washington goes about the business of running our country. How about two top leaders in the whitehouse. One for foreign affairs (no not THAT kind of affair) to be the military commander-in-chief and all foreign relations. And one for domestic affairs such as balancing our nation's checkbook among other responsibilities. Each leader would serve one 6 year term on a staggered 3 year election. And neither would be allowed to participate in any kind of campaign activities while in office. At the end of their 6 year term they forbidden to participate in politics ever again.

Oh, I could go on and on. I hate 'em all.

 

[TTs Chicks]

It has been shown over and over again that the typical politicians we elect are total morons when it comes to fiscal responsibility. These clowns are either lawyers or lifetime career politicians with absolutely no knowledge of how to conserve funds. They don't even know how to balance their own checkbooks.

Maybe it's time we fire all these creeps and hire some seasoned, business minded people who know how to balance a budget. A single mom who knows how to scratch out a meager lifestyle with seriously limited income would be a great candidate. Or how about a small business owner who has grown their business to great profit. I'm sure there are thousands of potential candidates out there who would make our dumba$$ed lawmakers look ridicules.

Sometimes I think we need to have a complete makeover in the way Washington goes about the business of running our country. How about two top leaders in the whitehouse. One for foreign affairs (no not THAT kind of affair) to be the military commander-in-chief and all foreign relations. And one for domestic affairs such as balancing our nation's checkbook among other responsibilities. Each leader would serve one 6 year term on a staggered 3 year election. And neither would be allowed to participate in any kind of campaign activities while in office. At the end of their 6 year term they forbidden to participate in politics ever again.

Oh, I could go on and on. I hate 'em all.

I like the way you think - I have said for years that we need "regular joes" in the white house, you know folks with common sense and a clue about living in the real world.

 

[KevsFarm]

I agree Boogity, their all useless..half the problem is that the country is turniing into a welfare state.Even before the current unemployment crisis,people were lining up for and abusing social programs meant for those who really need them.We waste billions overseas,instead of taking care of our own needs at home.We need a couple Amish leaders in the white house.Why are they thriving and expanding, while the the rest of the country is falling apart around them..?? Or system is so entrenched with corruption and ME,ME,ME politics,it would require a total revolt by the people for meanigful change.I'm voting all T_a Party, its the only hope i see we have.The national debt will choke us to death,severe cuts in spending are required NOW at all levels...IMO

 

[Boogity]

But you know what? We the people will continue to plod along and get caught up in all the hype at election time and put another jerk in office without a care in the world about what kind of responsible leader they could be. We have had almost 19 years of absolutely terrible presidential leadership in the whitehouse - Clinton, Bush, and Obama are complete embarrassments to our country.

 

[Wifezilla]

People keep trying to elect Santa Claus so they get more presents.

 

[i_am2bz]

Oh boy, you guys, I could just go on & on about this one...

How about we start with:
1) TERM LIMITS
2) BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT, like a lot of states have
3) Potential voters have to pass a current-events test & have photo id

And speaking of society's safety net...Rush had a great comment the other day: "The safety net has become a hammock." :/

 

[Lady Henevere]

It doesn't matter who you vote for. All politicians are beholden to special interests, because that's where their campaign financing comes from. Balancing the budget doesn't get them reelected, special favors do - whether that involves special military protection for international shipping lanes, expensive crackdowns by the "food safety" people, fat contracts for new low-income housing, etc. It's the same on both sides. Long term budget concerns don't really matter to politicians, and for that reason term limits won't help (and do we really want to decrease accountability to voters?). Laws are so dense and complex with ridiculous pet projects included that it's nearly impossible to tell what anyone is really up to. We need accountability to We the People, and currently there is almost none.

 

[i_am2bz]

Term limits are completely necessary, IMHO, because being a politician was never meant to be a full-time career. Folks were supposed to serve a term or two & then go back to their "real lives" & live like a normal person, not live in DC for 30-40 years. The politicians (from all parties) are so insulated from "normality" they have no real concept of the damage they are doing our country. Hopefully, let someone serve 1 or 2 terms & then get them out of there before they become corrupted; if they don't have to raise money for a re-election, & are forbidden from lobbying the gubmint afterwards, maybe they won't be so beholden to special interests...? Again, JMHO.

 

[patandchickens]

It doesn't matter who you vote for. All politicians are beholden to special interests, because that's where their campaign financing comes from. Balancing the budget doesn't get them reelected, special favors do <snip> We need accountability to We the People, and currently there is almost none.

The inherent problem is that EVERYONE is a special interest.

Budgetary waste isn't just to jolly up corporations etc who finance campaigns -- it's also, in very significant part, to jolly up the actual voters whom a politician needs votes from. Getting local/regional projects done, tax incentives to bring X industry to the town, things that that politician's voters think are genuinely very important and also things that politician's voters may be willing to concede are not top priorities in the grand scheme of things but they're really NICE and what kind of idiot would turn them down if they're available.

So "We the People" are a large part of the PROBLEM. As long as people keep voting single-issue ("Joe Schmoe is pro-<my particular pet thing> and that's all I care about") and/or encouraging politicians to do whatever they can to divert as much gov't money/programs as possible to that politician's voting area, that is helping keep the budget fat with pork.

It is just sooooo hard for sooooo many people to see beyond "what's best for me personally".

JMHO,

Pat