Oh FFS! We could have the ENTIRE National Debt Paid Off in 15 Short Years!

[LAGC]

WITHOUT touching Social Security/Medicare!

All we have to do is END THE FUCKING WARS (all 4 of them) and repeal the Bush tax cuts (ALL OF THEM).

How quickly we forget that Bush turned a quarter-trillion-dollar budget surplus into an even bigger deficit in just 8 years short time...

Why isn't the solution obvious? Just UNDO the two things that got us into this mess in the first place!

The Republicans did a good job balancing the budget under Clinton, they can do it again under Obama, if they were serious about going back to their fiscally-conservative roots. Obama, for his part, has a perfect chance to lead, if he'd just ditch his inner-circle of advisers from the MIC.

Why are we even TALKING about gutting SS?

Why aren't we once again reading about stories like THIS in the news:

http://articles.cnn.com/2000-09-27/politics/clinton.surplus_1_budget-surplus-national-debt-fiscal-discipline?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

In June, the administration predicted the surplus would be $211 billion, and would increase by as much as $1 trillion over the next 10 years.

SRSLY?!

[Poll_Blind]

1. When it's Social Security or the Wars, guess which one is on the table and which is off?

What a fucking backwards nightmare of terrible choices for this administration and, more generally, Democratic Leadership, especially in the House.

PB

[vi5]

2. And that should have been our starting point....

Just as the Republican starting point was "No new taxes, cut all spending including Social Security and Medicare!!!", our starting point should have been "End all current wars and raise taxes on the wealthy and close all corporate loopholes."

Maybe then we would have wound up somewhere along the lines of what Conrad is proposing now, 50/50 cuts and taxes.

But no, our pathetic "democratic" leaders have to start from a position of letting them know we're going to give them everything they need, that their position is right at it's core and we just need to be a little bit nicer about it than they are.

[bluethruandthru]

3. We're talking about Social Security because our president has no grasp of economics!

Either that or he really doesn't have a principled Democratic bone in his body.

[izquierdista]

4. Rose to the top too fast

He should still be in the Illinois legislature, learning how to get legislation passed that helps average people.

[bluethruandthru]

5. True - but maybe he should listen to some Nobel award winning economists.

Instead, he just listens to republican political hacks and trusts them when they say Social Security is bankrupting the country/wars don't cost anything/tax breaks for billionaires bring prosperity to everyone/etc.

[msongs]

6. he seems to be getting his advice from the RNC these days nt

[Blasphemer]

12. I balked at the "inexperience" charge in '08 but....

My eyes have been opened. In recent times, Presidents haven't come straight from the Senate or House and instead have generally been governors. Obama was the first in a long time. Problem is, he wasn't in the trenches long enough - he hadn't developed relationships and he hadn't been in a leadership position. It is clear to me that a Legislator turned President really needs a lot of experience in terms of influencing his colleagues. Obama never got that and it is now a glaring weakness. It is something I think we should consider carefully in the future when choosing candidates.

[WinkyDink]

8. Don't see the dichotomy here.

[WinkyDink]

7. SS = no jobs; no $$ for industries. Wars/attacks = jobs; defense industries $$$; oil; gems; gas; etc

NO CONTEST.

[econoclast]

9. I actually did the math on this a while back

I'd have to dig it out again for the details, but the gist of it is...

1). A cautionary note....that 2000 budget forecast has gotten enshrined in our memories as if it was cast in stone. The CBOs crystal ball wasn't any clearer then than it is now. For instance, in 2000 when it was issued they were sitting on top of a massive stock market bubble and HAD NO CLUE. They were still talking about the New Economy and how this time it's different. Yadda yadda yadda.... So their ten year forecast has to be taken with a Grain of salt the size of a beach ball. But, that being said I compared their forecast revenue and spending numbers bs what actually occurred year by year.

2). Revenues for the ten year period are under the forecast by about a trillion dollars

3). Spending on the wars was about a trillion and a half dollars

4). Even after subtracting out the spending on the wars, other spending increased by about a trillion dollars over the forecast.

So...both parties have a point. The current deficit is about 4 trillion dollars more than forecast back in 2000. ( remember that lots of that forecast was, at best, a wild ass guess) That difference is about equally divided between revenue shortages, wars, and other spending increases.

So, it seems a reasonable compromise would be to return to Clinton era taxes AND Clinton era spending.

[Scuba]

10. Here's a sound plan that no one knows about...

http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=70

Here's what The Econonmist has to say about it...

http://www4.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011

..snip..

"...Republicans are refusing to raise the national debt ceiling even though their own budget raises the national debt by $6 trillion over the next decade...The Progressive Caucus's plan would (by its own claims) balance the budget by 2021 by cutting defence spending and raising taxes, mainly on rich people"

The Republicans offer the same cure for every ailment: slash social services. You call that a plan?

[WatsonT]

11. Agreed

Maybe a prolonged financial crises will swing the public opinion in that direction.

Old people vote. I can't imagine they will sit idly by, especially if we keep starting new wars while we cut their benefits.

[felix_numinous]

13. This country's power structure has a codependency problem

--a policy of taking care of others at our own expense!! That--and an addiction to oil and power.

The US needs an intervention!!!!