A budget is not about numbers - it is about our morals.

[kentuck]

Many folks have made this point. In his speech last Wednesday, President Obama made it again.

Let us hope that the Democratic Party does not forget it.

Yes, we can give another taxcut to the wealthy and ignore our elderly and our young. We can require the sick and old to pay more for Medicare. We can cut the funds for Head Start.

Or we can choose to do the right thing. We should not cower from this decision. We should accept it with courage.

Once we start debating the plan of the "Gang of Six" and how much we need to cut Social Security, we have lost our moral footing. We need to ignore these Senators that pretend they are in the middle and they have all the right answers. They are cowards looking for a compromise where none is deserved. They do not look at the budget as a moral document.

For thirty years, the working people in this country have been short-changed, literally. Big businesses and employers have used the tax code as a means to give pay raises to their employers, even as they cut the social safety net from under them.

First they gave them easy credit with credit cards. No need to pay their employees more, they could use their credit cards if they needed to purchase something or to pay for an emergency. Money is money and employees used their credit cards liberally.

In fact, many, if not most employees, found themselves up their eyeballs in credit card debt. Then, they were given the chance for the American dream, a home with no down payment. This was almost too good to be true.

But to pay off those credit cards, the wealthy class needed another scam. So they presented the poor working guy the opportunity to "re-finance" his mortgage and make a little money on the side. Enough to pay off all his credit card debts. During all this finagling with our financial system, employers kept wages almost stagnant. Why should they pay their employees more when they were getting money in other places?

But then, the bubble burst. No more credit cards. No more refinancing the mortgage. No more wage increases. The working American found him/herself in a deep hole. A few had a little money in 401Ks that helped pull them thru to where they are now.

Now the rich want more and more. It was a huge mistake to extend the Bush taxcuts for another two years, instead of standing our ground and fighting for what is right and moral at that time. The President has stated that under no circumstances will he permit the Bush taxcuts to be extended again. He has stated that we have to make choices as Americans. The Democrats in the House and the Senate would do well to remember that, as would all Americans. What do we stand for as a nation? Are we willing to stand up to the greedy, the immoral, the propagandists, and the wealthy class? If they wish to call it a class war, let them defend their class.

[dkf]

1. Is your personal budget about your morals?

If so then wouldn't people give a lot more to charity?

[kentuck]

2. Yes, and it is not only about charity.

Do you choose to save for your children's education? Do you spend your money on healthy food for your family or do you spend it at the theater and alcoholic beverages? We make decisions with our budgets in many different ways.

[dkf]

8. That would make a whole lot of people in this country immoral.

I bet there are a lot who go to the movies and buy alcoholic beverages who have no savings for their kids college education.

[kentuck]

10. Not to change the subject, but what about the President's speech?

Was that not a moral declaration?

[dkf]

14. It was, but I thnk he also realizes it is immoral to risk the financial health of the country.

It's a balancing act. I was overjoyed because he acknowledged he knows the longer term numbers don't work.

[w8liftinglady]

3. even when I was on disability after my surgery,I gave

We Democrats who CAN DO give.
My causes are The National Coalition for the Homeless,National Coalition for Homeless Veterans, and Veterans For Peace.
I also help the various and sundry people I meet who need it.

[dkf]

15. I've been donating to the food bank and lately the fund for Japan.

And my alma mater and my nieces school and the party and a few politicians including Obama.

Of all things though the food bank is the one I consider the most important in terms of helping the most people for the funds donated. In retrospect that would have done more good than donating to media by way of politicians.

[Angry Dragon]

4. Big difference between a family budget and a government budget

[dkf]

11. Don't all sides talk about budgets using the analogy of ones own family?

[Angry Dragon]

18. NO

Some use the running and budget of a business

If you notice no one says anything past that. No one says how the compare, no examples. It is just words.
In a family you set priorities.
In a business you set costs and find a market. You find out who your customers.
The thing with a government the owners are the customers.
The people of this country own the government.


Perhaps I am not saying this well.........

[bobbolink]

5. The stats are that POOR PEOPLE give more.

[kentuck]

7. By the way, thanks for changing the subject.

How clever you are.

[dkf]

12. I thought you were the one introducing the family credit cards into the post.

It did strike me that your post talked of a family getting in over their heads in debt which brought their downfall. I admit that stories of financial disaster gain my attention. I think that is my own personal worst nightmare.

[kentuck]

13. In what context?

??

[dkf]

16. Sorry I couldnt help but think our politicians are doing the same thing the bankers were...

Feeding us credit til we can't handle it.

"But then, the bubble burst. No more credit cards. No more refinancing the mortgage. No more wage increases. The working American found him/herself in a deep hole. "

I've been thinking of the per capita debt as mine to bear since the days of Perot. It scares the bejesus out of me. My own personal debt consists of one credit card.

[kentuck]

19. If only everyone were so lucky.

I think it was a long, thought-out conspiracy by the banks and the wealthy. Workers got nothing and they kept all the profits from productivity. It worked well for a long time.

[dkf]

20. Who owns us?

The banks owned the little guy but China owns us. What is worse...

I've always had a problem with applying for debt. I'm looking at buying a place now but it can't be more than I can pay off if I needed to. It has held me back in life I'm sure. But I feel more secure this way. Right now it is the country's debt that makes me feel insecure and I have no control over it. I am obligated by other people's decisions.

[kentuck]

21. I think we need to look at where the debt came from...

Yes, we have had social programs but we paid for them for most of the years. If we look at today's debt, we can see where most of it originated. Refusal to pay for wars that were not popular at home. Refusal to pay for taxcuts for the wealthy, when they did not need it and the economy did not call for it. Creation of trillion dollar programs, like Medicare Advantage, that was not paid for. It was all the plan of an ideology that wanted to destroy government. In any other country, it would have been called treason and the culprits would have been shot or beheaded on the spot.

[dkf]

22. Yes it kills me to think of why we are here.

But it's our country, mines and yours. I am willing to pay my share and really it's not "fair" because I don't make much. All I ask is that this debt I am left with not be so crazy.

[kentuck]

23. We need to backtrack...

and correct the missteps that we took to get here. We know we were in pretty good shape in January of 2001. We were running a surplus and actually were paying down some of the national debt, which was about 5 trillion at that time. The reason it was 5 trillion was because of the "supply-side", trickle-down theory adopted under Ronald Reagan. After all, when Reagan took office, the national debt was less than $1 trillion dollars. So, we can pinpoint where the debt originated. We have to find a way to get people to look at the facts.

[dkf]

24. That is why we need to get back to Clinton rates at least.

But here is the problem. I posted something from Governing magazine about the way actuarial assumptions run for pensions. Basically even if we got up to 2007 market levels that wouldn't be enough because we have lost years of gains that were supposed to compound.

This is like how the Clinton budget was supposed to work. It got us into shape so we didn't have much of a burden when the baby boomers really started ramping up in expenses. But now we are even worse! We have to get out of the Bush hole back to neutral and then work towards paying off the debt in not a whole lot of time.

Daddy and mommy went to Vegas and blew the college fund, but we still believe there will be funds when we want them.

How do we keep our promises now? Is it worse to tell people we will and then when it comes time to pay tell them it's not there? Or to let people know what it takes to do these things, let them gauge how well it is going and then plan accordingly.

For me personally I am not counting on my chickens. I hope hope hope everyone here does the same. But they don't see what I see so they won't.

[kentuck]

25. I think using the Clinton rate as a standard to raise taxes is a mistake...

For the reasons you stated. I think a more appropriate level might be the 50% that existed when Reagan took office? You can always bring the rate down but it is much more difficult to take it up. I think the Democrats make a mistake by standing with the 39% rate of the Clinton years. That, in itself, is a great compromise, in my opinion.

[dkf]

29. I don't think the Republicans will raise taxes on the rich and I don't think

The Democrats will let the rich keep their tax cuts so gridlock gets us to Clinton rates.

Maybe Obama can talk everyone into an entire restructuring of the tax code but I don't think there are enough adults in the building.

[bobbolink]

6. Jim Wallis has reminded us for years that the budget is a moral document.

That didn't matter to Clinton, and it won't matter to the rest of them.

Its time to recognize reality.... we are screwed.

[kentuck]

9. bobbolink, I think we are at a crossroads...

As a Party and as a nation. I think this may be our last at bat.

[bobbolink]

28. Those of us at the bottom of the ladder have known this for a long time now.

WE. ARE. TOAST.

The rest of you.. well, good luck.

[Progress_LocalGlobal]

17. To me its less a "moral" question, but one of priorities

Its very safe to say that the social contract in this country is diminishing. With only so many dollars to go around, pensions and social welfare programs have long taxed the system contributing to unsustainable deficits, city by city, state by state.

To me its not a moral question about the "social contract" of pensions, government sponsored health care, social security. I am all for these types of institutions and hope they can continue, but it is clear that certain politicians aim to do away with said programs all together. I assure you that the complete elimination of these programs is impossible. What I don't like about any budget solutions that have been proposed by the government is that none offer long-term solutions to the financial problems facing the country. The budget needs to focus on long-term infrastructure investment, things that will pay off in the end. We need to focus on education, totally revamp the system to make America smarter. These are the priorities that will down the road make life easier for everyone all the while creating more jobs and prosperity.

Politicians (especially the right wing) and people in general are so afraid of the words "debt" and deficit" today that I think people are forgetting all together the concept of debt. Debt is not at all a bad thing if it is sustainable, in fact it enables things to be accomplished without having the money all ready from the beginning. That is why I firmly believe in investment in things such as high speed rails, and raising standards of education, both which will turn a profit for everyone eventually. These are the issues that will have long term effects on the direction of the country.

Morally, of course we have a duty to protect the people with social safety nets. If we even want to have such things in the future we must think in the long run instead of simply slashing programs to temporarily reduce the deficit because the programs will end up coming back and continue to tax the system. Of course the outrageous Bush tax cuts do not help matters.

[Zorra]

26. If Dems had passed a budget for FY 2011 while they were in the majority,

we might have a really nice moral ethical budget document as law right now.

We might have a moral, ethical budget document that focused on increasing supports and safety nets for the majority of Americans.

Instead, we are having this what should be an unnecessary discussion about wealthy, powerful "Gang" members taking our tax money, cutting services designed to enhance the quality of life for the majority of Americans, and giving more to the wealthy.

It would have been much more effective if this point had been emphasized by Dem Party leaders when they actually had the power to produce a moral budget document.

Instead of the prize blue ribbon cow, the most we can get now is, at best, is a puddle of sour milk.

[Forkboy]

27. That's what I'm afraid of.

x(

[Odin2005]

30. K&R