Debt Reduction- Advice On Credit Card Debt Reduction, Debt Reduction Services, And Debt Reduction Plans

Matt asked:


We have seen what Obama believes can fix our economy. Massive spending, massive debt and social programs. These are very similar to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s ideas. (The Economic Stimulous Packages = The New Deals.)

I think that America has forgotten how long it took FDR to get us out of hard times. 10 years, 10 long years of suffering. More than that, it took World War II. We didn’t have a standing military so all of our tanks, planes, guns, ships, etc. all were obselete and needed replaced and we needed to hire new soldiers. It was all of the military orders that spurred the economy not the social programs. If we want to follow this path then I guess we should start bombing all of the Middle East because that would cause a World War.

But seriously, Obama’s tactics have spent record amounts and racked up tons of debt. If this worked, wouldn’t we have have gone from 11% unemployment to 2% in these pasted 2 years? We haven’t because history has shown that this doesn’t work (except the World War part, that did actually work). However instead of trading blood and lives for an economy, why not find a peaceful way from history?

FLAT RATE taxes have historically brought in far more revenue than PROGRESSIVE RATE taxes (provided the rate is reasonable 5%-15%) because it is easier and cheaper to pay the tax than dodge it. CUTTING government spending AND CUTTING taxes have also spurred economic growth.

President Harding brought America from 11% unemployment down to 2% unemployment in 2 years by cutting the federal budget in half and cutting taxes to just cover it. We had a 2 year recovery that shot us into the Roaring 20s; an age of new inovations, new inventions and wealth (Anyone who drives a car should thank Harding because it was in the 1920s that cars became a household item).

What have Obama’s 2 years gotten us? Massive debt and about a 2% reduction of unemployment.

Knowing all of this does anyone still have faith in Obama?
Response:

Will Nickel- You surprised me. I didn’t think that you would admit that Obama’s solution isn’t working. Also, you misunderstand. I’m not Republican, I’m an independent. I will vote for a Democrat or a Republican it depends on the INDIVIDUAL not the PARTY.

Hondo- You are correct that it isn’t the job of the President alone to fix the economy, however it is the President who writes the budget. Since the Pressident writes the budget he does determine (to an extent) the economic direction of the country. Granted congress has to approve of the budget so they are not free from blame either. I just wish the President AND Congress both would look at history before raising the national debt by $3.3 trillion in 2 years.

Roger- Please define “much better” because I’m sure that Ohio would love to have the news. Latest stats show that Ohio is doing as well as we did…in the GREAT DEPRESSION. Sure our unemployment has fallen a bit since last year but things are not all that “better” ye

Elton Cattrell

siRyan ??? asked:


Having watched the Commons this week I witnessed several politicians and I’ve read several news reports slandering the new government for constantly referring to the debt they have had to deal with left behind by the previous government.

It’s clearly a tactic, primarily forged by the Conservatives, to deflect negative attention away from the inevitable cuts they have had to make/are going to make…but I think they are totally in the right to do this.

The previous government knew they could delay sorting out the problem, as the general election was a win win for them. They either got back in power, or lost to the Tories, leaving them to sort the mess out, and then regain power after the next election, as the country would have become frustrated by the Cons.

If David Miliband uses the deficit reduction tactics imposed by the Cons as an integral element of his campaign then I will be re-voting Conservative.

FQ; Is David Miliband, by faaaar…the only credible Labour candidate?

FQ2; Would you trust Ed, or Balls?

*this is the 2nd time I’ve posted this, as I got no answers the first time. I know this is predominately a US section..but pleease! some1 from the UK find this god damn question!

John Winchester

Cheveldi asked:


So here is an idea:

We have 5000 employees in the American DEd. How many do we really need? 100 maybe. If 4,900 jobs were eliminated, the few that were really necessary could be picked up by the states. The states beef up their taxes while the federal could slim theirs. States really wouldn’t need the amount of people it the fed had required just a couple additional people to process the new larger amount of money coming straight to the state.

4,900 federal jobs gone, if at all paid at minimum wage, would be a federal tax reduction for the whole United States would be 70.6 million dollars. Sure isn’t even 1% of our national debt but its 2% less we’ll be spending a year.

You do that with the Transportation Department, Social Security, Medicare, Health, and all unnecessarily Federal Programs, and we might get somewhere. That and figure out how to decrease inflation and politician benefits.
This most assuredly couldn’t turn into a 1.4 million dollar increase for each state. Esp. if the state delegated more responsibility to the counties and school districts.
Yes, the war is one of the problems. But how are we going to just withdraw? How? Its too late for hind sight. Now what do we do about getting out of there?

Isidro Evelo

Jacob asked:


A leading panel of budget experts estimated Thursday today that King Obama’s latest spending plan does not save as much money as the White House initially claimed and is about $1.5 trillion more expensive than the Republican plan. Since he delivered a major fiscal policy address last week, Obama and other officials have touted that the White House plan would cut $4 trillion over 12 years. Using that figure, they have claimed it’s very similar to a House Republican plan which supposedly would cut $4.4 trillion over 10 years.

But given that most budget outlines use a 10-year window, as required by law, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget tried to offer an apples-to-apples comparison — and determined Obama’s proposal would actually cut deficits by $2.5 trillion over the next decade. It credited the president for “moving the ball forward,” but said that based on Congressional Budget Office assumptions, the plan doesn’t do enough to tackle the debt crisis. “It appears unlikely that the policies proposed in the president’s framework would be sufficient to reduce debt to a manageable level,” committee officials wrote.

In response, the White House claimed that using the 10-year window, the king’s budget plan would cut $2.9 trillion, not $2.5 trillion. And officials continued to stand by the claim that it cuts $4 trillion over 12 years. A White House aide suggested Obozo’s plan would save more than the committee claims in part because of a “failsafe” provision that would trigger additional spending cuts if debt reduction goals are not met.

“Even with the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget’s shifting of the goalposts and failure to factor the failsafe in their analysis, they still confirm that the president’s plan would reduce the deficit substantially and prevent a large increase in the debt,” White House spokeswoman Amy Brundage told Fox Business Network. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget also dialed back Republican claims about their spending plan. Though Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., the plan’s author, claimed it would cut $4.4 trillion over a decade, the committee said it would cut more like $4 trillion in that period.

That still leaves $1.5 trillion separating the two plans, in an apples-to-apples comparison, raising questions about administration claims that Republicans and Democrats agree on how much to cut. The new estimates also showed the GOP plan would bring the debt down to about 69 percent of GDP by 2021. By contrast, Obama’s plan would bring the debt to 77 percent of GDP, the report said. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget is composed of former officials from the CBO, the White House Office of Management and Budget and other key offices.

Trevor Goodchild

Luc asked:


Now obviously, I realise it does but I want to understand “how” it matters, and the difference in the national debt versus government debt. I will put all figures in pounds with dollar conversions in brackets.

If you take the U.S. and the U.K. economies for example.

Here in the U.K. we have a government running around like headless chickens ripping money out of everything, trying to cover a £150 billion ($242 Billion) overspend and lower it to 0 within 8 years. They are pulling £4 billion out of voluntary and charity organisations, they have pulled ALL the extended funding (called EMA) for 16 to 18yr olds in college.

Thats on top of 15 to 25% reduction in local government budgets for cities up and down the country which we are expecting to result in half to three quarters of a million people losing their public sector jobs over the next 12 to 24 months with probably another 150 thousand + going from the private sector that relies on public sector to buy many of its products and services.

So, its a slash and burn tactic, everything is for sale, everything must go. No growth programs, just normalisation of the budgets and to hell with the consequences.Yet even if they accomplish this insanity and do actually manage to balance the books, we still have a national debt of £1.2 trillion ($1.93 Trillion) with a GDP output of £2.17 Trillion

Then you have the USA…

they are planning government debt reduction of £750Billion ($1.2Trillion) over ten years, they are not planning anything like the draconian measures here in the UK, and for all intents and purposes, though not a perfect solution, borrowing and slowly growing their way out of their recession whilst slowly reducing that borrowing has worked for them with growth rates at 2.8% annualised V our UK growth contraction of 0.6%.

But even so, when all is said and done, and say they do actually manage to balance the government budget for the first time since Clinton (who`s team managed to balance them so well, the US Government had a $75 billion surplus per year) There is still an 11.8 Trillion dollar national debt against a GDP of 14.3 Trillion dollars.

And don’t even get me started on UK and US trade deficits…

So, what’s the point of all this pain if for all intents and purposes, were only going to have to go through worse in ten or twenty years when the markets realise we’ve sold our gold, we’ve sold our companies to china, we’ve stripped all our natural resources and sold them and all we have left is the paper with our debt numbers on it.

Luther Munkberg

rlc_60504 asked:


Everybody (Democrats, Republicans, Cats and Dogs) seems to dislike the proposed solution outlined by the administration’s debt reduction committee today. What specific steps would you take to solve the problem? Please try to come up with recommendations that don’t tick everybody off!

Oscar Macks

Susan asked:


In my opinion, debt reduction is not that difficult – you either increase your income, cut your spending or both? Why is it that the federal government does not recognize this? If the federal government would just get rid of the following cabinet departments and turn them over to the private sector, we would all be better off: transportation, education, health/human services, interior, etc.

Deja Boche

phynixdaybreak asked:


Okay.The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (Pres. Obama’s Debt Reduction Commission) has proposed raising the retirement age of eligibility for Social Security and Medicare to 68 by the year 2050. Any proponents? why?…….Opponents? Why?

thanks

Sanjuanita Mussmann

Pete S asked:


Many people in various countries around the world are advocating cutting government spending as a means of debt reduction. Yet in quite a few of these countries, it seems unemployment is high. A portion of government spending goes to paying wages to its workers. If we eliminate some government jobs, what effect will this have on these unemployment rates? Can economies recover if unemployment remains high?

Tom Sainz

Gloria asked:


I thought it’d be interesting to see what people thought about this;
do you think it’s a good idea?
who would it benefit, do you think?
why might this be a good/bad idea?

Samuel Wessinger