So ideas anyone?

I think "National Debt - A Minor Annoyance" would be more fitting.

^ Wow.

There are plenty of ideas out there and none of them matter. We will continue to vote ourselves christmas, arguing only over the size and content of the presents because... well, because we can.

Because of our size and unique position in the world, the normal conditions that would drive a country into default and restructuring don't apply. Even in the last crisis as there was a four-alarm economic fire in our own house, a global flight to safety sent money pouring into treasuries. Not in a vote of confidence but because everyone understands that if the US economy goes down it is taking everyone else with it.

This economic suicide pact means that we get to kick the can down the road for a long time and even though everyone understands it is unsustainable, everyone will do their part to maintain the illusion as long as possible. Some perfect storm of events could bring it down in five years or in fifty. Anyone offering a specific timeline is a fraud.

So what's a rational person to do? Put 10% of your money into guns and canned goods and bet the other 90% the party will go on because being early is the same as being wrong.

Why kick the can? A simple cut spending approach is a great way to start.

And we did not, for the first time in a long time, vote ourselves Christmas in the lame duck on the omnibus (if I understood what you meant by voting ourselves Christmas). That bill was stopped cuz of the push to stop the spending in Wash.

I think the outrage from 'clear thinking Americans'(<--joking a lil) on our National debt (which was the Tea Party's seminal moment was when Bush, Repubs and Dems passed the 200Billion Roads bill or something. Bush had to spend some but the pork was infuriating to some peeps.

The way to solve this problem is obviously entitlements, but both sides are worried about bringing the topic of first for fear of being demagogued(sp?). I'm convinced the Repubs would do it if they had the executive. So hopefully that will change in 12'.

Why kick the can? A simple cut spending approach is a great way to start.

And we did not, for the first time in a long time, vote ourselves Christmas in the lame duck on the omnibus (if I understood what you meant by voting ourselves Christmas). That bill was stopped cuz of the push to stop the spending in Wash.

I think the outrage from 'clear thinking Americans'(<--joking a lil) on our National debt (which was the Tea Party's seminal moment was when Bush, Repubs and Dems passed the 200Billion Roads bill or something. Bush had to spend some but the pork was infuriating to some peeps.

The way to solve this problem is obviously entitlements, but both sides are worried about bringing the topic UP first for fear of being demagogued(sp?). I'm convinced the Repubs would do it if they had the executive. So hopefully that will change in 12'.

Tahoe, you've supported sustained govt spending for the military before. Would you be willing to enact severe, painful cuts to our men and women in uniform in exchange for deep and painful cuts for children?

I'm guessing the Bush tax cuts counts as at least a large part of "voting ourselves Christmas".

Why kick the can?

Two reasons. First, because there's absolutely no serious political mandate to do otherwise. Once you get past the abstract level where most people agree that deficits are kinda bad and something should be done about them, you discover they are entirely full of shit when asked about specifics and only want cuts to tiny bits of spending they ideologically oppose.

Americans entirely full of shit on spending. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/145790/Americans-Oppose-Cuts-Education-Social-Security-Defense.aspx) (headline changed for accuracy)

Second, for the reasons I mentioned earlier... because we can. What about our habits in the last (pick a time period, 25, 50, 75, 100) years would lead you to believe that anything other than an immovable brick wall of reality would make us stop?


I'm guess the Bush tax cuts counts as at least a large part of "voting ourselves Christmas".

Yes, tax cuts are the conservative version of it. It's spending but it's spending they like.

Tahoe, you've supported sustained govt spending for the military before. Would you be willing to enact severe, painful cuts to our men and women in uniform in exchange for deep and painful cuts for children?

I'd be willing to cut defense spending, but not severe, painful cuts. I think we could cut a substantial amount from defense without them being severe and painful.

Tax rates rise and fall. Bush cut taxes, that should have permanent, to reasonable levels.

But we need to rid ourselves of Dept of Education, HUD, Energy, etc and after paying down the debt, cut taxes more.

We need to downsize the federal gov't by about a 3rd.

I realize libs looks to the Fed gov't to fix everything, but they really are the problem, not the solution.

Two reasons. First, because there's absolutely no serious political mandate to do otherwise. Once you get past the abstract level where most people agree that deficits are kinda bad and something should be done about them, you discover they are entirely full of shit when asked about specifics and only want cuts to tiny bits of spending they ideologically oppose.

Americans entirely full of shit on spending. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/145790/Americans-Oppose-Cuts-Education-Social-Security-Defense.aspx) (headline changed for accuracy)


Second, for the reasons I mentioned earlier... because we can. What about our habits in the last (pick a time period, 25, 50, 75, 100) years would lead you to believe that anything other than an immovable brick wall of reality would make us stop?



Yes, tax cuts are the conservative version of it. It's spending but it's spending they like.

Bolded 1. I think thats what last years elections were about. And just because there isn't a mandate, to get our fiscal house in order, doesn't mean they shouldn't do something.

And as far as what Americans want cut...of course no one wants their stuff cut. But the peeps didn't create this mess. The politicians fucked up, either fix it or get voted out.

But we need to rid ourselves of Dept of Education, HUD, Energy, etc and after paying down the debt, cut taxes more.

You may not realize it, but you're not serious. When you say cut gov't by a third then name examples that might add up to a third of a percent, it's like the fat kid switching to diet coke with his supersized meal--and adding an extra sandwich.

Have a look and see that what you describe is tiny cuts (hello, diet coke) and big spending (mmm, tax cut sandwich).

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/02/01/us/budget.html

You may not realize it, but you're not serious. When you say cut gov't by a third then name examples that might add up to a third of a percent, it's like the fat kid switching to diet coke with his supersized meal--and adding an extra sandwich.

Have a look and see that what you describe is tiny cuts (hello, diet coke) and big spending (mmm, tax cut sandwich).

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/02/01/us/budget.html

I mentioned a couple to get started. But we clearly have to cut the federal gov't in large measure. We need to whach these useless agencies.

What I'm getting at is no matter who wins the whack-an-agency debate, both sides are just rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic.

Unless you are talking about eviscerating defense, entitlements and health care... you aren't serious about deficits. We--and by we I mean world+dog--aren't serious. The only way that happens is a huge popular mandate which does not exist (http://www.gallup.com/poll/145790/Americans-Oppose-Cuts-Education-Social-Security-Defense.aspx) or going over the cliff.

No way do we have to eviscerate defense, entitlements and hc to cut the deficit.

Start by cutting spending. Entitlements need to be included but as soon as the Repubs raise it the Dems will run to the old peeps and say they want you to die and the want to cut SS. I'm hoping for something with BO and Sen McConnell behind closed doors again. But it would take a huge amount of time to go into the detail to make cuts in SS, HC and defense.

As the debt gets paid down the less has to go to interest payments and principal on the national debt and instead of spiraling down exponentially, its the reverse.

But hey, if you youngsters don't want to start now, thats fine with me. I'll be retired and watching y'all scramble with the debt. I'll have my pile of cash buried in my basement so the Gov't can take their piece of me. :)

And Gee, who gives a shit if the peeps want cuts but no nimby. Much of this is out of our hands. Its up to our elected officials. They created this mess, its up to them to fix it.

I'll have to go look at what our payments are on our national debt.

Looks like we're spending about $400Billion a year on interest alone. I think thats right.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/56/Deficits_vs._Debt_Increases_-_2009.png/800px-Deficits_vs._Debt_Increases_-_2009.png (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Deficits_vs._Debt_Increases_-_2009.png)

No way do we have to eviscerate defense, entitlements and hc to cut the deficit. ...Start by cutting spending.

By what magic do you cut the deficit without addressing the areas where most of the spending and most of the growth in spending happens?

Again I refer you to the 2011 federal budget (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/02/01/us/budget.html). Click on the button to hide the mandatory spending. Look at what's left: defense and table scraps. All the deficit hawks are doing is arguing over small pieces of the table scraps.

That's a cool link G.

By what magic do you cut the deficit without addressing the areas where most of the spending and most of the growth in spending happens?

Again I refer you to the 2011 federal budget (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/02/01/us/budget.html). Click on the button to hide the mandatory spending. Look at what's left: defense and table scraps. All the deficit hawks are doing is arguing over small pieces of the table scraps.

Why are you going to the extremes using words like 'eviscerate'? Those programs can be cut without 'eviscerating' them.

AND THE DEMS NEVER EVEN DID A BUDGET LAST YEAR! The Dem's in congress shouldn't even get their paychecks for last year cuz they didn't even put forth a budget. We are under a CR right now till march(?). Seriously, what a bunch of yahoos. SMH.

Also, that button thing hides programs that need to be cut. So I"m not willing to hide that spending.

Also, that is a good link. It would have been nice for them to mention there is no budget thanks to the Dems.

Serious question....where is Obamas 900billion or was a trillion dollar stimulus package in that graph?

Continuing resolutions are pretty routine. Budgets are surely better, but I'm not sure why you are harping on that. They happen literally, almost every year, no matter which party holds power in which branch of the government.

They didn't even put forward any budget resolutions. The parts that make up the budget. AFAICT, nothing was resolved in committees.

This was really bad this year. We've got this crisis and they didn't even do their jobs. But I'm sure we got some Post Offices named after some of them...you know the important stuff.

Appropriation bills. 12 make up the US budget. You might be right that no appropriation bills were approved (or even voted on?). That's not a first, but certainly not typical. The full year continuing resolution (CR) isn't abnormal at this point.

Agreed that budgets are better and that not paying politicians unless they pass them would get them passed MUCH more often.

My understanding is that the appropriation bills are post passage of a budget. That is the actual funding. Prior to a budget, committees put together a budget for a specific portion of the budget....defense or something. Than that partial budget is resolved and waits for all the other parts and then the budget is passed. I thought, might be wrong though, that the appropriation came later.

Appropriation bills are the base legal structure of the budget. Budget is essentially a name to call all 12 together. The constitution says that congress must "appropriate" (it uses that actual word) all money drawn from the treasury. In other words, the only way to make treasury withdraws is via a federal law.

The committees you are talking about meet to figure out their departments portion of which ever of the 12 appropriation bill they are covered by. The twelve can be voted on or vetoed separately or put together in an omnibus appropriation bill.

Appropriation bills are the base legal structure of the budget. Budget is essentially a name to call all 12 together. The constitution says that congress must "appropriate" (it uses that actual word) all money drawn from the treasury. In other words, they only way to make treasury withdraws is via a federal law.

The committees you are talking about meet to figure out their departments portion of which ever of the 12 appropriation bill they are covered by. The twelve can be voted on or vetoed separately or put together in an omnibus appropriation bill.

Which was never done last year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_budget_process

Here's a pretty understandable description of the process, that focuses mostly on the budget resolution. You were right about the "resolution" being passed by Congress pre-appropriation bills but it's not a law because the President doesn't sign it (it only binds Congress). The appropriation bills make up the legal federal budget.

If you think about how big this budget is, you'd have to divide it up to committees as a preprocess to the overall process of approving a budget. Its difficult for me to say that the Gov't is actually doing something that makes sense, but that makes sense to me.

And what I was saying earlier, the Dems didn't do 1 single 'resolution' from any committee.

I think normally when they do a cr, there are several parts of the budget 'resolved' from committee making it a clearer picture of where the budget is at, or parts of it. This year there wasn't a single resolution.

http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/18679.pdf

Page 7 and 8 show how many appropriation bills have been passed pre-CR, within the CR, or not at all.

It looks like most of the time, if there is a CR, there are very few if any appropriations passed prior to it or within it. Still looking like this FY wasn't really abnormal.

It's been educational nailing down what I only knew generally before though. I like this forum the most when that happens.

Yeah, I already knew all that. j/k

That only helps WTFChris ignore your posts as lies.

Why are you going to the extremes using words like 'eviscerate'? Those programs can be cut without 'eviscerating' them.

I specifically chose the word eviscerate to give a vivid description of what it would look like if you got what you want. You said your ideal or goal was government shrunk by a third. I believe you also said "cuts, deep cuts." Well, you don't get there with haircuts, you get there with amputations.

^ Oh.

Well, as you pointed out, HUGE cuts cannot happen overnight.

But we have to make huge cuts, over time, in Medicare, some in SS and the military. Like I said, bring our troops home from Germany. We have more troops in Germany than in Iraq. Let old Europe fend for itself.

I pasted this link in the Stossell thread too.

http://www.creators.com/opinion/john-stossel/i-can-balance-the-budget.html

^State taxes increase by 4X in that example, and fed ones stay the same just to not increase the deficit. You now have to raise taxes to pay it off (not to mention all the folks who are now out of a job won't be paying taxes)

^ Wow.

Obv you didn't fully get the joke lol. I was poking fun at how it's being handled by the VIPs, not stating my opinion.

^ oh. I'm slow like that.

A good read, Gee, re the politics of cutting spending on the GOP side.
http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/02/05/mixed-messages

Thanks Tahoe. Hoping the Tea Party can hold the line there. See if the 3rd party emerges in some states.

http://www.rove.com/articles/284

Well, that one was as bad as the first was good. So you're even, which isn't bad for you in this forum.

^ I didn't read it. Should I? Sounds like no. I just like to post Rove stuff everytime I see it, cuz he's a pretty big hit around here.

just rhetoric.

That first one is a good piece.

WTFChris disagrees.

A good read, Gee, re the politics of cutting spending on the GOP side.
http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/02/05/mixed-messages

Yes, it was a good read. I thought it was very realistic in describing the catch-22s of deficit reduction in an general kind of way. I kind of wish it had gone on to discuss the consequences of making deficit reduction top priority right now.

Going after deficits has benefits and it also has real economic and human costs. In the run-up to a war on deficits I want the hawks selling that war to the public to honestly acknowledge those costs. All I hear is a lot of rosy talk about how we'll be greeted as liberators from the oppression of government deficits with no exit strategy from the downturn.


http://www.rove.com/articles/284

rove;dr

Barry said that he'd listened to entitlement cuts from the GOP. LOL. yeah right.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/146021/obama-approval-rating-deficit-sinks-new-low.aspx

lol@opinion polls.

^ as long as they disagree with you.

lol@opinion polls.

But holy moly 27%. Yikes. Wow. I mean...thats, wow.

But he says Iraq is doing well.

The only thing opinion polls tell you is whose marketing has done the best lately.

Here is more on pensions, that you won't hear from Chris cuz its not an evil corporation.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/02/06/BAD91HJ22F.DTL

shit should be criminal to rip off taxpayers like this.

Voters passed the 2002 amendment that created that super-sweet pension plan for SF cops, Tahoe.

It's likely that a sizable hunk of those pension dollars were contributed by the police officers directly. Those pensions are instead of Social Security. Note there's many bigger cities where the pension plans (even if they lost money) are far better managed/invested than the city as a whole precisely because the cops have their own money in the game and no alternative. Often, the cities try to take the pension dollars to make up for other shortcomings. I don't know the specifics of how the SF police pension fund is structured, but you want to be aware of how it's structured before deciding who's ripping off who.

Did you read it all? It's not just cops. And I said 'should be criminal' for a reason, cuz its legal and crazy as hell.

A BART worker who gets paid 150k a year, inflates his final year's pay by saving up sick leave, vacay pay, etc cuz he/she knows their pensions are based off of the final year's compensation. That shit should be criminal.

I don't get that some of y'all think there is this endless stream of taxpayer money.

As I said, its not a corporation, so we won't hear anything from the left on it. Its just when private sector peeps make money thats so obscene.

Its just when private sector peeps make money thats so obscene.

I can get a rage on over public sector waste, fraud and abuse just like the next guy. Yes, it's awful. Terrible. Etc. Every time an instance where people fluff their final year to bloat a pension or otherwise game the system the system should be reviewed and amended to prevent that kind of behavior in the future and if they broke the law to do it, let them serve time.

Howeva, that rage is a raised eyebrow compared to what has happened in the private sector. That is the shit that turns me into a mushroom cloud layin mothafucka. Individual people made hundreds of millions to billions, companies made billions upon billions making heads-they-win-tails-you-lose bets. When their bets went bad, it blew up the whole fucking economy and who made good on it? Who made sure the gamblers got paid in full? The taxpayers. The same 'hardworking peeps' you profess to care so much about got taken for the biggest ride in history. All with no prosecutions and no handcuffs. Now they're just reloaded, bailed out with an even bigger too big to fail gun to the head of the economy.

So yeah, some people gaming the pension system is offensive but it's penny ante compared to the people who blew up the economy and looted the nation.

That's strong stuff.

Since you said "Here is more on pensions", I presumed pensions was your focus. The "base pay" issues are a different issue. The part that the article doesn't say is that usually, a big-city police chief is not promoted from within the ranks, but was a chief or captain from some other smaller area. So they're often getting two or more pensions, with the second pension often being for only a few years work as chief. It does allude to the gimmick where one retires then come back as a contractor, but doesn't flat-out say they're getting a pension along with the contractor dollars. The issue there is that, past a certain point, an old pension-class person is working only for the difference between their pension and their pay which may not be a whole heckuva lot. So they threaten to retire, but they're still needed because they've been around the block awhile and know where assorted bodies are buried, and get paid. There's also the "acting" chiefs who don't want to be administratively labeled as real chiefs because they want to remain in the police officers union for a set number of years to maximize benefits. Fun stuff.

I can get a rage on over public sector waste, fraud and abuse just like the next guy. Yes, it's awful. Terrible. Etc. Every time an instance where people fluff their final year to bloat a pension or otherwise game the system the system should be reviewed and amended to prevent that kind of behavior in the future and if they broke the law to do it, let them serve time.

Howeva, that rage is a raised eyebrow compared to what has happened in the private sector. That is the shit that turns me into a mushroom cloud layin mothafucka. Individual people made hundreds of millions to billions, companies made billions upon billions making heads-they-win-tails-you-lose bets. When their bets went bad, it blew up the whole fucking economy and who made good on it? Who made sure the gamblers got paid in full? The taxpayers. The same 'hardworking peeps' you profess to care so much about got taken for the biggest ride in history. All with no prosecutions and no handcuffs. Now they're just reloaded, bailed out with an even bigger too big to fail gun to the head of the economy.

So yeah, some people gaming the pension system is offensive but it's penny ante compared to the people who blew up the economy and looted the nation.

Obama made sure the taxpayers paid, correct.

Since you said "Here is more on pensions", I presumed pensions was your focus. The "base pay" issues are a different issue. The part that the article doesn't say is that usually, a big-city police chief is not promoted from within the ranks, but was a chief or captain from some other smaller area. So they're often getting two or more pensions, with the second pension often being for only a few years work as chief. It does allude to the gimmick where one retires then come back as a contractor, but doesn't flat-out say they're getting a pension along with the contractor dollars. The issue there is that, past a certain point, an old pension-class person is working only for the difference between their pension and their pay which may not be a whole heckuva lot. So they threaten to retire, but they're still needed because they've been around the block awhile and know where assorted bodies are buried, and get paid. There's also the "acting" chiefs who don't want to be administratively labeled as real chiefs because they want to remain in the police officers union for a set number of years to maximize benefits. Fun stuff.


Public pensions are just another area that needs to be fixed. It's not the only one though.

It all needs to be fixed so peeps feel like they can pay their taxes and that those taxes go to something meaningful. Isn't that sweet.

rt: 47% of the peeps in the US don't pay taxes? Holy shit. Obama will prolly get elected with that 47%.

Obama made sure the taxpayers paid, correct.

Yes, and no. The nature of the system made sure the taxpayers paid. That failure is on the last thirty years of bi-partisan easy money and dismantling of regulation creating an environment where it was understood by all involved that no matter what you did, how much risk you took, the taxpayers would absorb the downside.

Obama's failure is in squandering the opportunity to defuse the situation before the next blowup. There was a window of political opportunity where anything was possible. Reform and regulation with teeth, breaking up the too big to fails, decoupling traditional banking from the casino and in general bringing the financial sector to heel in a way that ensures a bank failure isn't a global crisis. Instead he punted, following the advice of the same jackwagons who set up the house of cards to being with. When it blows up again it's gonna be on Barry.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/146641-gao-report-expected-to-show-hundreds-of-duplicate-programs

Ending ethanol subsidies isn't exactly "cutting redundant programs", though I'm all for it. 44 job training programs doesn't really sound like a lot. That's not exactly something that screams "one size fits all".

^
^
I guess its 200billion over 10 years. Only a fool wouldn't want to look into this.

Republicans in the house should be paid twice what they usually make for doing the work the disarray Dems didn't do last year. First Repubs have to pass a budget for last year. And Repubs have to put up next years budget in a couple of weeks.

Amazing how those dead beat dems actually got paid last year.

Republicans in the house should be paid twice what they usually make for doing the work the disarray Dems didn't do last year. First Repubs have to pass a budget for last year. And Repubs have to put up next years budget in a couple of weeks.

Amazing how those dead beat dems actually got paid last year.
Pulease... who da fuck got us in this mess in the first place... they're trying to fix what the GOP destroyed... with no help, cause the GOP is more about "the party line" than working as a team.

Uhm, the debt increased dramatically under Pelosi. Thats what the GOP is trying to straighten out. Republicans spent too though.

But the Dems didn't do a budget last year. Thats my point. And now they have to cut spending to mitigate the damage the Dems caused with Pelosi.

QE2 stops in July or something... :shitstorm:

Uhm, the debt increased dramatically under Pelosi. Thats what the GOP is trying to straighten out. Republicans spent too though.

But the Dems didn't do a budget last year. Thats my point. And now they have to cut spending to mitigate the damage the Dems caused with Pelosi.

With Pelosi being single-handedly responsible for launching two wars, TARP and the Bush tax cuts nearly the entire deficit comes back to her.

We already went over how ridiculous your little "no budget" campaign is. Almost every year is filled with continuing resolutions.

And politicians are already paid twice. Once from their government salary and once in campaign contributions from lobbyists.

We already went over how ridiculous your little "no budget" campaign is. Almost every year is filled with continuing resolutions.

And politicians are already paid twice. Once from their government salary and once in campaign contributions from lobbyists.


Utter bullshit.

With Pelosi being single-handedly responsible for launching two wars, TARP and the Bush tax cuts nearly the entire deficit comes back to her.
Tax cuts helped keep the country from sinking further. Even your Messiah said that. TARP sucks. Hard call. Your Messiah also said Afghanistan is the right war. And some peeps think Iraq was the right war.

Barry should quit spending money, I think almost 5 trillion added to the debt in 2 years. And he plans on adding another 10 trillion in over the next 8 years? I think thats what he has planned.

Tax cuts helped keep the country from sinking further. Even your Messiah said that. TARP sucks. Hard call. Your Messiah also said Afghanistan is the right war. And some peeps think Iraq was the right war.

Barry should quit spending money, I think almost 5 trillion added to the debt in 2 years. And he plans on adding another 10 trillion in over the next 8 years? I think thats what he has planned.

So you agree then that "undoing the damage done by pelosi" has little bearing on the major items that contribute to it?

The major items that contributed to it has been years of waste and mostly the Dems spending habbits. The Repubs stopped another Trillion dollar ominibus during the lame duck.

The major items that contributed to it has been years of waste and mostly the Dems spending habbits. The Repubs stopped another Trillion dollar ominibus during the lame duck.

During the years of republican control did spending go up or down? How about deficits?

It went up. The Repubs had to make deals with the Dems, just to getjthingskpassed.

The thing is that it is clear who wants to cut spending now.

Let me just... put this here...

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/02/tax_breaks_infographic.html

Just think if we didn't keep spending borrowed money and adding almost 2 more trillion dollars to the national debt this year. Cuz we are going to spend over 200 BILLION dollars in interest payments this year(which it looks like would cover all those programs).

And Barry's budget adds about 10 trill, iirc, to the debt over the next decade.

Its unsustainable.

Instead of 14 trillion in National debt and 200 billion dollars annually to pay for it, think what it would be like to have 3 trillion in debt, or 1 Trillion or even a surplus. We could cut taxes...wow what a concept.

But if we had our fiscal house in order, the Fed Gov't could afford to fight a war or could afford to do stimulus packages.

We just cant afford anything.

Since we're playing what if: If we weren't fighting wars and hadn't cut taxes our fiscal house would be in order.

Taxes should be lowered...and that isn't a what if. The Gov't shouldn't be as big as it is. And it shouldn't be spending more than it takes in.

Since we're playing what if: If we weren't fighting wars and hadn't cut taxes our fiscal house would be in order.

I don't think peeps mind paying taxes if they knew it wasn't going to be wasted.

Here's a story on Gov't waste cuz of redundant programs.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703749504576172942399165436.html

Here's a story on duplicative programs we pay for.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703749504576172942399165436.html

"Department of Redundancy Department. How may I assist in helping you?"

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703749504576172942399165436.html

In February, the US brought in 110billion, we spent 330billion so we borowed 220billion dollars for February alone.

^ iirc.

220 billion dollars in one month!

Mxy, how much did Bush add to the national debt every year while he was in office? I can't remember. At least the years that Pewowsi wasn't in charge.

I don't know. There were some significant changes in how the deficit was counted when Obama came in, to account for the true costs of Medicare, for having disaster relief actually part of the budget, etc. that jacked up things by (I _think_) 20% or so. I don't have a good apples-to-apples comparison.

The gorillas in the room are Social Security, Medicare, defense spending, and interest on current debt, and the first two are growing the fastest. Those 4 things account for 80-85% of the budget. Assume that interest payments on the debt must happen or else the U.S. goes into foreclosure, so really there's only 3 areas to cut. I believe the consensus plan amongst the political class is "wait until after the 2012 elections". For people who think there should be spending cuts, what do you suggest we cut from those 3 things? I'd argue that focusing on the 15-20% of other discretionary spending is relative noise.

As far as what to do to jack up inbound revenue, Obama caved on extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. That's 30-35% of that deficit right there. Much like the Bush tax cuts, it's unclear to what extent the tax cuts (that were a nod to the Republicans) in the stimulus really stimulated anything, or are even appreciated. Pretty-much everyone has gotten a tax break under Obama, but a bunch of folks think their taxes are higher despite the math, because the economy is still shitty.

I don't know. There were some significant changes in how the deficit was counted when Obama came in, to account for the true costs of Medicare, for having disaster relief actually part of the budget, etc. that jacked up things by (I _think_) 20% or so. I don't have a good apples-to-apples comparison.

I'm going from memory here too, weren't there some existing war costs that were brought onto the books as well?

But the national debt is what it is. Whether the spending is in the budget or not, it will added to the national debt, no?

Yeah, during his "transparency" phase they made a big deal about putting war costs in the budget rather than keeping it in off-budget funding (or not funding as it were) pile.

http://www.americanthinker.com/Deficits.gif

More Americans work for the government than in manufacturing, farming, fishing, forestry, mining and utilities combined.




We have moved decisively from a nation of makers to a nation of takers. Nearly half of the $2.2 trillion cost of state and local governments is the $1 trillion-a-year tab for pay and benefits of state and local employees. Is it any wonder that so many states and cities cannot pay their bills?


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704050204576219073867182108.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

But education is an industry where we measure performance backwards: We gauge school performance not by outputs, but by inputs. If quality falls, we say we didn't pay teachers enough or we need smaller class sizes or newer schools. If education had undergone the same productivity revolution that manufacturing has, we would have half as many educators, smaller school budgets, and higher graduation rates and test scores. Agreed, the solution to the education problem is lower wage jobs and more kids per class. Where has this soothsayer been?


Don't expect a reversal of this trend anytime soon. Surveys of college graduates are finding that more and more of our top minds want to work for the government. Why? Because in recent years only government agencies have been hiring, and because the offer of near lifetime security is highly valued in these times of economic turbulence. When 23-year-olds aren't willing to take career risks, we have a real problem on our hands. Sadly, we could end up with a generation of Americans who want to work at the Department of Motor Vehicles. Every college kid should set their goal toward working for industries that aren't hiring. Again, profound.

2009 National employment stats by industry ... roughly ("occupation groups")
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm

Agreed, the solution to the education problem is lower wage jobs and more kids per class. Where has this soothsayer been?

Every college kid should set their goal toward working for industries that aren't hiring. Again, profound.

Is that whats he's advocating there? I missed that part.

We have moved decisively from a nation of makers to a nation of takers. Nearly half of the $2.2 trillion cost of state and local governments is the $1 trillion-a-year tab for pay and benefits of state and local employees. Is it any wonder that so many states and cities cannot pay their bills?

Labor runs in that 50% ballpark for most businesses. Is there a reason to expect state and local governments to be dramatically different?

And its not like there is NOTHING that comes from state and federal workers.

Its just that gov't don't have to run things like a business. They don't have to be concerned about balancing a budget or making a profit. Gov't are blind to all that. All they do is get the job done(extremely inefficiently in most cases), say this is how much it costs and raise taxes if they need more money to do it.

Then theres the 'programs' and 'departments' that don't even need to exist.

Is that whats he's advocating there? I missed that part.

Here, I put it in bold for you.


If education had undergone the same productivity revolution that manufacturing has

Thanks, bro.

At least it looks like Obama realizes there is a debt problem. He's coming around to what the Repubs and Tea Party have been telling him. And what last years Nov election told him.

It won't be easy getting there with a Socialist for a Prez, but hopefully the Repubs and Tea Party will keep him in line.

Also, its amazing how Barry can make the 47% of the country who pay no federal taxes, out to be patriotic and kind people and vilify the top earners as unamerican and mean people.

Also, its amazing how Barry can make the 47% of the country who pay no federal taxes, out to be patriotic and kind people and vilify the top earners as unamerican and mean people.

I'm pretty sure he's attacking the 47% who are stupid enough to want the top earners to keep all the money that used to belong to the 47%.

If I read that correctly...I'm never sure with your posts...You've went to the Michael Moore school of reasoning?

Tahoe -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USDebt.png

WHOA!!! Look what happened during Reagan & Bush 1. WHEW!! Clinton actually started to get things headed in the right direction... SHIT!! Bush 2, OOPS... next prez = fubar'd for a few years.

Quit looking at Prezs and look at who controlled congress.

Bank robbers worked hard for their money too. Doesn't make them the desired product of a meritocracy.

If I read that correctly...I'm never sure with your posts...You've went to the Michael Moore school of reasoning?

Just telling you what Obama is saying.

http://www.myconfinedspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/where-does-the-moon-go-.jpg

lOyaJ2UI7Ss