During the years of republican control did spending go up or down? How about deficits?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahoe
Printable View
During the years of republican control did spending go up or down? How about deficits?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahoe
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/issu...fographic.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.
I don't think peeps mind paying taxes if they knew it wasn't going to be wasted.Quote:
Originally Posted by geerussell
Here's a story on Gov't waste cuz of redundant programs.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...399165436.html
Here's a story on duplicative programs we pay for.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...399165436.html
"Department of Redundancy Department. How may I assist in helping you?"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...399165436.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'm going from memory here too, weren't there some existing war costs that were brought onto the books as well?Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Mxy
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.
Quote:
More Americans work for the government than in manufacturing, farming, fishing, forestry, mining and utilities combined.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...pinion_LEADTopQuote:
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?
Agreed, the solution to the education problem is lower wage jobs and more kids per class. Where has this soothsayer been?Quote:
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.
Every college kid should set their goal toward working for industries that aren't hiring. Again, profound.Quote:
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.
2009 National employment stats by industry ... roughly ("occupation groups")
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm
Is that whats he's advocating there? I missed that part.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fool
Labor runs in that 50% ballpark for most businesses. Is there a reason to expect state and local governments to be dramatically different?Quote:
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?
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.
Here, I put it in bold for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahoe
Quote:
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.
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%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahoe
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.
Just telling you what Obama is saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahoe