So ideas anyone?
Printable View
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'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahoe
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".
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahoe
Americans entirely full of shit on spending. (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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fool
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermy
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by geerussell
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahoe
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/2...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.Quote:
Originally Posted by geerussell
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 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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahoe
Again I refer you to the 2011 federal budget. 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.
Why are you going to the extremes using words like 'eviscerate'? Those programs can be cut without 'eviscerating' them.Quote:
Originally Posted by geerussell
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.
Which was never done last year.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fool
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...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/...eams/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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahoe
^ 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...he-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)