Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[counting]

Not really, spending cuts are preferable because we have allowed inefficiencies to fester in some areas but not strictly necessary and that spending should be fixed for its own sakes.  Current US law has us on track to have a sustainable budget within the decade and keeping that way for as long as projections have any relevance.  However current law says that various things happen like Bush tax cut expiration, no AMT patch, no doc fix, etc.  The law says all these things because all the things breaking our budget were passed as "temporary" measures that would expire.  However we expect that congress will continue these "temporary" measures and not pay for them and that is where the longterm deficit comes from in our "baseline scenario" which is where we dont expect congress to pay for some of these budget busters when it does them again in the future.  It's this baseline scenario that we are always talking about, not current law.

Again, I'm not saying that it would be preferable to go with current law.  A lot of these spending programs are based on old laws and grow more inefficient every year.  But that's a reform and efficiency problem not an overall size of government is too high program.  The only way our government is too high is if all the "temporary" deficit creators of the past few years are made permanent without offsets.

I think I got the different opinions between us. I am more pro to decrease the economic and government size and without changing the current tax revenue (only reform) thus reduce further debts. A passive policy to "hibernate" during the slow recession period.

On the other hand, another idea is to continue the expenditure policy, and somehow increase the revenue, and thus also create balance in budgets. A more aggressive policy to went through or even possibly defeat the recession.

Personally, my opinions and my forecasts are that the U.S government tend to follow a more aggressive policy as of right now. But in the process also realized that it's nearly impossible to keep the expenditure at such a high level. (The revenue that can be squeezed from GDP is only so much, you can't possible increase them enough to cover current expenditure level in short period of time). Hence, somehow, somewhere a budget cut needs to be done. I believe to keep the long-term expenditure policies, rather than a replacement plans (whether it's passive or aggressive) right now will end in disasters, due to the over budge will likely increasing volatility in economic system leading to one giant hard fall.

[PTTG??]

Not really, spending cuts are preferable...

We are 50% over budget.
19% of the budget is everything except for the DoD, SS, Medicare, interest on the debt, and other non-cuttable expenses.
That 19% is the federal investiture in all roads, infrastructure, schools, research programs, NPR, NASA, FBI, CIA, PBS, ect.

Oh, we might be able to take 3 or 4 percent off the military. We could even put a dent in medicare. But the fact of the matter is, if your goal is to balance the budget, you can't do it without raising taxes. You can't squeeze blood from a stone, and you can't cut 50% from the budget.

Now, as to how much to cut or raise, I ask you- is it better to give services and money to the poor and middle-class, who spend most of the money the get, or to give it to the wealthy, who spend less (per dollar received and in total) and put more in foreign banks?

[Nadaka]

technically we are closer to 40% over budget. But everything else that PTTG?? said is right.

There are places we can cut spending, mostly by ending our two regional wars. But we need to increase taxes to balance the budget.

All economic support going to the poor is immediately returned to the US economy through paying rent, buying food, paying for medical care, etc. The same can not be said for taxes the wealthy do not have to pay.

[Saint]

I should hope so, that was one century ago. I'll ask a simple question : Do YOU have a car, two TV, a big house , and one playstation? If so, are you entitled to a governmental help program?

Fuck no, I live is a small house, I have one older first gen xbox 360's I bought my self with my job, my family have two cars, both from before 2000, ONE tv, not even a big one.
I also help pay bills. I live not even close to what is considered poverty in America, and I still feel my life is luxurious.

[Phmcw]

I should hope so, that was one century ago. I'll ask a simple question : Do YOU have a car, two TV, a big house , and one playstation? If so, are you entitled to a governmental help program?

Fuck no, I live is a small house, I have one older first gen xbox 360's I bought my self with my job, my family have two cars, both from before 2000, ONE tv, not even a big one.
I also help pay bills. I live not even close to what is considered poverty in America, and I still feel my life is luxurious.

So don't you wonder where those poor live? Because If you listen to them it seems like , given your family low income, surely they should be entitled to some government aid. Yet they don't.

And I take it you're not the worst off the people you know. Do you know anyone who really live comfortably off government aid? (Without doing anything illegal, that's another problem)

[Aqizzar]

President to address the nation in a minute or so, regarding the newest deal that Boehner wants to hang his hat on, with no revenue increases of any kind, about $2.5trillion in cuts, and a ceiling increase that's guaranteed to be hit again before the next election.  Don't know what he's gonna say.

[Vector]

Ugh, what a nightmare.

[Aklyon]

President to address the nation in a minute or so, regarding the newest deal that Boehner wants to hang his hat on, with no revenue increases of any kind, about $2.5trillion in cuts, and a ceiling increase that's guaranteed to be hit again before the next election.  Don't know what he's gonna say.

Can't we just ignore the stubbornheaded ones and actually try to fix the budget now? Except for the political hooplah I doubt anyone would care at this point.

[Aqizzar]

Well, I suggest watching the address, and Boehner's rebuttal.  Fifteen minutes of Obama-patented "I am now going insult you in the most diplomatic way possible", followed by five minutes of Frank Luntz patented "government is a business/family, and like any business/family when you don't have enough money you spend less, not make more money".  Anyway, not a lot of specifics from either of them, basically just a lot more gauntlet-throwing, which is pretty worrying.

[Lord Shonus]

I don't know. The appeal to Reagan and Jefferson, Tea Party and Conservative gods, was pretty clever.

[Bauglir]

So, guys, since I'm incapable of discussing a serious problem without flippancy, how do you think it'd fly to add to the end of my resumé, "Now with more fiscal responsibility than the United States government."? I suspect not well, but hey, a man can dream.

[Aklyon]

So, guys, since I'm incapable of discussing a serious problem without flippancy, how do you think it'd fly to add to the end of my resumé, "Now with more fiscal responsibility than the United States government."? I suspect not well, but hey, a man can dream.

Depends on the politics of your employer, I'd assume.

[Aqizzar]

Hey, give it a shot and tell us what happens.  Of course, you'll want to be quick, you might only have a few days to send resumés to anybody.

[Luke_Prowler]

So, guys, since I'm incapable of discussing a serious problem without flippancy, how do you think it'd fly to add to the end of my resumé, "Now with more fiscal responsibility than the United States government."? I suspect not well, but hey, a man can dream.

I'd hire you, if that's means anything.

[mainiac]

We are 50% over budget.

...In the middle of the worst economic slump in 70 years.  In an economic slump, tax revenues fall and automatic payments rise.  Using now to assess a deficit is like diagnosing me with vertigo when I am drunk as a skunk.  Of course I'm staggering around now, but in the morning I'm gonna be sober.  If the economy was back to normal, our deficit would be manageable by just waiting for "temporary" deficits to expire.  Just look at the CBO current law assessments sometime.  No really, go do that right now:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/115xx/doc11579/06-30-LTBO.pdf 

Look at the chart on the cover, it compares what the current law says and what we expect future congress to do.
Look at page 5 (page 5 by the numbers at the bottom) in this document, it has both what the law says will happen and what the CBO expects congress to do in the future.

The "current law says" aint great, but it shows that the deficit is in now way out of our control.  The deficit is entirely due to  "temporary" laws like the bush tax cuts and the current economic downturn.

As for people saying higher taxes are the problem: how's that supply side workin' for ya?  We need a leaner more efficient government because then we are getting more for our money.  But it just aint so that higher taxes are killing growth.