Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1. Here you go- the "savings" in Obamacare rely upon things that will never happen. It is like saying we will colonize the galaxy in ten years, after WARP drive speed comes online in five years.
Paul Howard: Obamacare doesn't work in the real world | Washington Examiner (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Obamacare-doesn_t-work-in-the-real-world-1009215-100433719.html - broken link)
2. ALL federal spending is discretionary. What makes it "mandatory" is the inability of the federal government to cut these entitlements. They are not mandatory. Medicare and social security account for 42% of the federal budget every year. The military accounts for 21% of the budget. Cut all of them.
1. To convince me, you will have to give me more than an opinionated piece from a partisan hack, or two.
2. Budget basics:
Discretionary Spending: Spending allocated via annual appropriations bill, under the discretion of the congress.
Mandatory Spending: Spending enacted by law.
As an FYI, in the actual "budget" Defense is considered discretionary as it can be changed.
Mandatory is things like Medicare and Interest Payments which are known and must be paid.
That is what EG is getting at.
I'm sorry I even brought upf discretionary spending, it just gave some people a reason to go off on a tangent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maabus1999
I posted a link several pages back if you would like to see a quick analysis of why cutting all of the spending everyone protests about would still do "nothing" to fix our problem. We have a structural problem well behind the government being spend hogs. You could close down the federal government completely (must include all of defense) and we would STILL be looking at an increasing deficit over the next several decades.
Like I said, major structural issues that can only be fixed by A.) cutting spending drastically, B.) changing entitlements drastically, AND C.) raising taxes substantially. You MUST do all three or it won't work and things will continue to get worse.
No we do not "MUST do" anything of the kind. We need to cut the budget, and get the federal government out of some ares it should not be involved in. we can do this by turning some things over to the states to handle, and in other cases, just let the private sector handle them.
Its obvious 0bama and the democrats will disagree on cutting the size of government, since they just increased the size of the annual budget by 12%, grew the federal debt by $2-$3 trillion, and grew the size of government with 0bamaCare and this financial reform bill. The only obvious answer from democrats seems to be, to raise taxes, and then keep expanding government.
We have some of the greatest financial minds in this country, so don't fall prey to the idea that we cannot reduce the size of government and lower our federal budget. We are not all socialists now, even if Newsweek magazine thinks so.
I'm sorry I even brought upf discretionary spending, it just gave some people a reason to go off on a tangent.
No we do not "MUST do" anything of the kind. We need to cut the budget, and get the federal government out of some ares it should not be involved in. we can do this by turning some things over to the states to handle, and in other cases, just let the private sector handle them.
Its obvious 0bama and the democrats will disagree on cutting the size of government, since they just increased the size of the annual budget by 12%, grew the federal debt by $2-$3 trillion, and grew the size of government with 0bamaCare and this financial reform bill. The only obvious answer from democrats seems to be, to raise taxes, and then keep expanding government.
We have some of the greatest financial minds in this country, so don't fall prey to the idea that we cannot reduce the size of government and lower our federal budget. We are not all socialists now, even if Newsweek magazine thinks so.
Look, I sympathize with too much spending and agree it is out of hand. However, my point still stands and the math does not lie. You have to basically cut all spending, including entitlements, by 20%, and raise taxes somewhere between 10-20% (recession and strength of recovery effect this number). This is the only way to reduce the deficit over the next 20 years.
Oh, and giving more power to the states I find questionable just because over the last 50 years the share of Federal Spending and GDP has dropped slightly but State/Local spending has increased substantially in relation to GDP. Could be some fudging in there due to government accounting rules but still, I'd be wary switching "costs" to what to me seems like a system that may become overburdened (state/local).
I'm sorry I even brought upf discretionary spending, it just gave some people a reason to go off on a tangent.
Having an understanding of fundamentals, especially when you talk about it, is not going off a tangent. You can't discuss cutting discretionary spending without having a clue of what it implies and entails.
Quote:
No we do not "MUST do" anything of the kind. We need to cut the budget, and get the federal government out of some ares it should not be involved in. we can do this by turning some things over to the states to handle, and in other cases, just let the private sector handle them.
Government's responsibility is to work for the people, the general welfare of the nation. Profiteering is not a part of the plan. A private business is created with profiteering in mind, not to work in the interest of the people (although, it is also a government's responsibility to ensure they do no hurt the public interest, if you take government completely out, you take that authority out). If you care about how this country was run in its early days and want things to be that way, you should read up on corporate charters as they existed then and the authority governments had on businesses.
Now, do we need to cut budgets? Sure. But logic dictates that there is a good time for everything. Deep into a recession, during a war is NOT the time to do it. I am assuming your idea of the need to trim budget comes from the massive deficits. Deficits don't arise from only spending. It arises from reduced revenues (due to tax cuts and due to recession). So, there are three elements to be concerned about, not one, and ALL THREE should be targeted.
Quote:
Its obvious 0bama and the democrats will disagree on cutting the size of government, since they just increased the size of the annual budget by 12%, grew the federal debt by $2-$3 trillion, and grew the size of government with 0bamaCare and this financial reform bill. The only obvious answer from democrats seems to be, to raise taxes, and then keep expanding government.
Instead of playing a partisan blame game, think logically, argue along that line. How much do you think is the recession responsible for the increase in debt? Even if we took the ENTIRE discretionary piece of the budget (and defense spending is 58% of it), we would still have a deficit.
If you expect the government to trim mandatory spending as well, the only way it can be done is via adopting changes to the laws. Mandatory spending is NOT at Congress' discretion (this is why you first need to understand the budgeting process at a broad level, before you talk about it). And then the interest paid on previous debt (about a half trillion dollar) is not "discretionary" either. It is easy to say... cut 20% across the board, but the reality is different. Leave it to politicians who use spending cuts as a lip service, as it gets them the votes. They will NEVER give you the full picture of what they mean, and even if they mean it, what implications their decisions will carry (or else they won't get elected). That is the reality.
Quote:
We have some of the greatest financial minds in this country, so don't fall prey to the idea that we cannot reduce the size of government and lower our federal budget. We are not all socialists now, even if Newsweek magazine thinks so.
You surely disagree with many of these great minds and will simply dismiss them due to conflicts with your personal ideology. And that is fundamental to the problem.
John Stewart comments on the video in the OP and the contradictory nature of the Republicans who claim to care about the deficit but want to extend tax cuts which make up about 40%-45% of the deficit.
And you're going gaga over 25% cuts in discretionary spending. And want to remove any notion of savings with help from the health care reform.
Reality Check #2:
Largest piece of discretionary spending... Defense: $900B (about 58%)
25% cut on defense spending would reduce it to 675B. That is just the thing republicans/conservatives support, right? Yeah, right.
Reality Check #3:
Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac... once again, blaming the victim. But, at the same time, I think FM/FM should just be allowed to fail and its shareholders eat dust. Then create proper federal entities to do the job that these institutions were originally meant to, not to satisfy share holders.
This is a great fact filled post. The reality is to balance the budget without raising taxes you'd have to eliminate everything in the budget other then SSI and Medicare including defense. That's just not going to happen just like Republicans just aren't going to agree to big cuts to the military even though the military makes up 58% of the discretionary budget.
I'm afraid some people here are living in a fantasy world if they think we can cut our way out of this problem and still keep taxes at record lows (see post #128 for an example of a person in denial trying to live a fantasy). It's not going to happen. BTW I agree completely with reality check #3. The hard truth is we need to let the tax cuts expire for everyone so that everyone helps to pay down the debt and close the deficit. Right now something like 45% of households don't pay income taxes and that's got to change just like having the top 2% paying a lower defacto income tax rate (17%) then just about anyone else who actually does pay income taxes). If we want things then we have to pay for them and everyone needs to chip in.
John Stewart comments on the video in the OP and the contradictory nature of the Republicans who claim to care about the deficit but want to extend tax cuts which make up about 40%-45% of the deficit.
According to CBO projections, Bush tax cuts would be responsible for about 40% of the deficit in the near future (couple of years down the road), and growing rapidly thereafter, from 60% in 2016. There will be deficits regardless, and holding steady, but the tax cuts will be primarily responsible for increasing it.
According to CBO projections, Bush tax cuts would be responsible for about 40% of the deficit in the near future (couple of years down the road), and growing rapidly thereafter, from 60% in 2016. There will be deficits regardless, and holding steady, but the tax cuts will be primarily responsible for increasing it.
How about some data to show how many time the CBO has been right and how many times they have been wrong.
How about some data to show how many time the CBO has been right and how many times they have been wrong.
They don't have a crystal ball, like some conservative pundits claim to own. They do their best to provide non-partisan estimates based on realistic formulas. You realize what estimates are, don't you?
And more often than not, they are the best bet to predict the realities. Or, is it true only if their conclusions support your ideology?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
