Obama To Boehner In A Private Meeting; We Don't Have A Spending Problem (financial, money)
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.
I've asked on many occasions, what do conservatives want cut? I agree to spending cuts but it's not as simple as some make it out to be. I'm willing to cut back on entitlements (not Social Security but I can agree to reforming the program so it'll last longer) but that's not what's hurting the budget the most. So what do you guys want cut? Only two things I've heard from conservatives were education, and the department of energy. Well I'm willing to cut or even eliminate the Dept of Education solely because I don't see what it does, but I'm not willing to cut the department of energy because it keeps us a float rather its through possesing weapons of mass destruction or conducting massive research. So what $1 trillion dollar cuts are you guys willing to make? I've proposed on numerous occasions to simply cap the budget at $3.5-3.7 trillion, instead of letting it continue to bloat.
How is it a knee slapper ? If you cut to the bone and you are still in the red, then you have a revenue problem. so we as a nation have a revenue problem that spending cuts can help with.
Easy you have Obama saying 2 different things, one we do not have a spending problem and the other claiming he cut a trillion dollars already. Now do you get it?
But nonetheless, after looking at his numbers again, I THINK YOU ARE RIGHT; his numbers are off.
It's not that tough to calculate. All the numbers needed are provided in this table of historical fed receipts/outlays. They also provide inflation adjusted (to 2005 dollars) so the calculation becomes easy. All we need to do then is adjust for pop. change. Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary
Take 2000 vs. 2010. If spending had grown from 2000 by a factor of only pop+inflation, spending in 2010 would have been.$2.23 trillion (actual was $3.08 trillion). But reveunue in 2010 was just 1.92 trillion, so we would have still been in deficit by about 300 billion. That's a far cry from the actual deficit of 1.1 trillion in 2010, but still not a surplus.
So bottom line, I must concede this one. If we had increased spending just by pop+inflation from the Clinton era, we still would have a deficit. But it would have perhaps been a manageable problem rather than the clusterf*** that we face.
you know all these right wingers on this site proclaiming obama o be a king or a messiah is just down right bizzare, If you want a monarchy so badly go to saudi arabia, The U.K.,Singapore, Thailand all these countries and perhaps more have monarchy's that you would find more suitable to your liking perhaps
Canada has a monarchy too, so do The Bahamas and Jamaica
I've asked on many occasions, what do conservatives want cut? I agree to spending cuts but it's not as simple as some make it out to be. I'm willing to cut back on entitlements (not Social Security but I can agree to reforming the program so it'll last longer) but that's not what's hurting the budget the most. So what do you guys want cut?
Cutting funding for NPR should save at LEAST $1 trillion.
Yeah, i heard that. What a freaking ******* 0bama is, he spends our money like it grows on trees. He has said a few times already, that his daughters will be taken care of financially, no matter how bad things get for the rest of us, so what does he care if he runs the debt up to $20 trillion over the next three years, or crashes our economy, it won't affect him our his family in the least.
If we had stayed at the Clinton level of spending, with increased spending only to adjust for population and inflation, we would currently be running a surplus.
Assuming we had 4% unemployment rate throughout the 2000s, no war spending, no unpaid spending, no additional debt/interest payment, no increased welfare/entitlement burden related to baby boomers starting to retire in big numbers (really meant to begin in 2007+)... we would still be in deficit because, inflation adjusted revenue in 2011 was lower than inflation adjusted spending in 2000.
But then, perhaps you believe that we could go back to 2000 level spending on defense and Medicare/Medicaid/CHIP/VA for at least $700 billion/year in savings?
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.
