Reagan budget director warns:America has ‘reached the point of no return,’

[dross]

Well Dross, seems like the biggest number is that $19k that we just give away. Seems we could cut charity in half and balance the whole thing.

Which is why we can't come at the problem thataway. The politician graveyard is littered with bodies of those who have suggested the tiniest of adjustments to these entitlements.

The budget is just numbers that don't mean much unless you compare them to something. To me, the number that makes sense is the GDP. If we can just hold the line on the growth of these programs, then encourage economic growth by cutting taxes, specifically corporate income tax and capital gains, we can grow the economy and decrease our debt and our budget as a percentage of GDP.

My little exercise was to put an end to these cries of cutting defense every time this comes up. Fine, I concede. Let's cut it. But then the question remains, "Now what?"

It's the now what that kills the discussion.

Also remember that 50% of the population pays NOTHING in income taxes to have this bloated government. Why would they care. Of those left, 25% don't pay enough that it really hurts. It's the top 25% that foots most of the bill, and a small percentage of those folks foot the biggest portion of the bill.

Many of the folks who do pay taxes "technically" are government employees, the largest sector of the work force, and of course they don't actually pay taxes at all, since they are net tax receivers.

IMO, we must slow the growth of our spending as much as possible, and focus on policies that grow our economy.

 

[mrjarrell]

Long lead time items like boats, planes, and tanks won't (in reality can't) be cut. Say you do take $230B out of the DOD budget.

You only have about $1.5T to go.

Looking at some numbers that are out there, the total defence budget (regular budget, defence related items and "national security", as well as the wars) is approaching $1 trillion. That's a lot of tax money and there's room to cut there. Anyone who wants to hold up defence as a sacred untouchable cow isn't serious about cutting. I agree, the entitlements and such have to be put up on the block, too. But, as bad off as things are going to get, everything has to be on that table and everyone has to take a big bite out of the crap sandwich. I've never made any other argument. Dross' numbers game is just that. A game. He has a sacred cow that he doesn't want touched. I have no sacred cows and want all of them taken to the block. Cut entitlements, redo SS and medicare/aid (they're not going away anytime soon, so we better get used to that. Hopefully, sanity will prevail and cuts and restructuring will occur), take a hard cold look at current pensions (the military's, too) and do what's necessary for the health of the country. But, it's not going to happen, as we've seen here. Too many people don't want their pet cows touched. "It's just a drop in the bucket". Add enough drops and the bucket overflows. We're currently being flooded by droplets.

 

[dross]

Looking at some numbers that are out there, the total defence budget (regular budget, defence related items and "national security", as well as the wars) is approaching $1 trillion. That's a lot of tax money and there's room to cut there. Anyone who wants to hold up defence as a sacred untouchable cow isn't serious about cutting. I agree, the entitlements and such have to be put up on the block, too. But, as bad off as things are going to get, everything has to be on that table and everyone has to take a big bite out of the crap sandwich. I've never made any other argument. Dross' numbers game is just that. A game. He has a sacred cow that he doesn't want touched. I have no sacred cows and want all of them taken to the block. Cut entitlements, redo SS and medicare/aid (they're not going away anytime soon, so we better get used to that. Hopefully, sanity will prevail and cuts and restructuring will occur), take a hard cold look at current pensions (the military's, too) and do what's necessary for the health of the country. But, it's not going to happen, as we've seen here. Too many people don't want their pet cows touched. "It's just a drop in the bucket". Add enough drops and the bucket overflows. We're currently being flooded by droplets.

Show me those numbers where all this defense spending is hidden. I keep hearin about this, but every time I've read something that takes this position, I can never follow their logic or their numbers. It disappears into the mist.

Show me and we'll work it into the analogy.

 

[machete]

My little exercise was to put an end to these cries of cutting defense every time this comes up. Fine, I concede. Let's cut it. But then the question remains, "Now what?"

well get to that after we slash defense... first things first...

It's the now what that kills the discussion.

only cause you think it does,,, if nothing else,,,slashing defense helps a ton,,,lets worry about getting something good done,,,and moving onto the next problem...rather than getting nothing good done...because we cant solve all problems...

Also remember that 50% of the population pays NOTHING in income taxes

income taxes dont fund the country...income taxes pay interest to bankers for the the national debt... if you got rid of all income tax,,,the govt has PLENTY of money to run a huge country

 

[machete]

Dross' numbers game is just that. A game. He has a sacred cow that he doesn't want touched.

the big govt military people are not serious about cutting spending...

take a hard cold look at current pensions (the military's, too) and do what's necessary for the health of the country.

i dont know when or how these military and cop pensions came about and got so big,,,but we cant afford them,,and its time to cut... its not fair to stick me with the bill for these pensions,,,and i want to see severe cuts... i dont care what you think you were promised... it wasnt a prior generations right to promise my money...especially since these pensions are so fat that it makes everyone stand up and say---you get what????!!!!!!

 

[thompal]

If we cut the entire military budget tomorrow, it would only cut the deficit in half.

Pretend our budget is our household budget. Numbers are not exact, but very close.

Our salary is 23,000 per year.
We spend 35,000 per year.
We owe a total of 140,000 for overspending in years past.
Each year we add 12,000 to what we owe.

We spend about 8750 to operate our household, to fund the different functions, excepting defense.

We spend 6559 on defense.

We spend 19,859 that we give to other people in our house in the form of social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare, and unemployment benefits.

We spend 1620 per year on interest for the debt of years past.

We can't fix this problem by cutting defense.

Not by itself, but it still has to be done. If we continue with your household comparison, if we need to cut our expenses, it would be wildly irresponsible of us to say "well, that one item isn't enough to fix it, so we'll just keep spending it."

If you are in debt by thousands and thousands of dollars, do you still continue to spend $500 a month on movies and expensive restaurants? You still have to eat, but you would probably go to beans and rice mode. You might still want to watch mindless entertainment, but you might watch broadcast TV.

If you continue to spend at current levels with no means to pay for it, you are no better than the welfare recipient who goes and buys a new Cadillac while ignoring their rent and utility bills.

 

[thompal]

I think a 25% cut is much too much, but okay, let's do it.

Now our budget looks like this:

Our salary is 23,000 per year.
We spend 33,361 per year.
We owe a total of 140,000 for overspending in years past.
Each year we add 10,361 to what we owe.

We spend about 8750 to operate our household, to fund the different functions, excepting defense.

We spend 4920 on defense.

We spend 19,859 that we give to other people in our house in the form of social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare, and unemployment benefits.

We spend 1620 per year on interest for the debt of years past.

Okay, done. What's next?

Then we move on to the next item on the budget and start in on that one. You seem to want to find one single item which can be cut with no pain to anyone that will instantly reduce the federal budget to affordable levels. It's not going to happen. There are too many areas that are totally out of control.

Imagine in your household example, that your household which brings in $23K/yr happens to have 2 brand new Cadillacs, a $2M house, takes European vacations every year, eats caviar as a snack, and hosts $5K parties every month.

Your attitude seems to be that since there is no single item on that list that, by cutting, would fix the budget, then nothing should be done at all and things should just continue as they are. It should be obvious that something needs to be done, and it's going to have to affect most, if not all, of those items.

 

[thompal]

Many of the folks who do pay taxes "technically" are government employees, the largest sector of the work force, and of course they don't actually pay taxes at all, since they are net tax receivers.

Here's where your logic falls down. On one hand, you say that we shouldn't touch military/defense spending, but on the other hand, you admit that the largest sector of the work for get government paychecks, and that they are all "net tax receivers." Well, it seems obvious to me that if the largest percentage of workers are actually a drain on the economy, that the percentage of tax receivers needs to be reduced. While it can never be eliminated (we do have some Constitutionally-mandated government employees, such as congressmen), it needs to be cut to the bone.

If your household makes $23k/yr, do you continue to have a staff of 40 gardeners each making $30K/year?

 

[machete]

Until we start talking about cutting pension, medicare, mediaid, welfare, unemployment, and social security, there's no sense in talking about cutting defense.

theres lots of sense in talking about defense...cutting defense pays for the stuff here in the us...stuff that actual makes a difference in how americans live...

it dont do any good to spend american dollars to build a new bridge in afghanistan...

people looking at this are going to get creative and long-term and say that if everyone in america gets the same basic retirement benefit,,,we can chop out all cop and military pensions,,, and a lot of people say that the purpose of the govt is to provide a decent social life here in the us,,,so a lot of people will be very happy to chop defense to the nubs to pay for what they think is the stuff that really matters...

whats more important,,,a new bomber or a light rail system in a us city???

look at it this way,,,if we are going to have big government,,,would you rather have high speed rail from city to city and each city having a light rail system,,,with social benefits for everyone,,,or would you rather have a big military??? i think this republican bump in november is an uptick in a down trend... as the ipod generation gets older,,,and new socially connected generations come in,,,the dem message is going to become far more attractive...

 

[dross]

Do you people read?

I asked how much we should cut from defense, and then I cut it in my example.
I then asked what we should cut next.

I never said defense shouldn't be touched.
I never said we had to find one thing to fix it.

I then explained exactly how I think the problem should be dealt with.

There's a strawman battle going on of epic proportions out there.

And defense isn't sacred, and it is certainly filled with waste and mismanagement. If you like, I'll redo my little budget and remove it completely.

One thing defense spending has going for it above and beyond all the entitlement programs put together is that it's a function of government that is actually authorized by the Constitution.

 

[thompal]

look at it this way,,,if we are going to have big government,,,would you rather have high speed rail from city to city and each city having a light rail system,,,with social benefits for everyone,,,or would you rather have a big military??? i think this republican bump in november is an uptick in a down trend... as the ipod generation gets older,,,and new socially connected generations come in,,,the dem message is going to become far more attractive...

Perhaps, although a lot of the younger crowd that I know seems to have a better grasp of the concept of "affordable" than the late 20/early 30 crowd I know.

My stance is that if it is something that isn't granted to the government by Article I, Section 8, then it needs to go bye-bye. If it's not listed in that section, then they are supposed to be doing it anyway, and is therefor unConstitutional. That should take care of most of the problem in itself, and we could start paying off the interest on what we borrowed to fund this madness over the years, and we could be on our way to being profitable.

 

[thompal]

One thing defense spending has going for it above and beyond all the entitlement programs put together is that it's a function of government that is actually authorized by the Constitution.

In time of war. And that doesn't mean some concocted foreign entanglement where we engage in "nation building" in the name of imposing acceptable forms of government on every nation, so we can then fund THEIR military and government operations.

 

[machete]

Do you people read?

can you make an argument that isnt blown out of the water so easily???

One thing defense spending has going for it above and beyond all the entitlement programs put together is that it's a function of government that is actually authorized by the Constitution

can say this just as easily...

One thing entitlement spending has going for it above and beyond all the defense programs put together is that it's a function of government that is actually authorized by the Constitution

i see you never got around to the general welfare clause...

And defense isn't sacred, and it is certainly filled with waste and mismanagement.

waste and mismanagement are problems,,,there are far too many officers and senior enlisted and career personnel,,,but the biggest problem with the military is its size and mission... we have over 1180 foreign bases... wars and foreign aid in places we shouldnt be...

 

[ATOMonkey]

Which is why we can't come at the problem thataway. The politician graveyard is littered with bodies of those who have suggested the tiniest of adjustments to these entitlements.

The budget is just numbers that don't mean much unless you compare them to something. To me, the number that makes sense is the GDP. If we can just hold the line on the growth of these programs, then encourage economic growth by cutting taxes, specifically corporate income tax and capital gains, we can grow the economy and decrease our debt and our budget as a percentage of GDP.

My little exercise was to put an end to these cries of cutting defense every time this comes up. Fine, I concede. Let's cut it. But then the question remains, "Now what?"

It's the now what that kills the discussion.

Also remember that 50% of the population pays NOTHING in income taxes to have this bloated government. Why would they care. Of those left, 25% don't pay enough that it really hurts. It's the top 25% that foots most of the bill, and a small percentage of those folks foot the biggest portion of the bill.

Many of the folks who do pay taxes "technically" are government employees, the largest sector of the work force, and of course they don't actually pay taxes at all, since they are net tax receivers.

IMO, we must slow the growth of our spending as much as possible, and focus on policies that grow our economy.

Well...technically, not increasing spending is a cut in spending...

So, are you not increasing spending, by increasing spending 3% a year or are you cutting spending by maintaining current spending levels?

 

[Ashkelon]

We have become a nation of entitlements not privileges. Too many people believe it is their "right" to heating assistance, cell phones, new cars, free food etc. Until a sociological shift in the psyche of our country takes place we will continue on our race to the bottom.

 

[dross]

can you make an argument that isnt blown out of the water so easily???

can say this just as easily...

One thing entitlement spending has going for it above and beyond all the defense programs put together is that it's a function of government that is actually authorized by the Constitution

i see you never got around to the general welfare clause...

"the general welfare clause is neither a statement of ends nor a substantive grant of power. It is a mere “synonym” for the enumeration of particular powers, which are limited and wholly define its content." Madison

Yeah, I got around to it.

Well...technically, not increasing spending is a cut in spending...

So, are you not increasing spending, by increasing spending 3% a year or are you cutting spending by maintaining current spending levels?

Yes, technically correct. Maintaining current levels becomes a cut. I don't have enough of an understanding to give you exact numbers, and actually, I don't know if it's even technically possible to not increase spending levels for entitlement programs. I do think that as a general overall strategy, constricting the growth is as close to a solution as we can get.

 

[dross]

More on the General Welfare Clause:

In a letter to Edmund Pendleton, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, said, 'If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one ...' Madison also said, 'With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.' Thomas Jefferson said, 'Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.'"

The spashing sound you hear is your sad little boat of an argument being blown out of the water.

 

[machete]

More on the General Welfare Clause:

In a letter to Edmund Pendleton, James Madison,

if we can get you to follow the founding fathers on overseas bases,,,foreign wars,,,and standing armies...we might get somewhere on reducing spending...

 

[hornadylnl]

Which is why we can't come at the problem thataway. The politician graveyard is littered with bodies of those who have suggested the tiniest of adjustments to these entitlements.

The budget is just numbers that don't mean much unless you compare them to something. To me, the number that makes sense is the GDP. If we can just hold the line on the growth of these programs, then encourage economic growth by cutting taxes, specifically corporate income tax and capital gains, we can grow the economy and decrease our debt and our budget as a percentage of GDP.

My little exercise was to put an end to these cries of cutting defense every time this comes up. Fine, I concede. Let's cut it. But then the question remains, "Now what?"

It's the now what that kills the discussion.

Also remember that 50% of the population pays NOTHING in income taxes to have this bloated government. Why would they care. Of those left, 25% don't pay enough that it really hurts. It's the top 25% that foots most of the bill, and a small percentage of those folks foot the biggest portion of the bill.

Many of the folks who do pay taxes "technically" are government employees, the largest sector of the work force, and of course they don't actually pay taxes at all, since they are net tax receivers.

IMO, we must slow the growth of our spending as much as possible, and focus on policies that grow our economy.

Dross,

The problem with growing GDP to overcome our debt is this. If you can't make it on $23,000, you won't make it on $35,000. Your spending will go up. Do you think our congress will hold the line on spending?

Wilkow had a pretty good monologue on this the other day. Our government is setting it's budget long before they even know what revenues are going to be. Income vs spending has no bearing on the choices our government makes.

Limiting spending and growing GDP is just as wishful thinking as cutting welfare programs.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Not only that, but holding the line on spending also requires faith that future congresses will also hold the line on spending.

I think we'd need a dictator to make the "don't increase spending" plan work.

I vote we just inflate the money supply so much that our debt becomes worthless. Then it'll be easy to pay it off.