2012-2021 Budget
-
gutstlouiedipalma;846463 wrote:Whether or not he has this power is a moot point right now. If I were in his shoes I would invoke it and immediately raise the debt ceiling..
I'd have to agree with that. Other than the fact the sooner we get him out of office the better, if it comes down to that or defaulting on some obligations (because it won't be the debt), then it's a course of action that must be taken. Longer-term (or intermediate over the next several months) the markets and ratings agencies are going to be responding to our failure to get the deficit/debt under control. Another $3T in debt over the next few years isn't going to do us any good. And when you're spending too much money, you don't solve the problem by simply slowing the rate at which you increase your spending, you have to make real cuts. -
Footwedge
I'm surprise that you're surprised...regarding my post. I'm the biggest fiscal hawk around here. One of the reasons I left the GOP is because they ended up spending more than the Democrats did over my lifetime. I'm no fan of the government expansionism which has enveloped our country. In addition, the pay, perks, retirement packages, stress free (can't be fired) environment government employees enjoy is a joke...and a slap in the face to people who work in for profit businesses....you know...those that have to cycle through sales and revenues to keep the doors open.believer;846533 wrote:Footie,
Sometimes I get confused which side of the political fence you're on. I actually agree with much of what you've said! lol
People in the public sector make a helluva lot more than their private sector counterparts do. That ruffles my feathers more than you can imagine.
But...as I've said a hundred times on these boards, until the US gets serious about doing whatever is necessary in bringing back the private sector on tradable goods, all of these problems will continue to grow....and it matters not which party is in power. -
gutFootwedge;846626 wrote:I'm surprise that you're surprised...regarding my post. I'm the biggest fiscal hawk around here. One of the reasons I left the GOP is because they ended up spending more than the Democrats did over my lifetime.
Yeah, but the Dems pretty much closed that gap and then some since 2006.
It's comical that neither side really wants to agree to a balanced budget. It's an absolutely criminal position. You're simply not going to come close to closing the gap by gouging the rich and corporations, which means you HAVE to raise taxes on the average bloke or cut entitlements, which both parties understandably see as political suicide. So instead most on both sides favor the path of least resistance which is to just continue spending much more than we take in. Most of these guys will be gone, and/or dead, by the time the roosting pigeons start really shitting all over us.
Just taking a look at France, for example, the typical burden on an individual making 30k euros (about USD 52k, a bit higher than median) would be about 21% for SS (22% if you're self-employed) - which is WAYYYY higher than than what we pay even if you include the employer FICA match. On top of that, they also have a consumption tax (VAT) = @19.6% on most goods and services. So basically Joe the Plumber has better benefits in France, and he's also paying much more for them. (the personal income brackets don't look too inconsistent with the US, and dividends are 19%).
http://riviera.angloinfo.com/countries/france/intax.asp
Taxes COULD be the answer, but only if we increase taxes significantly across the board. Historically the US has collected an average of 18% of GDP despite large variances in tax structure (even when the highest marginal rate was 90%, and I think we collected only 14% that year). You aren't going to substantially raise the effective rate on the wealthy unless you really jack up capital gains, and that's just very bad for investment and growth (20% could certainly work, MAYBE 25%). The biggest hole here is lack of a consumption tax, and that's the only way I see to sustain revenues above 18% of GDP. There might be a few classes of VAT and some exclusions, but an average of 10% could add $1.5T in revenues. And this would mostly be borne by the consumer, and it's effect is mostly inflationary...and the consumer would scream bloody murder. But if we want all these social programs that's the only way I can see to pay for them. -
believer
It may be what's necessary to sustain entitlements but to think the effect would be mostly inflationary is a bit short-sighted.gut;846656 wrote:The biggest hole here is lack of a consumption tax, and that's the only way I see to sustain revenues above 18% of GDP. There might be a few classes of VAT and some exclusions, but an average of 10% could add $1.5T in revenues. And this would mostly be borne by the consumer, and it's effect is mostly inflationary...and the consumer would scream bloody murder. But if we want all these social programs that's the only way I can see to pay for them.
We already have an economy that is exporting good paying jobs overseas at an alarming rate. Adding any type of VAT on the consumer will decrease consumption thereby further slowing down an already anemic economy and most likely hasten the inevitable demise of even more companies on the bubble.
The United States still boasts the world's most robust economy, but we didn't get there by emulating the clearly faltering European economic model.
What we need immediately is FAR LESS SPENDING and a balance budget agreement. Let's stop the bleeding first and then talk about taxes. -
gutbeliever;846662 wrote:It may be what's necessary to sustain entitlements but to think the effect would be mostly inflationary is a bit short-sighted.
We already have an economy that is exporting good paying jobs overseas at an alarming rate. Adding any type of VAT on the consumer will decrease consumption thereby further slowing down an already anemic economy and most likely hasten the inevitable demise of even more companies on the bubble.
The United States still boasts the world's most robust economy, but we didn't get there by emulating the clearly faltering European economic model.
What we need immediately is FAR LESS SPENDING and a balance budget agreement. Let's stop the bleeding first and then talk about taxes.
I agree with all of that, and a VAT would have to be gradually implemented over probably 10 years (poor choice of words, in the short-run it's mostly inflationary but there are other consequences to that, as you point out, especially in the long-run). I'm just pointing out it's the only feasible way, because we haven't had a VAT so it's a fundamental structural change in taxation (and one tougher to evade/minimize) that is how you break from that long-run average of 18% which has proven to be fairly independent of tax policy outside the margins (you can move the needle a few points to either side, at least temporarily until taxpayers adjust).
And I agree 100% that the European model is far from "all that and a bag of chips". I only cite Europe because it's held-up as a model for great benefits and more "affordable" (which is also a crock because many EU members are in equally bad trouble), and the point is Europe gives less handouts - i.e. people (all people) actually pay much more for these "social" programs, which is really as it should be. The class warfarists have hijacked the debate and it's both disgusting and unproductive.
Only other point about the VAT is while it's commonly viewed as being mostly passed on to the consumer, some companies have greater ability to do that than others, but in fact it's assessed at the points of production...which most likely leads to higher prices but in theory could also just lead to lower margins, at least initially (and margins right now are really not the problem with many companies making record profits). -
majorspark
stlouiedipalma;846463 wrote:Whether or not he has this power is a moot point right now. If I were in his shoes I would invoke it and immediately raise the debt ceiling. If it wound up in the courts, so be it. At least he would have acted on this "crisis" instead of blowing up the economy for political leverage, which is all the Republicans are doing.
Blowing up the economy, LOL. I am sure you got your bunker prepared. The democrats have been telling us the air will become dirty, food will be unsafe, and senior citizens may not get their SS checks. If you believe this and no deal is reached August 2 what actions are you taking to protect your investments? Are you putting your money where your mouth is? Or are you just regurgitating talking points you heard in the media?
I do not want to see Obama impeached. The only way I want to see him removed from office is at the ballot box or at the end of his 2nd term. But the United States is not a banana republic. If the president wants to usurp legislative power from the congress because of some perceived economic emergency then he should be impeached and removed from office. The congress is the branch of the federal government that is the closest to the people. They will act if any economic emergency ever did develop.stlouiedipalma;846463 wrote:I really believe now more than ever that they are willing to put our country at risk for the opportunity to regain the White House, and your comment about supporting impeachment is further testimony of what you really want, and at what price you are willing to pay in order to achieve your goals. -
majorspark
I would not worry too much though louie, any negative reaction in the market will cause the republicans to fold like a cheap lawn chair. Just like they did for TARP.
-
believer
Unfortunately true.majorspark;846877 wrote:I would not worry too much though louie, any negative reaction in the market will cause the republicans to fold like a cheap lawn chair. Just like they did for TARP. -
jhay78
They don't want a bill to keep the debt ceiling where it is, they don't want a bill to raise the debt ceiling? The send them a bill with a LOWERED debt ceiling.majorspark;846188 wrote:Time to send the senate a bill prioritizing spending underneath the debt ceiling after August 2nd.
stlouiedipalma;846319 wrote:Actually it's time for Obama to tell all the idiots "**** you, I'm invoking the 14th, deal with it".
Heck yes he should. If he invokes the 14th like some have threatened, he should join the idiot who encouraged him to do so in the history books' section: "Impeached Presidents". He would also join a long line of others who have turned the 14th amendment upside down.majorspark;846376 wrote:My suggestion is constituional. Yours is not. Don't get hoodwinked into this folly. It would add a constutional crises on top of the debt crisis. It would pour gasoline on the fire.
If you are left with any doubt as to who has the power to enforce this amendment. Section 5 makes it quite clear. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Not the executive, not the judicial, the Congress. Only Congress can enforce it. Any branch of the federal government that usurps congressional authority in this matter is in direct violation of the constitution.
Obama swore an oath to uphold the constitution. There are reasonable differences in the interpretation of the constitution. You can't argue away Congress's authority under section 5. If Obama wants to take that authority from congress he should be impeached. And I would support it.
Footwedge;846519 wrote:Let the stalemate run it's course...and let's see what happens. As for the economy totally collapsing, I doubt it. Some people wpn't get paid....so what. Welcome to the real world. Some Fed Reserve banks won't get paid. So what. Welcome to the real world. Maybe Brown, Kellogg and Root won't get paid. So what. Maybe General Dynamics won't get paid. I could not care less.
Government workers will be laid off. Well, welcome to the real world, federal workers. Your group is the most highly coddled, collectively overpaid, stress free livers on the planet. Lose a few nights of sleep like the rest of main stream America does.
It has been proven that you fed woekers have a better chance of dying, then being fired. And that is a pile of crap.
Again...KEEP THE PRESENT CEILING. I'm in your corner, Mr. Boehner, on this one. Forced fiscal responsibility is exactly what is needed. The government will be forced to prioritize....and maybe, just maybe, it will end up showing that living on a tighter budget is not only doable, but doable without the perceived imminent collapse.
I agree. -
jhay78
Best argument I've read on the Boehner plan and any other plan that waters down the real issues with the debt ceiling:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/273130/against-boehner-plan-andrew-c-mccarthy?page=1
In short, it is the House Republicans' duty to obstruct the out-of-control spending called for by the executive branch.Americans did not suddenly fall in love with Republicans. They remain wary of the GOP, and — as we’re seeing — for good reason. The electoral revolt was strictly a center-right nation’s revulsion against governance by the hard Left. Republicans reaped the benefits because they were the only alternative, not because the public is convinced that they’ve learned anything from their stint in the wilderness.
The main lesson that should have been learned but hasn’t been is this: While every issue has political overtones and consequences, that does not make every issue political in its essence. The debt-ceiling controversy is not, as Republican leadership and its cheerleaders maintain, about politics. It is not a matter of, “If we don’t handle this correctly, if we push this too far, if Americans think we’re too extreme, President Obama will be reelected.” The debt ceiling is about the debt, not about how politicians can optimally position themselves to evade accountability for the inevitable consequences of the debt.
The saddest thing about Thomas Sowell’s take on all this is not his suggestion that the political fallout of the debt controversy trumps the substance of the debt problem. It is his intimation that the truth can’t win. I doubt he would have much disagreement with the numbers I’ve laid out, or what they portend. What he seems to be saying, though, is that conservatives are either so incapable of making this case, or so overmatched by the left-wing media, that being right no longer matters. He seems to be saying that this argument cannot be won, even with the facts on our side.
Perhaps more dismaying than Dr. Sowell’s conclusion that conservatives can’t win is Dr. Krauthammer’s contention that they should stop trying. The tiresome claim that you can’t govern from one-half of one-third of the government is half-baked, and the suggestion that there is something constitutionally untoward in the opposition of House Republicans is ridiculous.
The House Republican faction opposed to granting a gargantuan increase in the debt ceiling is not governing. Governing is what the government as a whole does after accommodating all the factions in a system of divided powers. As Mark Levin points out, when Senate Democrats blocked Bush judicial nominees, they were in control of no part of the government. The rules gave the minority rights, and they made maximum use of them. There was political risk in being portrayed as obstructionist, creating a vacancy crisis on the bench, and depriving the country of well-qualified nominees. But Senate leftists calculated that, from their standpoint, the substance of the problem — having the bench increasingly dominated by conservative jurists who would stall the advance of their statist agenda — outweighed whatever political risk there was in hanging tough. It was important enough to them, so they fought to the bitter end. For the most part, they won — the vacancies they preserved are being filled by President Obama, creating life-tenured left-wing jurists who, for decades, will frustrate conservative efforts to roll back Obama’s advances.
There are two big differences between then and now. First, the Republicans actually control the House. Second, the debt problem they confront is not just by dimensions more significant than the ideology of judicial nominees; it is precisely the matter they were elected to address.
No, Republicans can’t govern from the House — if President Obama decided to pull out of Afghanistan tomorrow, there’s not much House Republicans could do about it except cavil. But just as the Constitution makes the president supreme in foreign affairs, it makes the Congress preeminent when it comes to federal borrowing and spending — and, in fact, reposes in the House of Representatives primary control over the raising of revenue. The Framers quite consciously structured things that way so that the spending of public dollars and incurring of public debt would be most closely overseen by the political officials most directly accountable to the people — the members of the House, who have to face the voters every two years.
The people, quite emphatically, want out-of-control spending dealt with. Their representatives have the power to effectuate that desire. The president can try to insist on borrowing and spending more, but the House gets to say no — and, on this matter, it is the president who should yield. That is not a constitutional problem; it is the Constitution in action.
The Republican establishment and the commentariat that claims it is time for conservatives to yield should stop posturing that their stance is about anything other than politics. They are worried that the media will blame Republicans if the debt limit is not raised, if spending is suddenly slashed, and if various constituencies in the dependency state are cut off cold-turkey from their federal goodies. They fear that President Obama — a class-A demagogue — will ride the ensuing chaos to reelection
-
believer
Here's what amazes me. On one hand world leaders criticize the United States for not getting our fiscal house in order. Yet when the nation faces default, these same world leaders are nervous that we are reluctant to be even more fiscally irresponsible by not raising our debt ceiling.
WTF??
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/31/us-usa-debt-world-idUSTRE76U1K020110731 -
BGFalcons82
I have some problems with the Sunday "compromise":
1. The CBO scores it as if the Bush Tax Cuts of 2001-2003 expire. Therefore, for those that think there are no tax increases in here because the elites say there isn't any, better think again. If tax rates rise, then that is a tax increase. Not debateable, unless you wish to talk to the Webster folks.
2. $1,000,000,000,000 in "cuts" over 10 years is a lie. This is nothing more than a decrease in the proposed rate of growth. Study "Baseline Budgeting" to learn more. No departments will receive less funding from 2011 levels. None. Nada. Zilch.
3. The promised $1,500,000,000,000 in "cuts" are more red herrings. No federal departments will receive less funding than 2011 levels. This Congress cannot force another Congress to abide by its rules.
4. The Obama pork-laden Stimulus bill of 2009 is included in the Baseline Budget calculations. And y'all thought it was a 1-time thing. Tsk, tsk, tsk...
5. It appears our credit rating will be taking a hit if this "compromise" takes ahold. So...why pass it at all if the end of the road looks the same with or without it?
In the end, Lucy fools Charlie yet again and our elitist rulers are given $2,500,000,000,000 MORE to spend in order to fix...umm...uhh....ahem...fix something. Oh, that's right...it's needed to keep grandma out of the streets eating Purina Cat Chow.
How predictable. -
sleeper
Pretty disappointed in congress and Obama. The whole thing saved the country short term, and made things exponentially worse for the long term outlook of this country. -
QuakerOatssleeper;848293 wrote:Pretty disappointed in congress and Obama. The whole thing saved the country short term, and made things exponentially worse for the long term outlook of this country.
.... unless conservatives win the senate and the presidency in 2012, which they well could, and then make the meaningful spending cuts that are so absolutely necessary to solve the problem. -
BGFalcons82
I am now convinced more than ever that we will spend ourselves into oblivion. The TEA Party is being portrayed as hobbits, extremeists, and now terrorists by the Vice President of the United States. With such disdain and outright hatred for people asking them to control spending, we are doomed. The "deal" as reported reduces no spending. In fact, we'll be running trillion dollar deficits for as long as anyone can see. I predict by 2016, we'll be spending at least $1,000,000,000,000 per year just to service our gluttony and greed.
It is done. -
majorspark
By the same token, why are they not terrorists for forcing us to spend more money with no long term structure in place to deal with the debt issue?BGFalcons82;848578 wrote:I am now convinced more than ever that we will spend ourselves into oblivion. The TEA Party is being portrayed as hobbits, extremeists, and now terrorists by the Vice President of the United States. With such disdain and outright hatred for people asking them to control spending, we are doomed. The "deal" as reported reduces no spending. In fact, we'll be running trillion dollar deficits for as long as anyone can see. I predict by 2016, we'll be spending at least $1,000,000,000,000 per year just to service our gluttony and greed.
It is done. -
ptown_trojans_1
BGFalcons82;848578 wrote:I am now convinced more than ever that we will spend ourselves into oblivion. The TEA Party is being portrayed as hobbits, extremeists, and now terrorists by the Vice President of the United States. With such disdain and outright hatred for people asking them to control spending, we are doomed. The "deal" as reported reduces no spending. In fact, we'll be running trillion dollar deficits for as long as anyone can see. I predict by 2016, we'll be spending at least $1,000,000,000,000 per year just to service our gluttony and greed.
It is done.
Ok chicken little.
Is spending still high, yes. Is it the end of the world, no. Will the sky fall, doomsday approach, Jesus return, the heavens open up and massive economic calamity hit? Doubt it.
Most likely what is going to happen is just stagnation, the economic will stay flat, growing between 1-3% per year. -
majorspark
This is what they told us would happen if the debt ceiling was not raised by 11:59pm August 2nd.ptown_trojans_1;848675 wrote:Will the sky fall, doomsday approach, Jesus return, the heavens open up and massive economic calamity hit?. -
ptown_trojans_1
majorspark;848695 wrote:This is what they told us would happen if the debt ceiling was not raised by 11:59pm August 2nd.
And they were wrong, It would have been bad, but not as bad as people make it out to be.
Most the crap being said it so over the top, knee jerk, listen to me and what I have to say to get attention and it is mostly wrong. -
gutptown_trojans_1;848675 wrote: the economic will stay flat, growing between 1-3% per year.
3% growth would have a lot of people dancing in the streets. Sad, isn't it?
It's as much a demographical problem, as anything. With the Boomers retiring, that's going to have a significant impact as they spend less on fixed incomes. And I have no idea how you fix that, other than for people to have more babies. And the other sad reality may be with people marrying later, both working, each child having a huge impact on standard of living for a given income, people are going to trend more toward 2 children than 3 on that side of the 2.4 average. -
BGFalcons82
ptown_trojans_1;848675 wrote:Ok chicken little.
Is spending still high, yes. Is it the end of the world, no. Will the sky fall, doomsday approach, Jesus return, the heavens open up and massive economic calamity hit? Doubt it.
Most likely what is going to happen is just stagnation, the economic will stay flat, growing between 1-3% per year.
Not chicken little, reality just hit me in the face. Everyone is running around saying the TEA Party "won", the Dems caved, blah blah blah. "Winning" is now defined as having only $1 trillion in yearly deficits instead of $1.5 trillion. Guess what....we are still heading right into the abyss, just not as fast. Look down the road a few years, ptown...what do you see? A $14.5 trillion debt will top $20 trillion in what year? 2016? 2018? Problem is, it's going to happen because there is not enough sanity in Washington to stop it. Tell me how it will ever be reversed, would ya? Who's going to stop the insanity? We keep hoping for some divine intervention or an enconomy that ignites to 10% growth. Neither will happen and yet...here we are hoping and praying for such idiocy.
Who will stop the runaway spending? There isn't enough support in DC for the USA to stop spending beyond its means...just to what level. We have become so polarized as to whom is "winning", that there is not one iota of focus on the problems that are poised to doom our country. de Toqueville predicted it, Jefferson warned of it, Adams tried to legislate it, and our "leaders" over the past 50 years just ignored it.
So be it. We reap what we sow. We get what we deserve. And we deserve to be broke. -
tk421
ptown_trojans_1;848675 wrote:Ok chicken little.
Is spending still high, yes. Is it the end of the world, no. Will the sky fall, doomsday approach, Jesus return, the heavens open up and massive economic calamity hit? Doubt it.
Most likely what is going to happen is just stagnation, the economic will stay flat, growing between 1-3% per year.
You really do have your head buried in the sand. It must be all that time spent in D.C. How can you say there won't be any consequences of our incessant spending? We will have 20 Trillion in debt before 2020, there is no way our GDP will grow enough to keep pace. Sooner or later, most likely sooner than all the idiots in D.C. would like, our credit card will be taken away from us and the U.S. will be forced to spend within their means. To think that we can just happily keep borrowing and running trillion plus deficits for as long as we want with only a weak economy to show for it is foolish. -
ptown_trojans_1
tk421;848816 wrote:You really do have your head buried in the sand. It must be all that time spent in D.C. How can you say there won't be any consequences of our incessant spending? We will have 20 Trillion in debt before 2020, there is no way our GDP will grow enough to keep pace. Sooner or later, most likely sooner than all the idiots in D.C. would like, our credit card will be taken away from us and the U.S. will be forced to spend within their means. To think that we can just happily keep borrowing and running trillion plus deficits for as long as we want with only a weak economy to show for it is foolish.
I'm for cuts, deep ones as well, just strategic ones that take time.
Saying the world will end and making worse case assumptions is not helping.
Sorry, I just don't but into the whole we are screwed point of view.
I'm not one to overreact or go worst case and neither should most people.
With the right cuts, a steady economy that slowly grows and reforming various areas, we will be fine. -
tk421
ptown_trojans_1;848839 wrote:I'm for cuts, deep ones as well, just strategic ones that take time.
Saying the world will end and making worse case assumptions is not helping.
Sorry, I just don't but into the whole we are screwed point of view.
I'm not one to overreact or go worst case and neither should most people.
With the right cuts, a steady economy that slowly grows and reforming various areas, we will be fine.
What in god's name makes you think that there will EVER be any cuts to the budget? Real actual cuts, where the budget reduces the next year. It's not going to happen, the idiots in D.C. don't have the courage to do it. We ARE doomed, because we vote for these complete morons who do anything in their power to gain more power for their party, they don't give a crap about the citizens.
I don't know what you have seen to make you such an idealist, nothing makes me think the budget will ever be cut until the credit card is stopped, until they can not borrow anymore they will continue to do so. This "commission" that they are supposed to form to study more cuts won't do a damn thing, just like any other commission that the government forms. They might suggest some cuts, but they will be basic and not amount to anything if the suggestions are even followed.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/budget.php
Look at the numbers, they do not lie. The last time the budget for the next year was less than the preceding was 1965. That means that for the last 46 years, each and every year the budget has INCREASED compared to the preceding year. The Congress hasn't reduced a budget in 46 years, what makes anyone in the world think they are going to all of a sudden have actual honest to god cuts to the budget? Receipts are only 2.2 Trillion, even if you got that up to 3 Trillion with tax increases Congress would still need to actually cut 700 billion from the 2011 budget. It's not happening, EVER. -
ptown_trojans_1
tk421;848858 wrote:What in god's name makes you think that there will EVER be any cuts to the budget? Real actual cuts, where the budget reduces the next year. It's not going to happen, the idiots in D.C. don't have the courage to do it. We ARE doomed, because we vote for these complete morons who do anything in their power to gain more power for their party, they don't give a crap about the citizens.
I don't know what you have seen to make you such an idealist, nothing makes me think the budget will ever be cut until the credit card is stopped, until they can not borrow anymore they will continue to do so. This "commission" that they are supposed to form to study more cuts won't do a damn thing, just like any other commission that the government forms. They might suggest some cuts, but they will be basic and not amount to anything if the suggestions are even followed.
Ok, chicken little. Just go sit in the corner while the adults go ahead and try and figure out how to solve the problem.
Saying we are doomed and screwed makes no sense right now. Are you really quitting on this country? Lame.
Instead, suck it up, look for solutions, try and see what we can cut and how we can fix this problem. This is America, we don't run and hide because we think the end is near. We stand up, look to solve the problems and move on.
There is simply too much of the doomsday stuff going right now and not enough of the adults saying, "Ok, this is bad, but let's solve it."
Do I think Congress can solve it, perhaps. I think this committee done in the right way, is a step in the right direction.
Like most things in life, this is hard and complicated, and takes time. There is no quick fix.
Cynics aren't needed, sorry.