2012-2021 Budget

• gut

  Con_Alma;844495 wrote:Yep. I don't like it. I don't mind a tax increase with stipulations toward similar levels of cuts based on the projected revenue increase but I don't want to to see the debt level rise even more.
  
  I would like to see a balanced budget amendment to dictate to future legislators what they can and cannot do.

  
  They really need to target 18% of GDP, the pluses and minuses should balance out over the long-run. Problem is that would require them to accurately forecast GDP, and we've seen that game to reduce "future deficits" with overly optimistic GDP forecasts (and then double-dip by overestimating tax efficiency).
• Con_Alma

  gut;844515 wrote:They really need to target 18% of GDP,....

  It won't happen without restricting the hands of future legislators.
• gut

  jhay78;844490 wrote:To be fair, the Republicans in the House voted to raise the debt ceiling via the Cut Cap & Balance bill.

  
  That sounds too complicated for Democrats - they know only spend spend spend and blame the rich for not paying enough taxes.
• gut

  Con_Alma;844518 wrote:It won't happen without restricting the hands of future legislators.

  
  I agree. But I think being required to balance the budget each year just isn't particularly manageable given the ebbs and flows of the economy, which drives receipts. I know you said stipulations, but that sounds like "loophole" to me which would be dangerous. I know you don't mean loophole, but you'd have to be very careful with how much wiggle room and exceptions you grant. I'm also not opposed to deficit spending, which at a minimum would be expected when receipts fall in a recession (i.e. different from stimulus spending). I also think Keynseian economics can work in the short-run, but you have to pay it back not with higher taxes or other cuts but by banking the surplus in good times. The reason I think the stimulus is failing is that businesses and inidividuals know the iou's are coming due.
• Con_Alma

  gut;844524 wrote:I agree. But I think being required to balance the budget each year just isn't particularly manageable given the ebbs and flows of the economy, which drives receipts. I know you said stipulations, but that sounds like "loophole" to me which would be dangerous. ....

  Those "loopholes" a reasonable and it could even be a requirement that the budget be balanced on a rolling semiannual basis.
  
  I used to be against such an idea but there's clearly no practice that's been taking place to be any better of an option in my mind.
• gut

  Con_Alma;844534 wrote:Those "loopholes" a reasonable and it could even be a requirement that the budget be balanced on a rolling semiannual basis.
  
  I used to be against such an idea but there's clearly no practice that's been taking place to be any better of an option in my mind.

  My point is you have to have a longer-run frame in time, because it's inefficient an wasteful to be adding and cutting every year or every other year when revenues are down only temporarily due to a recession. If you have a surplus bank to go to, then it works, but they shouldn't be setting aside surplus but paying down the debt.
  
  I think we're on the same page just maybe disagree on how best to execute. At this point, being within a few hundred billion seems like a win. If they target 18%, they can't be that far off even if GDP and/or efficiency is lower than expected (assuming they set targets based on reasonable expectations).
  
  Because the flip side is, you're having a really good year. Looks like your budget can be $300B higher...Now, will they use that surplus to pay down debt, or are they going to go hand out $300B, or attempt to create another entitlement that isn't sustainable and has to be cut a few years down the road? A balanced budget doesn't cap spending in the same way by aligning it with GDP and it doesn't particularly lend itself to efficient and sustainable budget planning.
• Con_Alma

  gut;844548 wrote:My point is you have to have a longer-run frame in time, because it's inefficient an wasteful to be adding and cutting every year or every other year when revenues are down only temporarily due to a recession. If you have a surplus bank to go to, then it works, but they shouldn't be setting aside surplus but paying down the debt.
  
  ...

  I'm open to the time period being defined.
• gut

  Con_Alma;844564 wrote:I'm open to the time period being defined.

  
  Fair enough. I don't think it's rocket science. The crazy thing is why such opposition to a balanced budget amendment in the first place? In and of itself, there's nothing about that which should cost people votes (indeed I think most people are gradually shifting from wanting a balanced budget to demanding one). Of course, the real reason is they know the spending is not sustainable no matter how much they raise taxes, and so will be forced to make cuts.
  
  Over 30 years, GDP will likely double twice (assuming 4% inflation alone, which is probably optimistic on the low side). That by itself would shrink the current debt to 20-25% of GDP, which would be a pretty manageable number. So we actually can grow/inflate our way out of this mess about as quickly as we got into it the last 15 years or so, IF we get spending under control NOW.
• coyotes22

  

  gut;844609 wrote:Fair enough. I don't think it's rocket science. The crazy thing is why such opposition to a balanced budget amendment in the first place? In and of itself, there's nothing about that which should cost people votes (indeed I think most people are gradually shifting from wanting a balanced budget to demanding one). Of course, the real reason is they know the spending is not sustainable no matter how much they raise taxes, and so will be forced to make cuts.
  
  Over 30 years, GDP will likely double twice (assuming 4% inflation alone, which is probably optimistic on the low side). That by itself would shrink the current debt to 20-25% of GDP, which would be a pretty manageable number. So we actually can grow/inflate our way out of this mess about as quickly as we got into it the last 15 years or so, IF we get spending under control NOW.

  Ummmm, excuse me. This country was not broke, till 2001. Soon as President Bush took office, this country started down the drain of the toilet. Duh. Have you not been listening the last two years? Everything wrong with us now, is the fault of the greedy eeeevil capitalist oil hungry/rich GWB!!! Obama had to spend so much money to try and get us back afloat!! Get your crap together man!!!!
• jhay78

  

  coyotes22;844758 wrote:Ummmm, excuse me. This country was not broke, till 2001. Soon as President Bush took office, this country started down the drain of the toilet. Duh. Have you not been listening the last two years? Everything wrong with us now, is the fault of the greedy eeeevil capitalist oil hungry/rich GWB!!! Obama had to spend so much money to try and get us back afloat!! Get your crap together man!!!!

  
  You've been reading the union newsletters again, haven't you?
• coyotes22

  

  jhay78;844806 wrote:You've been reading the union newsletters again, haven't you?

  
  I write them!!!!!!!
  
  
• QuakerOats

  http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/pelosis-reactionary-liberalism_577709.html
  
  
  For the love of God can somebody not muzzle this jackass.
• BGFalcons82

  

  tk421;844042 wrote:1% less than the current budget, or 1% less than what is projected for that year? Even so, the 2011 budget is around 3.7 Trillion. Cutting only 8 percent(1 percent for 8 years) won't do shit. Someone really needs to go back to elementary math, if they believe that.
  
  2012 (3.663T) 2013(3.626T) 2014(3.59T) 2015(3.554T) 2016(3.518T) 2017(3.483T) 2018(3.45T) 2019(3.416T).
  
  I have an extremely hard time believing cutting only 1% per year for 6 years will come close to balancing a budget. As you can see, in 6 years the budget will still be 3.483T so the government would need almost 1.3T more in tax revenue. It's not going to happen. This is all assuming that the government has absolutely NO increase in spending for these years, which will never happen. Face it, this country is screwed.

  
  tk421 - It's not my idea. However, it makes a lot of sense to me, as you have to remember the yearly baseline increases of 7.5% per year are DELETED and replaced with 1% REAL CUTS from the previous year's budget. There are NO baseline increases in the next 10 years. Here is an interview with Connie Mack and Judge Napolitano, fast forward to the 3:20 mark - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsUt8eE0DpY
  
  A written version - http://news.yahoo.com/freedom-works-supports-mack-penny-plan-194106327.html
  
  The take home:

  The Penny Plan balances the budget by:
  
  -- Cutting total federal spending by one percent each year for six
  consecutive years,
  -- Setting an overall spending cap of 18 percent of gross domestic
  product in 2018, and
  -- Reducing overall spending by $7.5 trillion over 10 years.
  
  If Congress and the President are unable to make the necessary cuts, the bill's fail-safe triggers automatic, across-the-board cuts to ensure the one percent reductions are achieved.

• Cleveland Buck

  

  That's not a bad plan to balance the budget, but by the time the budget is balanced the debt will be over $20 trillion. How are we going to pay that down? The cuts need to be deeper.
• tk421

  

  hmm, following that plan assumes that the GDP will be over 19T by 2018. Don't know about that, the economy has to gain millions of jobs for that to happen. I'd like it better if they made it 2% over that time period.
• BGFalcons82

  

  tk421;845217 wrote:hmm, following that plan assumes that the GDP will be over 19T by 2018. Don't know about that, the economy has to gain millions of jobs for that to happen. I'd like it better if they made it 2% over that time period.

  
  You are espousing the TEA Party ideal, which is to shrink government in spending/size, paying for essential services/entitlements, and growing the economy. With less folks using and more folks paying, the debt can be reversed. You have to remember that this President, this Senate leader, and the previous House leader want nothing to do with growth, as that empowers the INDIVIDUAL and NOT the state. In their minds, the state is the true giver, the true benefactor, and without their every whim, we could not survive. Thus enhancing their position as being necessary and we can't live without them.
• gut

  tk421;845217 wrote:hmm, following that plan assumes that the GDP will be over 19T by 2018. Don't know about that, the economy has to gain millions of jobs for that to happen. I'd like it better if they made it 2% over that time period.

  
  6-7 years out? You have to remember even very modest inflation will factor in...Sitting at 14T right now, 19T is only an annual growth of 4.9% a year. With another recession soon, all bets are off, but we could hit 4.9% just on inflation alone (and the Fed and gubmit would love for this to happen, but despite trying their darndest they just can't get inflation to really start moving).
• tk421

  

  gut;845292 wrote:6-7 years out? You have to remember even very modest inflation will factor in...Sitting at 14T right now, 19T is only an annual growth of 4.9% a year. With another recession soon, all bets are off, but we could hit 4.9% just on inflation alone (and the Fed and gubmit would love for this to happen, but despite trying their darndest they just can't get inflation to really start moving).

  
  Hard for the Fed to inflate their way out of anything with even 4.9% growth per year when they increase the size of the budget 7.5% every year.
• believer

  

  QuakerOats;844826 wrote:http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/pelosis-reactionary-liberalism_577709.html
  
  For the love of God can somebody not muzzle this jackass.

  LOL Nancy's just pissed that she was fired.
  

  BGFalcons82;845233 wrote:You have to remember that this President, this Senate leader, and the previous House leader want nothing to do with growth, as that empowers the INDIVIDUAL and NOT the state. In their minds, the state is the true giver, the true benefactor, and without their every whim, we could not survive. Thus enhancing their position as being necessary and we can't live without them.

  From Nancy Pelosi herself, "What we're trying to do is save the world from the Republican budget. We're trying to save life on this planet as we know it today."
  
  This woman is a lunatic.
• majorspark

  

  Cleveland Buck;845181 wrote:That's not a bad plan to balance the budget, but by the time the budget is balanced the debt will be over $20 trillion. How are we going to pay that down? The cuts need to be deeper.

  tk421;845217 wrote:hmm, following that plan assumes that the GDP will be over 19T by 2018. Don't know about that, the economy has to gain millions of jobs for that to happen. I'd like it better if they made it 2% over that time period.

  BGFalcons82;845233 wrote:You are espousing the TEA Party ideal, which is to shrink government in spending/size, paying for essential services/entitlements, and growing the economy. With less folks using and more folks paying, the debt can be reversed. You have to remember that this President, this Senate leader, and the previous House leader want nothing to do with growth, as that empowers the INDIVIDUAL and NOT the state. In their minds, the state is the true giver, the true benefactor, and without their every whim, we could not survive. Thus enhancing their position as being necessary and we can't live without them.

  You hobbits just don't get it.
• coyotes22

  

  majorspark;845527 wrote:You hobbits just don't get it.

  Buncha Tea Bagging Hobbits they are!
• jhay78

  

  coyotes22;845544 wrote:Buncha Tea Bagging Hobbits they are!

  
  This is what disgusts me about McCain and other establishment R's: it's one thing to disagree and debate the issues seriously and intelligently. It's another thing to insult people and call names. Seriously, that fraud slings more mud at people putting their necks out in his own party than he does at the slime on the left. Dude was a conservative for about 5 minutes- just long enough to win a contested primary. Now it's back to the same old same old.
• coyotes22

  

  jhay78;845592 wrote:This is what disgusts me about McCain and other establishment R's: it's one thing to disagree and debate the issues seriously and intelligently. It's another thing to insult people and call names. Seriously, that fraud slings more mud at people putting their necks out in his own party than he does at the slime on the left. Dude was a conservative for about 5 minutes- just long enough to win a contested primary. Now it's back to the same old same old.

  
  Yep. He is a typical RhINO
• believer

  

  coyotes22;845603 wrote:Yep. He is a typical RhINO

  Sort of "Obama Lite" eh? I held my nose when I pulled the lever in 2008.
• coyotes22

  

  believer;845767 wrote:Sort of "Obama Lite" eh? I held my nose when I pulled the lever in 2008.

  
  You were not the only one.