Budget cuts visualized

[kallend 2,156]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

http://www.youtube.com/user/10000Pennies#p/u/9/cWt8hTayupE

This is bad

Best visual demonstration of the mess I have seen

Thanks

Indeed. Shows very nicely that all the right wingers' insistence on balancing the budget by cutting foreign aid, "welfare", education spending, etc., will have almost no effect.

The big three are Medicare, SocSec, and defense. All else is peanuts by comparison.

Of course, we could always raise revenues by taxing ourselves appropriately.

I agree - every individual that makes more than the poverty level, (about 32K for a small family) should pay a sliding scale up to where the taxed amout does not drop the tax payer below the poverty level, then a flat 35% up to a maximum of 10 million.

That should about cover it. How much does that increase your taxes?

Not sure I understand your algorithm. Can you express it as a formula or table, or give an example or three?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>No more than today and it should be less

Reducing taxes now would bankrupt us.

If you want to reduce taxes you have to reduce spending FIRST. And unfortunately that's not going to happen. Neither party is willing to make any significant cuts.

Dont agree

Correctly targeted cuts would stimulate and increase revenues

As for cutting?

Sharp edged point and hard to argue with and I agree
neither party is willing to do what is right

So what will YOU cut that will make a difference AND be acceptable to the voters?

First you get rid of department like that of education and the arts
Then get rid of the dups like the 7 differnt job

Try again, it has to make a difference, not be a drop in the bucket. It's mathematically impossible to balance the budget without cutting defense, Soc.Sec. and/or Medicare. So what will you cut?

Easy vote for me. Medicare and social security are going to people who never paid in, did not earn and have no intention of doing so. Cut out those people and run your numbers again. I can also admit that defense spending is going to lots of stuff it should not, but if you knew more about it, you would realize that is because the politicians are cycling kickbacks through the defense department. It is not actual defense spending.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[kallend 2,156]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>No more than today and it should be less

Reducing taxes now would bankrupt us.

If you want to reduce taxes you have to reduce spending FIRST. And unfortunately that's not going to happen. Neither party is willing to make any significant cuts.

Dont agree

Correctly targeted cuts would stimulate and increase revenues

As for cutting?

Sharp edged point and hard to argue with and I agree
neither party is willing to do what is right

So what will YOU cut that will make a difference AND be acceptable to the voters?

First you get rid of department like that of education and the arts
Then get rid of the dups like the 7 differnt job

Try again, it has to make a difference, not be a drop in the bucket. It's mathematically impossible to balance the budget without cutting defense, Soc.Sec. and/or Medicare. So what will you cut?

10% across the board

End many constitutionaly questionalbe departments and programs and then realocate those monies back into the big three. Cut gov employment by at least 10%

Cut much of the foreign aid
Kick the UN out of the US and stop footing all the bills

give much of the power back to the states

......

I guess math is just not your strong point.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[wmw999 2,593]

Then we have to do a whole lot of looking at what a government provides.

All those high-dollar weapons, health care of any kind (including VA and helping hospital districts with charity cases), pensions, retirement (and we live a whole lot longer than people used to then).

We're going to have to get used to the fact that if we want to seriously cut the budget, the misery index in the US is going to go up for someone. No one wants it to be themselves or people like them.

But nearly all of us knows someone old who relies on Social Security; someone who has a chronic illness who relies on Medicaid or luck, or who's in the military. Which of them do we want to fuck with?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[kallend 2,156]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>No more than today and it should be less

Reducing taxes now would bankrupt us.

If you want to reduce taxes you have to reduce spending FIRST. And unfortunately that's not going to happen. Neither party is willing to make any significant cuts.

Dont agree

Correctly targeted cuts would stimulate and increase revenues

As for cutting?

Sharp edged point and hard to argue with and I agree
neither party is willing to do what is right

So what will YOU cut that will make a difference AND be acceptable to the voters?

First you get rid of department like that of education and the arts
Then get rid of the dups like the 7 differnt job

Try again, it has to make a difference, not be a drop in the bucket. It's mathematically impossible to balance the budget without cutting defense, Soc.Sec. and/or Medicare. So what will you cut?

Easy vote for me. Medicare and social security are going to people who never paid in, did not earn and have no intention of doing so. Cut out those people and run your numbers again.

Your claim, YOU run the numbers and tell us the savings.

Quote

I can also admit that defense spending is going to lots of stuff it should not, but if you knew more ...

What makes you think I know less than you?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>The stimulus did nothing. It is an epic failure . . .

Hmm. Unemployment is down, interest rates are coming up and US manufacturing sectors are adding jobs. Wages are rising faster than inflation. "The recovery act failed" is going to be harder and harder sell as time goes on.

In any case, it's odd that you would argue that the tax cuts that were part of that failed.

>That mess is Obamas own.

The stimulus act was Bush's.

>The private market can not come back enough under the current regs, rules,
>taxes and restrictions to do what you say needs to happen

Then why is it coming back?

The numbers are down
That is what happens when people stop being counted because of the way the systems counts unemployment

You believe in Obamas he cut taxes lie?

I dont

Bush's stimlus package was bull shit to
And I stated that at the time
It is as big a failure
Look how much of that money went overseas
Nice

The private side is not coming back
You need to stop getting that kind of news from the big three media outlets

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[airdvr 210]

Try again


House GOP Lists $2.5 Trillion in Spending Cuts

http://www.usnews.com/news/washington-whispers/articles/2011/01/20/house-gop-lists-25-trillion-in-spending-cuts

This is my favorite...

Require collection of unpaid taxes by federal employees. $1 billion total savings.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[wmw999 2,593]

"never paid into SS" would include the stay-at-home widows and widowers, and children of workers who were disabled, as well as the workers who have run through more money than they paid in. There are people who cheat to get SS disability. They're pretty pathetic -- there's not a lot of money in that.

Other than that, there aren't a significant number of SS cheats.

"never paid into medicare" would include all those same widows and widowers. And if you never worked, you have to pay (yes, I'm sure it's not the true cost) for Part A, which former workers and their spouses get for free. Everyone who gets it pays for Part B.

The programs to attack those would be SSI and Medicaid. SSI is normally for permanently disabled people who are unlikely to be able to work. Those are different programs and entitlements.

And the vast majority of those defense boondoggles have someone who favors them.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[kallend 2,156]

Quote

Try again


House GOP Lists $2.5 Trillion in Spending Cuts

http://www.usnews.com/news/washington-whispers/articles/2011/01/20/house-gop-lists-25-trillion-in-spending-cuts

]

You missed this important bit: "$2.5 trillion in spending over the next 10 years"

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>No more than today and it should be less

Reducing taxes now would bankrupt us.

If you want to reduce taxes you have to reduce spending FIRST. And unfortunately that's not going to happen. Neither party is willing to make any significant cuts.

Dont agree

Correctly targeted cuts would stimulate and increase revenues

As for cutting?

Sharp edged point and hard to argue with and I agree
neither party is willing to do what is right

So what will YOU cut that will make a difference AND be acceptable to the voters?

First you get rid of department like that of education and the arts
Then get rid of the dups like the 7 differnt job

Try again, it has to make a difference, not be a drop in the bucket. It's mathematically impossible to balance the budget without cutting defense, Soc.Sec. and/or Medicare. So what will you cut?

Easy vote for me. Medicare and social security are going to people who never paid in, did not earn and have no intention of doing so. Cut out those people and run your numbers again.

Your claim, YOU run the numbers and tell us the savings.

Quote

I can also admit that defense spending is going to lots of stuff it should not, but if you knew more ...

What makes you think I know less than you?

Where did I say I run the numbers
You fail again
I list a start from a genreal point of view

And what makes me think I know less than you (where ever you get that from but since you asked)

Well

I read your posts for one
And your weasling worming purposeful inability to answer a question (many questions) would indicate that you know less than you try to snow the rest of us with

Next question?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[davjohns 1]

OK. Here we go.

I like flat taxes. It means everybody pays. People who benefit more from a free economy pay more. People who benefit (make) less, pay less. But everybody is vested in the government and have an interest in it working and even paying attention to what it does. If you don't pay taxes, you are influenced to vote for whoever gives you money. This is bad.

Now, I also see that a flat tax coupled with elimination of all the tax exemptions would do something else. It would eliminate the need for the IRS. How much does that save us? Did you say Billions? With a B? And all those accountants and tax lawyers have to find more productive work? What does that do for our economy?

How about eliminating tax deductions? You mean the governmet isn't going to use the tax code to tell us how to live our lives? But I like deducting my mortgage interest. Isn't home ownership good? Yes, but you don't get a deduction for home ownership. If you own your home, you get nothing. You get a deduction for home owership...huh? That's right. You pay less taxes because you are sending profit to the mortgage company. The federal gives up revenue in favor of your mortgage company. That means we have been subsidizing all those corporations that just tanked our economy. And then we bailed them out. Good plan, guys. Good plan.

What about the deduction for having lots of kids? Really? We want to encourage people to have more kids when we have special departments in the UN trying to figure out what to do about over-population? When we have kids in foster care and orphanages that need parents? We're going to reward you for procreation? Was this really necessary?

I know it would take a phased plan to go from our current tax system to something understandable like "Send in 10%. Keep the rest." But it has many, many merits.

Oh yeah...while we're getting rid of the IRS, why do we need a federal department of education to take our money and only give it back if we promise to train our kids the way they think we should? The Department of Energy was created to get us independent of foreign oil. Good job, guys. National Endowment for the Arts? If people want those arts, they'll support them. If they do not, why is the government taking our money and giving it to them?

Let's face it. There are lots of cuts just begging to be made.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Then we have to do a whole lot of looking at what a government provides.

All those high-dollar weapons, health care of any kind (including VA and helping hospital districts with charity cases), pensions, retirement (and we live a whole lot longer than people used to then).

We're going to have to get used to the fact that if we want to seriously cut the budget, the misery index in the US is going to go up for someone. No one wants it to be themselves or people like them.

But nearly all of us knows someone old who relies on Social Security; someone who has a chronic illness who relies on Medicaid or luck, or who's in the military. Which of them do we want to fuck with?

Wendy P.

Wendy, I have always respected your opinions here, but let's be serious. Trotting out the elderly, sick and poor is a dirty trick. Nobody wants to hurt those who actually deserve and need aid. My point is that there are ridiculous numbers that are receiving it that should not. Social Security is not going just to hard working men and women who paid into it. It is being used to pay people for any number of things. It has so little resemblance to what it was intended to be that you have to be blind to defend it. Medicaid is hardly better. And what is characterized as defense spending is often pork projects legislator funnel through defense.

Pork and corruption is rife in these areas because people will make the arguments you just made and people hate to point out that the emperor is naked. The underlying principles of all three are good and just. The execution is corrupt and serious cuts in their budgets would force change.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[davjohns 1]

Quote

"never paid into SS" would include the stay-at-home widows and widowers, and children of workers who were disabled, as well as the workers who have run through more money than they paid in. There are people who cheat to get SS disability. They're pretty pathetic -- there's not a lot of money in that.

Other than that, there aren't a significant number of SS cheats.

"never paid into medicare" would include all those same widows and widowers. And if you never worked, you have to pay (yes, I'm sure it's not the true cost) for Part A, which former workers and their spouses get for free. Everyone who gets it pays for Part B.

The programs to attack those would be SSI and Medicaid. SSI is normally for permanently disabled people who are unlikely to be able to work. Those are different programs and entitlements.

And the vast majority of those defense boondoggles have someone who favors them.

Wendy P.

I'm having trouble keeping up with the flow. I wasn't ignoring your post.

SS is going to people for supposed disabilities who are in the teens and twenties. They are not widows. It is not the backup retirement system it was meant to be. I never intended for widows of the men who paid into the system to be included. You are imputing a silly argument to me that I never made.

And lots of illegal aliens are using medicaid. You kinda missed that.

And by the by...I'm at 26 years of military service and counting.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[wmw999 2,593]

My understanding is that Social Security, in particular, doesn't have that high a rate of fraud. You need to have worked enough quarters to collect. The old immigrants who come in and start collecting without ever having worked are generally getting SSI, not SS.

Medicaid and SSI have far more potential for abuse.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[billvon 3,121]

>The numbers are down

========
First-time unemployment claims lowest since July 2008
Applications fell last week to a seasonally adjusted 383,000, reinforcing confidence that the labor market is on track to recovery.

By Ruth Mantell
February 10, 2011, 1:50 p.m.

New applications for unemployment insurance benefits fell below the 400,000 level last week, according to government data released Thursday, a sign of a strengthening employment environment.

Initial claims for these benefits fell 36,000 to a seasonally adjusted 383,000 in the week ended Feb. 5, hitting the lowest seen since July 2008, the Labor Department reported.
=========
U.S. interest rates rise on stronger data
Thursday, February 10, 2011 2:53 PM

Feb. 10, 2011 (United Press International) -- Average interest rates for 30- and 15-year mortgages rose in the week ending Feb. 10, the U.S. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. (OOTC:FMCC) said Thursday.
. . .
Positive economic data is pushing rates higher, said Frank Nothaft, Freddie Mac's vice president and chief economist.
=========
U.S. manufacturers see emerging market boost

BOSTON | Tue Feb 8, 2011 1:59pm EST

BOSTON (Reuters) - Strong demand from big emerging markets, particularly China and India, is boosting U.S. manufacturers' prospects for 2011, a pair of top executives said on Tuesday.
. . .
"We feel very good about the economy," said Greg Hayes, chief financial officer at United Technologies Corp (UTX.N). "There's good news, but we're not out of the woods yet ... It's going to be a gradual, slow, uneven recovery."

A top General Electric Co (GE.N) executive sounded a more confident note on the economy in a presentation to investors.

"We feel really good about emerging market demand, really across all of our infrastructure businesses," said John Rice, a GE vice chairman who oversees the company's international operations. "We're starting to see some signs that the economy is rebounding a little bit."
==========

>You believe in Obamas he cut taxes lie?

Your ODS must be acting up. The first tax cuts came from Bush's stimulus package. Do you believe his lies?

>The private side is not coming back

It's a bad day to be crying the "R" word (to paraphrase a GOP poster on here from a few years back.)

[davjohns 1]

Quote

My understanding is that Social Security, in particular, doesn't have that high a rate of fraud. You need to have worked enough quarters to collect. The old immigrants who come in and start collecting without ever having worked are generally getting SSI, not SS.

Medicaid and SSI have far more potential for abuse.

Wendy P.

Nope. Social Security disability is a huge field for some attorneys. The SS administration actually pays the attorney's fees to get the person the SS that the administration already denied. (I also happen to be an attorney) Most Americans are unaware of how big an industry this is. And there is no connection to age or whether you ever held a job.

Want an eye opener on medicaid? Start a discussion with your local pharmacy tech about illegals with medicaid cards.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[airdvr 210]

Quote

"The recovery act failed" is going to be harder and harder sell as time goes on.

Only because people will forget about the massive amount of money we printed.

Quote

The stimulus act was Bush's.

That's some funny shit right there. TARP was W's. The porkulous is all Barry.

Quote

Then why is it coming back?

You think this is a comeback? Please.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[airdvr 210]

Quote

Quote

Try again


House GOP Lists $2.5 Trillion in Spending Cuts

http://www.usnews.com/news/washington-whispers/articles/2011/01/20/house-gop-lists-25-trillion-in-spending-cuts

]

You missed this important bit: "$2.5 trillion in spending over the next 10 years"

Not missed at all. Your hero is talking $100 million.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[billvon 3,121]

>Only because people will forget about the massive amount of money we printed.

No, because if the economy recovers, and republicans claim it's not recovering, no one is going to believe them.

>>The stimulus act was Bush's.

>That's some funny shit right there. TARP was W's.

That's what I said.

>You think this is a comeback?

Like I said, claiming "IT FAILED! IT FAILED!" as the economy recovers is going to be a hard sell. If the GOP relies on this in the next election, it wouldn't surprise me to see democrats retake the House.

[billvon 3,121]

>Not missed at all. Your hero is talking $100 million.

And your heroes are talking $74 billion in the same time period.

So we have:

Democratic deficit $1.43 trillion
Republican deficit $1.50 trillion

Yep, lots of differences there. Especially if you have a really good magnifying glass.

[wmw999 2,593]

There's a difference between Medicare and Medicaid. Medicare is supposed to be limited to people 65 and over, with the limitations I outlined (very broadly) above. There isn't a means test for it, but you do need a Social Security number.

I'd submit that the amount of SS money going to people in their teens and twenties who are disabled (or not-really-disabled) is not large. I believe about 4% of SS recipients are on it for disability (per National Bureau of Economic Research). It's a problem for SS, but not a large dent in our national budget, because only some of those on disability are fraudulent.

I'm not saying these programs shouldn't be revisited. It's just not as easy.

If you start raising the retirement age, then all of a sudden people who are older who worked in manual jobs that wore them out are going to be disproportionately hurt. I honestly think that the best way is probably to withhold Social Security based on other income. It is more likely to hurt people who can affort to hurt some. But it's wildly unpopular for good reason (note: I'd probably be on that list).

By collecting taxes on SS, we move money from SS into the national budget; by witholding SS, we'd keep it in the SS pot.

We're also going to have to accept that good medical care is not available for everyone. If you have money, you'll get better medical care. But we'll have to be willing to tell cute children that sorry, we can't help them because they don't have enough money. There is not a limitless supply of money or medical care. Used to be you broke your leg, you got it set, casted, and walked around on crutches for 6-8 weeks. Now it seems it always includes $50,000 in surgery for pins etc. Yeah, the case wasn't as good, but sometimes we have a Yugo budget, not a Rolls-Royce one.

Damn I'm wordy.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[airdvr 210]

Which part of that news do you contribute to the stimulus? Hell man, they haven't even spent $100B yet.

This recovery would have happened on it's own and without government interferance.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[wmw999 2,593]

I completely agree that Medicaid is a huge sinkhole of abuse. I didn't know that SS paid attorney's fees for disputed claims. I do know, however, that they disapprove about 60% of first-time disability claims, so it's not automatic by any means.

But, again, if only 4% of SS collectors are disability, it's not that big an overall number as compared to the budget. You can't get rid of all disability. Even the cheats (who should piss everyone off)

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Not sure I understand your algorithm. Can you express it as a formula or table, or give an example or three?

No I really don't want to take the time. So lets just use round numbers:

Say a family of 4:
Poverty level is 22500 for a family of 4 multiply by say 1.33 that is really close to 30K. 30500 is the ist level where taxes are paid, everyone below is exempt from federal income tax ONLY. When we get to 300% of the poverty level, the full 35% is owed - no questions easy math.

That continues until the maximum is reached.

In this case 10 mil - A guy that make 28,571,428 or above would pay 10 mil in personal federal income tax.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[mirage62 0]

Quote

But it's wildly unpopular for good reason (note: I'd probably be on that list).

And as I have noted before you and Bill and others are very good decent people, but to do what you are suggesting changes the entire program. Neat that your sucha good person....

Im not

taking my S.S. just because I have "money" to give it to people who don't is like the progressive tax code - which oddly I support. But taking a retirment benifit from me to give to others when I am now 50 just isn't right.

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little