A bit of good news for the deficit

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

It pisses me off though that the only cuts are coming from the military.

My bigger concern is the SOP for this administration.

They announce a cut of X - the REAL cut is less than X (by a lot) or actually an increase that's rationalized as a cut.

Then they announce an increase in other spending by a lot more than X

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

>You say this like there is something we can do to get them to stop kidnapping people.
>*News flash* There isn't.

Agreed. The only way to avoid Somalian pirates is to avoid Somalia. (Which isn't that bad an idea overall.)

Which is a good idea, however, if we pulled out, every oil tanker coming through the North Arabian Gulf would get hijacked. The Somalis would love it. They could make BILLIONS!!!! Plus, we still need that oil, especially when projects like the keystone pipeline keep getting shot down.

Once again, novel idea, but scores low on the practicality scale.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

Quote

Your missing my point though. Why is the military being singled out?

If you said, "because their is a Democrat in office and he's not going to cut his programs," I could respect that.

Problem - the President cannot cut military spending. Only Congress can. The House is controlled by the GOP.

This is not something I'm willing to put on the POTUS. This is an implementation of the military vision enunciated 10 or 15 years ago.

Yes, but after the house generates a budget, the senate has to pass it, and then it gets pushed to the president.

Harry Reid has sat on every budget passed to him from the current house. Obama has said he would veto it.

The special "debt commission" that was put together came up with numbers that cut across the board that democrats balked at because it took a bite out of their "their" programs.

When was the last time an actual budget was passed again? I forget how long congress has been kicking the can down the road with extensions and temporary funding.....

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[billvon 3,132]

>Plus, we still need that oil, especially when projects like the keystone pipeline keep getting shot down.

OK, so we can't cut defense first. Let's cut something else. They'll defend THEIR pet projects - and nothing will change. We'll see if we can get to a 100 trillion dollar debt, and it won't be anyone's fault.

But at least we'll show those Somali pirates who's boss.

>Once again, novel idea, but scores low on the practicality scale.

Yep. And you have given an excellent example of why the budget will never actually be cut.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

The special "debt commission" that was put together came up with numbers that cut across the board that democrats balked at because it took a bite out of their "their" programs.

Dems AND Republicans balked at it. The President could have raised the issue in his State of the Union speech in January, 2011. He didn’t. The GOP could have raised it in its response, i.e., “American People – the President’s own Commission made these findings and recommendations. The President and Democrats don’t like it, so they are sweeping it under the rug.”

The GOP didn’t because it presented some problems with them, too. Getting rid of tax breaks? Closing loopholes? Even if lowering the marginal tax rate. That wasn’t good.

And neither side wants to touch Medicare or Social Security, which the debt commission HEAVILY criticized. Simpson and Bowles KNEW that the politicians wouldn’t have any of it, so they put in the intro that the American public has to stand up and demand the changes. The public didn’t do that, in part because both parties sought to sweep it under the rug.

And yes, the whole subversion of the budget process is ridiculous. But there’s a reason why the GOP ain’t exactly fighting for fiscal responsibility.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

if the goal of our military was merely to keep Somali pirates at bay, I think we could do it pretty cheaply. They're not exactly a superpower, just a lot of guys with rifles and zodiacs. Or we could attack their financing - both the 'investors' that fund them, and the accounts that hold their ransoms.

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

>Plus, we still need that oil, especially when projects like the keystone pipeline keep getting shot down.

OK, so we can't cut defense first. Let's cut something else. They'll defend THEIR pet projects - and nothing will change. We'll see if we can get to a 100 trillion dollar debt, and it won't be anyone's fault.

But at least we'll show those Somali pirates who's boss.

>Once again, novel idea, but scores low on the practicality scale.

Yep. And you have given an excellent example of why the budget will never actually be cut.

Your twisting my words. I never said we can't cut from the defense budget, I just don't want ALL the cuts to come from defense. Nor should they. We will never balance the budget with just defense cuts.

But now that defense cuts are coming, what left wing pet projects or entitlement programs would you be willing to put some cuts on?

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

Dems AND Republicans balked at it. The President could have raised the issue in his State of the Union speech in January, 2011. He didn’t. The GOP could have raised it in its response, i.e., “American People – the President’s own Commission made these findings and recommendations. The President and Democrats don’t like it, so they are sweeping it under the rug.”

The GOP didn’t because it presented some problems with them, too. Getting rid of tax breaks? Closing loopholes? Even if lowering the marginal tax rate. That wasn’t good.

I agree and disagree. Getting rid of tax breaks and closing loopholes while lowering the overall tax rate is the end goal of flat taxes. The Republicans were campaigning heavily on a flat tax plan when Herman Cain was running, and now they all have one in their back pocket.

If they actually pass a viable flat tax plan, I would let some of this slide.

Quote

And neither side wants to touch Medicare or Social Security, which the debt commission HEAVILY criticized. Simpson and Bowles KNEW that the politicians wouldn’t have any of it, so they put in the intro that the American public has to stand up and demand the changes. The public didn’t do that, in part because both parties sought to sweep it under the rug.

And yes, the whole subversion of the budget process is ridiculous. But there’s a reason why the GOP ain’t exactly fighting for fiscal responsibility.

Well, they have put more effort into it than the Democrats. While I agree that they could try harder, it's not even in the Democrat Vocabulary.

Do you remember Ron Paul's plan to balance the budget? Do you remember him saying that his plans will not effect anyone over the age of 55? Then the Democrats, rather than using his plan as a starting point ran the add of him pushing grandma off a cliff?

Some Idea's do come out of the house republicans, but they keep getting shot down, or Harry Reid sits on them.

I can't find the exact number but as of right now I think the Senate is sitting on 4 proposals from the house.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[matthewcline 0]

Quote

Yep, it's a good start. Hopefully we can balance the budget with only military cuts.

Next time someone get kidnapped by Somali pirates, they can rescue them selves.......

http://enews.earthlink.net/article/us?guid=20120127%2F3125e64b-4b00-4c55-bdf7-87dc50ed76e9

SOF is gonna be fine.

Matt

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

That approach doesn't work. We need to make deep cuts even in beloved programs like the military. Yes, it will be painful. But it has to happen.

+1

We are all engines of karma

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

They announce a cut of X - the REAL cut is less than X (by a lot) or actually an increase that's rationalized as a cut.

Apparently, automatic hikes are built into everything. What they're doing is cutting back a little on the automatic hike. Net/net, there's still an increase in spending. That's my understanding.

We are all engines of karma

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

I know the Military wastes a lot of money. Being in the military I can't tell you how much money I've seen flushed down the toilet. It's the same for all of government. Especially at the end of September.

It just chaps my ass knowing that there are other area's, like Medicare and Social Security that need overhauling also. Yet if a budget doesn't get passed, the automatic cuts were were pretty much solely military.

When the military is out killing Bin Laden, rescuing hostages, and saving Iranian Sailors, how do you justify targeting them only for government cuts?

Red herring argument. Those were special forces actions, and AFAIK are NOT targeted for cuts.

...

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

[GeorgiaDon 385]

Quote

Quote

They announce a cut of X - the REAL cut is less than X (by a lot) or actually an increase that's rationalized as a cut.

Apparently, automatic hikes are built into everything. What they're doing is cutting back a little on the automatic hike. Net/net, there's still an increase in spending. That's my understanding.

I don't know about automatic hikes being built into everything. Maybe so, but I can tell you that for a number of years now we have not been able to budget for inflation in NIH grants, although we used to do so in the past. Very hard to budget for a 4-5 year project without any allowance for cost increases over that time.

Anyway, I think the major issue with built-in increases is with entitlement programs, and most of that is due to growth in the retiree population. Even if there were no cost-of-living adjustments to social security/medicare benefits paid to individuals, the program will still eat more and more of the budget because of the number of baby boomers retiring. Anyone who advocates rolling these programs back to 2007 levels and holding them there has to at least be honest that that will require a big cut to individual benefits, because there are more slices to the pie and more are added all the time. And retirees tend to vote. Although it's popular in some circles to bash government bureaucrats as power/money hungry out-of-control demons who won't be happy until they control the whole economy, that position ignores the real structural issues that drive growth in government spending and lead to moronic ideas such as thinking we can balance the budget by eliminating foreign aid.

As Lawrocket points out regularly, these programs grow automatically (by law) as the client population grows. So in those cases cuts to projected growth are, in fact, real cuts to real people. For those who think they are not, consider how you would react if your employer announced they were going to increase their workforce by 10% but they have no money so all the current employees will have their pay cut to make up the difference.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[billvon 3,132]

>But now that defense cuts are coming, what left wing pet projects or entitlement
>programs would you be willing to put some cuts on?

All of them. Start with medicare and medicaid. Reduce coverage. Then social security; increase the age where it kicks in. Set the rate of increase to match the remaining money available. Then HUD. Then veteran's benefits. Then DOT. Go right down the line.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>But now that defense cuts are coming, what left wing pet projects or entitlement
>programs would you be willing to put some cuts on?

All of them. Start with medicare and medicaid. Reduce coverage. Then social security; increase the age where it kicks in. Set the rate of increase to match the remaining money available. Then HUD. Then veteran's benefits. Then DOT. Go right down the line.

I'll bet that's not the answer he was expecting......


I like to think of it as this conversation -

lefties - you guys cut military
rightes - you guys cut entitlements
L - fine, but YOU first
R - no way, I'm not falling for that again - YOU go first
L - no, you first
R - no, you first
L - no, you first
R - no, you first
L - no, you first
R - no, you first
L - no, you first
R - no, you first
L - no, you first
R - no, you first



Finally -

military cuts - called the bluff

let's see how it plays out in real life now......

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

>But now that defense cuts are coming, what left wing pet projects or entitlement
>programs would you be willing to put some cuts on?

All of them. Start with medicare and medicaid. Reduce coverage. Then social security; increase the age where it kicks in. Set the rate of increase to match the remaining money available. Then HUD. Then veteran's benefits. Then DOT. Go right down the line.

Medicare and SS should be means tested. (Yes, that would disadvantage me).

...

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

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Medicare and SS should be means tested. (Yes, that would disadvantage me).

For SS

If some portion actually accrued directly to the employee only at payout time - maybe even privatized. Say in proportion to the the personal contribution.

And some portion was not - say the employer match. And THAT portion was paid out against a means tested table.

maybe that would be "fair"

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

Quote

Medicare and SS should be means tested. (Yes, that would disadvantage me).

For SS

If some portion actually accrued directly to the employee only at payout time - maybe even privatized. Say in proportion to the the personal contribution.

And some portion was not - say the employer match. And THAT portion was paid out against a means tested table.

maybe that would be "fair"

If you say so. I don't believe the concept of "fair" is meaningful in the context of taxes or govt. spending.

...

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

[billvon 3,132]

>Medicare and SS should be means tested. (Yes, that would disadvantage me).

The plan:

Cut all programs by 18% average. Raise taxes by 18% average. In SS this would generally be accomplished by changing how PIA factors are indexed, indexing earnings to actual prices etc. Phase it in over 10 years so people have time to make alternate arrangements.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Cut all programs by 18% average. Raise taxes by 18% average. In SS this would generally be accomplished by changing how PIA factors are indexed, indexing earnings to actual prices etc. Phase it in over 10 years so people have time to make alternate arrangements.

realistically it takes more time then that to actually plan. Someone earning 100k may be expecting SS to represent 20% of their income in retirement. Making up for that shortfall is impossible to do in that short a time frame. Add the fun of not knowing where the ball will land in 10 years - will the means test drop down to 50k? Will there be ways to game it by only withdrawing retirement funds every other year?

[billvon 3,132]

>realistically it takes more time then that to actually plan. Someone earning 100k may
>be expecting SS to represent 20% of their income in retirement. Making up for that
>shortfall is impossible to do in that short a time frame.

Yes. They will be screwed. So will that guy who gets fired and runs out of unemployment insurance. So will the veteran who needs the expensive prosthetic leg and gets the cheapo one. So will the scientist who has a way to prevent H1N1 from spreading rapidly, but has no government money to pursue his theories.

There is no longer any way to accomplish a balanced budget without harming anyone or anything. Everyone is going to get hit. It's the price we will all have to pay for decades of irresponsibility.

[GeorgiaDon 385]

Quote

>Medicare and SS should be means tested. (Yes, that would disadvantage me).

The plan:

Cut all programs by 18% average. Raise taxes by 18% average. In SS this would generally be accomplished by changing how PIA factors are indexed, indexing earnings to actual prices etc. Phase it in over 10 years so people have time to make alternate arrangements.

Would that be a cut of 18% below current levels of spending, or below projected spending?

From the CBO:
"In 2002, the federal government spent over $450 billion to provide Social Security benefits to more than 46 million retired or disabled workers, their dependents, and survivors. According to CBO's projections, under the current structure of benefits, spending will exceed the tax revenues earmarked for Social Security beginning in 2017. By 2030, total spending (in 2002 dollars) will reach about $1.2 trillion for 85 million beneficiaries. On average, beneficiaries will receive about $14,000 per year in 2030, compared with about $10,000 in 2002. " Elsewhere in the report they say that workers paying into the system will increase by only 15% in the same time frame.

So, a cut of 18% in benefits paid would bring the average benefit to $11,480, which I can't imagine having to live on (should some future Bernie Mac abscond with my 401K), and that would still require more than doubling ($984 billion) annual federal expenditures on SS alone (but only 15% more people paying in). A cut of 18% below current funding for the whole social security program would bring the average benefit down to $4,341 by 2030. It's hard to imagine medical costs, food, shelter, gas etc will decline in cost at all over the same time, so at that point the govt might as well keep the change.

Kallend and Billvon are both right, benefits will have to be cut and the program will have to be means tested. It will have to become a port-of-last-resort for those whose pensions/investments went totally in the toilet, and even then it won't come close to a poverty level income.

Alternatively, we could just let the old folks freeze in the dark. Or soylent green them.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

Quote

>But now that defense cuts are coming, what left wing pet projects or entitlement
>programs would you be willing to put some cuts on?

All of them. Start with medicare and medicaid. Reduce coverage. Then social security; increase the age where it kicks in. Set the rate of increase to match the remaining money available. Then HUD. Then veteran's benefits. Then DOT. Go right down the line.

I'll bet that's not the answer he was expecting......


I like to think of it as this conversation -

lefties - you guys cut military
rightes - you guys cut entitlements
L - fine, but YOU first
R - no way, I'm not falling for that again - YOU go first
L - no, you first
R - no, you first
L - no, you first
R - no, you first
L - no, you first
R - no, you first
L - no, you first
R - no, you first
L - no, you first
R - no, you first



Finally -

military cuts - called the bluff

let's see how it plays out in real life now......

+1

That was the answer I was hoping for and the answer any normal emotionally stable person would give in the current circumstances.

But we are not dealing with normal, emotionally stable people. In real life we have to deal with congress.

As you said, we'll see how it plays out.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

As you said, we'll see how it plays out.

Don't hold your breath - as we've seen regarding gun control, 'bipartisanship' to the Dems means 'you give us what we want and we won't crucify you TOO badly in the press'.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Kallend and Billvon are both right, benefits will have to be cut and the program will have to be means tested. It will have to become a port-of-last-resort for those whose pensions/investments went totally in the toilet, and even then it won't come close to a poverty level income.

yes, means testing seems inevitable. But it likely will result in punishing those who did the right thing (saving, not spending) to help those who did not. There's already a good amount of that resentment now, even if it's more emotionally driven than rational.

When, not if, we finally give up and break the promise of SS, we should be putting some effort into encouraging/mandating savings. The current method hasn't done it. If part of the solution is raising the "current" 6.2% rate, maybe it's time for private accounts. People might be a bit more encouraged by seeing real numbers, not that annual SS report with a mythical estimated benefit that could vaporize.

Or simple mandatory 5% savings for all W2 and 1099 income? That still isn't enough, but it creates a floor.