The Budget and National Debt

Posted by: DLC

The Budget and National Debt - 01/03/13 04:26 PM

Well the gloves have been thrown down by the GOP the next fight is over the debt and deficit spending. shocked shocked !!

reminded me of this exercise to balance hte budget from 2 years ago... might be time too break it out again !!

Budget Balancing Exercise

You'll find it's NOT that hard. But unfortunately in DC, politics and partisanship get in the way !!
sick

Also keep in mind that this exercise is an "all or nothing" choice on many budget items... in reality, Congress could also cut expenses by partial funding in specific areas of many budget items. So they can be much more precise than in the exercise.

I want to see if the GOP is really serious about cutting or just want to destroy certain programs they disagree with. (course we already know the answer) I want to see their hypocrisy exposed... well re-exposed !! grin

Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: The Budget and National Debt - 01/03/13 07:08 PM

OK.. this may start some howling from some... but these are my Fantasy picks...


http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=k3fk65qc
Posted by: steveg

Re: The Budget and National Debt - 01/04/13 04:01 AM

If you look at the rhetoric already coming from the right, the disinformation tap is wide open. Those who follow politics or are marginally conversant in Congressional process and fiscal management will spot the lies right away. But the less informed (read: majority of citizens) don't know that the POTUS has, by law, no control over the national charge account and the right wing and its media mouthpieces are stating the opposite at every opportunity.

Groundhog Day, anyone? mad
Posted by: Mac007

Re: The Budget and National Debt - 01/08/13 04:27 PM

Here's my solution: My debt solution
Posted by: DLC

Re: The Budget and National Debt - 01/08/13 04:39 PM

We have a lot of common themes ! grin

I would allow SS and Medicare to slowly increase the age requirement over the next 8-10 years. We ARE living much longer... so I don't see a problem with a 1-2 year age increase over the next decade. Point 1.- it's slowly adjusted, and 2. the age increase is small.
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: The Budget and National Debt - 01/08/13 05:08 PM

Except, SS and Medicare are not part of the debt or deficit.
Posted by: DLC

Re: The Budget and National Debt - 01/08/13 06:12 PM

No but they're factored into the cost of the budget... there's savings...

but there's other things I'd cut and deeply... before going there !! wink
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: The Budget and National Debt - 01/08/13 06:21 PM

But, they shouldn't even be discussed as part of the debt or deficit. Both SS and Medicare are self-funded by payroll taxes, aren't they? The Republicans are still just trying to eliminate them altogether. They haven't liked SS since FDR.
Posted by: carp

Re: The Budget and National Debt - 01/08/13 08:42 PM

My understanding is that the Gov, steals from SS and Medicare , to pay for other slicks.

No matter what the Gov pays out. We may think we paid into it.

Hence I would have rather be giving the option of - investing my SS money into a 401K and bought into AFLAC or something similar.
Posted by: steveg

Re: The Budget and National Debt - 01/09/13 03:54 AM

Quote:
My understanding is that the Gov, steals from SS and Medicare , to pay for other slicks.
Your understanding is incorrect (unless you subscribe exclusively to the right wing blogosphere). The article is a few years old, but still completely relevant and the last two paragraphs pretty well sum up the facts.
Posted by: DLC

Re: The Budget and National Debt - 01/09/13 07:47 AM

OK I see your point now and you're right. it shouldn't even be in the same discussion !

It's the GOP trying to de-socialize again ! mad
Posted by: Lexipatterson_

Re: The Budget and National Debt - 01/09/13 10:00 PM

Okay. On my opinion for the national debt the ONLY way to actually get it started is to cut spending.
Now before everyone goes crazy, let me rest my case...hahaha.

Many people believe the answer is raising taxes. If this would be done, the government WOULD directly get more money. That is a given. BUT, the average citizen of the United States would spend a whole lot less, due to more taxes being taken out of his/her paycheck. This would directly hurt the economy; and the economy makes up a HUGE part to if our government is successful or not.

Also if the government raised taxes, more and more people would not be able to afford them resulting in not having enough money to live a normal life. In result of that the people would be in severe debt or at poverty level. Because of this, the government would have to help them and essentially a lot of the money that the government received from the tax raise would be gone.

Our government in general just loves to spend, spend, spend. Raising taxes would not do any good. Think about it, say you gave someone $20 bucks a week and at the end of the week they would go to the store and buy something that was $20 and be thrilled and dandy and happy and whatever. BUT if one week you decided to give then $50 a week, then the person would totally walk past the $20 section and head straight to the more expensive items because they can afford it. Essentially this would be the SAME EXACT thing that would happen if the government raised taxes without cutting spending.

Now you might be saying: "what is there to cut spending on?" Domestic involvement. Now I know when some people are reading this they are all probably thinking, you're absolutely crazy.

When you think about it the U.S. has definitely been one of the leading countries to give money and assistance if a country gets in a hard time. Money that we do not have. Money that we NEED for our own country and our own people that are suffering.

When Japan was hit by the earthquake, the NEXT DAY the U.S. sent money and supplies to aid the victims. When Haiti was hit, the U.S. sent them a boatload of money to repair. That's great that we are ethical and do one to others as we would like them to do to us but the countries don't do that to us!

When we were hit with Hurricane Sandy not to long ago, I don't remember hearing other countries sending a bunch of money and assistance to help the people in the NE! I mean if the countries did, please tell me because I would love to hear that they did, but from my knowledge and research it was "Peace out America, you're on your own. Good luck!"

It is now just sad that politicians can't come together now and make an effective decisions without arguing all of the time. If myself, as a sixteen year old young woman, can come up with this, then I surely hope the government can set aside their differences and work all of this out!

I would really love to hear your opinion on my thread! Good or bad! (:
Posted by: steveg

Re: The Budget and National Debt - 01/10/13 03:47 AM

I would challenge you to reconcile the second and third paragraphs of your post against the reality of the Clinton Administration. Under his tax increases (reportedly among the largest in U.S. history), the U.S. economy took off like a rocket. Huge employment, balanced budgets, and a surplus which his successor turned into a staggering deficit.

However, I will give you a hall pass on your statements because, being 16, your recollection or even awareness of the U.S. economy of from '93 to '01 would be from the POV of a toddler, if not prenatal.

In any case, welcome to the forum, Lexi, and keep those thoughtful and youthful posts coming. We don't have enough young minds in this musty old room. smile
Posted by: Jim_

Re: The Budget and National Debt - 01/10/13 06:49 AM

Originally Posted By: steveg
I would challenge you to reconcile the second and third paragraphs of your post against the reality of the Clinton Administration. Under his tax increases (reportedly among the largest in U.S. history), the U.S. economy took off like a rocket. Huge employment, balanced budgets, and a surplus which his successor turned into a staggering deficit.
Let's not forget that the dot com bubble was a major factor in that.

I'm not against raising taxes on the wealthy back to where it was so don't read anything into my comment, just want to keep it fair and balanced. The higher tax rates helped, but the dot com bubble was a much greater influence, combined with the tax rates. Raising taxes will help but it's not going to bring us back to prosperity without other changes too, it's not the magic pill to pull the economy out of where it's at.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: The Budget and National Debt - 01/10/13 07:09 AM

The deficit is a concern, to be sure. But the deficit is what it is for two obvious reasons. First, we were, and IMHO continue to be in the middle of a recession, and that means that the deficit automatically rises (a) because fewer people working means less money being paid in taxes and (b) because government expenditures automatically rise for unemployment payments and to prime the economic pump. Second, we fought three wars over the last decade (I'm including the "war on terrorism") and did not bother to raise taxes to pay for them--indeed, decided that the best thing to do was to cut taxes while fighting the three wars.

As far as I'm concerned the previous administration quite deliberately made deficits larger and larger and larger. Why? Because it has been the avowed intention of republicans at least since Reagan to reduce the size of the government--and what better way to do that than to show how irresponsible the government is in its budgeting. So Mr. Bush II's budgetary fecklessness was not what it seemed, a sort of "What me worry?" approach to government. Instead, it was a calculated attempt to make funding the government all but impossible. And that's exactly what the current crop of republican jugheads argue when they say that the government spends and spends and spends irresponsibly. They're describing the Bush approach to governing as if that approach defined the way that government functions.

So you hear all over the place that the current economic situation is proof positive that the mid-20th century idea of the "great society" is dead--usually put in terms of the death of socialism, but I don't see the great society as a socialist enterprise, so I don't use that term. But in fact what led to our economic situation is not the failure of the great society, but rather the failure of the neo-capitalism of Wall Street. We are where we are because the banks screwed up, and they screwed up because we got rid of the distinction between banking and investing, and we got rid of that distinction because the capitalist class wanted a free rein to make profits hand over fist. It's neo-capitalism because good old fashioned capitalism means investing money in the means of production, capital goods, whereas what Wall Street did (and continues to do) is invest money in paper shuffling. Maybe it'd be better to call it pseudo-capitalism.

Anyway, I absolutely do not buy into the proposition that to fix the economy we have to cut out the safety net. We do have to tame Wall Street. We do have to bring some rationality to Pentagon budgeting. We do have to prime the economic pump by investing in nation building at home, as they say. And we have to stop thinking that fixing the deficit means balancing the budget immediately. It ain't going to happen, and if we attempt to do it, the result is going to be the Great Depression of the Twenty-first Century.

By the way, the foreign aid budget is a whopping 56 billion per year--around 1% of the federal budget. And that sum includes all expenditures for the Department of State, so it's what funds all of our embassies and consulates and all of the diplomatic efforts that the nation undertakes, including for instance the deployment of forces in embassies and consulates, something to keep in mind in light of what happened in Benghazi.
Posted by: steveg

Re: The Budget and National Debt - 01/10/13 07:33 AM

Agreed (to you and Jim). There's no single panacea. It's going to take many measures, every one of which will be a bitter pill in different ways and at different degrees for just about everyone to swallow. At the moment, though, the right wants to label anything they historically object to as causes of the deficit, even if some of those things, like Social Security, actually do not contribute to the deficit.

Just about everything we spend money on has to be cut. But with a scalpel in skilled hands, not a dull hatchet wielded by a one-eyed ideologue.