I am boarding a flight to China soon, so I will write when I can. I will leave you some links that a couple of my liberal FB friends posted lately.
CC Debt Just Exceeded
FB The Other 98 Percent
Needless to say I raised some questions about how to best address the debt and they disagreed... Thoughts?
20th_Century_Defense_Spending
Welfare Spending
State of Our Unions
Brookings Pie Chart
Spend vs Revenue
CC Debt Just Exceeded
FB The Other 98 Percent
Needless to say I raised some questions about how to best address the debt and they disagreed... Thoughts?
20th_Century_Defense_Spending
Welfare Spending
State of Our Unions
Brookings Pie Chart
Spend vs Revenue
25 comments:
We spend money on three things: health care, pensions and the military. To reduce spending, you have cut spending on some combination of these three things. You also have to anticipate that cutting spending on these things may have an impact on the economy.
On the revenue side, you can increase taxes.
Trump has indicated he will not accept cuts in SS and health care, and he wants to raise spending on the military. He also wants to both reform and lower taxes. So, in terms of the deficit, we are in something of a pickle.
--Hiram
Rep. Paulsen is a strong advocate of tax reform. But what he doesn't talk much about is that tax reform doesn't necessarily mean lower taxes. Typically, we talk about the elimination of loopholes, but the two biggest loopholes I know of are the mortgage interest deduction, and the deductibility of state and local income taxes. Thees are the principal tax benefits most Minnesotans get. Would you be willing to give them up in order to make our tax system fairer?
--Hiram
I don't know why everybody keeps searching around for "where to cut" when the answer is so simple. The only "cut" that needs to be made is on the government's credit card. Simply stop raising the debt limit. Period. Force government to live within its means and do not allow it to raise taxes to cover their profligate ways. Force Congress to find ways to do things more efficiently or not at all, by setting priorities. For example, Obamacare is costing us a trillion dollars a year, Medicare and Medicaid far more, so by Pareto's law that's the first place to look for savings and it is a target-rich environment.
The only "cut" that needs to be made is on the government's credit card
The fact is a decision to cut spending is a decision to cut what we spend on. A decision to cut what we spend on is a decision to cut spending. The problem with tautology as policy is that the only place it ever gets you is back to the start.
A decision not raise the debt level, is a decision to dishonor debt since it isn't a decision to cut spending. It's like telling your banker you don't have to pay your mortgage anymore, because it violates your household budget.
--Hiram
A decision to not raise the debt level has nothing to do with dishonoring the debt that already exists, except that Congress refuses to quit spending more than it takes in. Raising the debt ceiling is like telling your bank that, because you cannot pay your credit card bill, you want your credit limit increased. it seems that "living within your means" is a foreign concept to Congress.
We apparently had a pretty good mix of spending and taxes in 2000 when were running a surplus, however the GOP decided that we should all pay less in taxes. Assuring everyone that growth would more than cover the shortfall.
Of course they were wrong again. And now they are trying to do it again.
A decision to not raise the debt level has nothing to do with dishonoring the debt that already exists, except that Congress refuses to quit spending more than it takes in.
The reason is that since the debt limit has nothing to do with spending, in order to pay for the spending you have to stop making payment on the debt. In household terms, the logical thing to do would be to stop spending. But politicians don't want to do that.
--Hiram
It is amusing that half of Americans want to cut revenues and half want to increase spending... And everyone is surprised that our debt keeps increasing. :-)
It's the way we talk about things. We want things but we don't want to pay for them. But maybe we should make cuts. Do we really need an army? Do we really need old people? Can't the money we spend on luxuries like that really be spent elsewhere? As Trump would tell you, other countries don't spend the money on the military we do. That's why they pay so much less in taxes than we do. They have out smarted us in that regard. Is there a lesson we should learn from that?
--Hiram
According to our president, America is the highest tax nation in the world. That means we pay more on health care, retirement, and the military than any other nation. Surely we can make cuts. What do other, lower cost nations do about these expenditures? What can we learn from them?
--Hiram
"in order to pay for the spending you have to stop making payment on the debt."
Not so. Even during the government "shutdown" there is enough money coming in to not only make payments on the debt but to fund all of the "essential services" of government. The only reason we tend to believe differently is because Obama put out a specific directive to "make the shutdown 'hurt'." He closed highly visible national parks that didn't need to be closed at all, just to score political points.
And yet, a "shutdown" may be exactly the right cure. It would force Congress to quickly decide what were "essential services" in the light of there being no money for some NON-essential services. It is exactly what a household would do when they get in too much debt-- cut up the credit cards and cut back the spending, starting with non-essentials like the golf club membership or the third Mercedes.
https://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/11/07/the-federal-government-now-employs-the-fewest-people-since-1966/
Fed employment Lowest since 1966
So? How much of what is left is "essential"? Half? I would be surprised.
Where do you get these strange ideas?
Spending Pie Charts
I mean 70% of the spend goes to people as an income or service.
Or are you talking 50% of the 30% discretionary? Of which the military is 53%...
"Strange"? You are assuming that the 70% spent is all spent with perfect efficacy towards the desired, constitutional, and reasonable objectives. It is simply not possible.
You could look at what percent of that spend is actually legally LABELLED essential during periods of shutdown.
Government Shutdown
I don't think you understand that most of the money goes out in the form of checks to citizens and our service providers. (ie Social Security, Social Security Disability, Medicare Payments, Medicaid Payments, Veteran Payment, Pension Payments, Military Paychecks, Welfare Payments, etc)
As I said, where do you get these strange ideas? Something called a source is preferred.
More Educational Material for You
"Whereas discretionary spending must be appropriated every year, mandatory spending is
authorized either for multi-year periods or permanently. Thus, mandatory spending generally
continues during a shutdown. However, some services associated with mandatory programs
may be diminished if there is a discretionary component to their funding."
Now back to the Pie Chart
Ah. I see the problem. You are confusing "mandatory" with "essential." Mandatory spending is just a way for Congress to keep from having to set priorities on spending. Usually on things that would not be the top priority if they had to compete for funds.
The source I found said that, during the last shutdown, 43% were deemed "non-essential."
Well I will be happy to review your source.
And I am guessing the Social Security, Social Security Disability, Medicare Payments, Medicaid Payments, Veteran Payment, Pension Payments, Military Paychecks, Welfare payments are incredibly essential to those who rely on them.
You know my view though... We should means test all of them...
No sense sending SS, SS D, Medicare, etc payments to people with big bank accounts. Then we could label them all welfare.
You are arguing that SS is "essential" because "people rely on them." That's circular reasoning. If those programs did not exist people would NOT rely on them and therefore they are non-essential, at root. And do not forget that "promises were made" when they took your FICA taxes. Means-testing would be breaking that promise, however impossible it was when made.
The solution of "quit spending more than you take in" is the only solution to the deficit. There are many, many ways to do that, but Congress lacks the testicular fortitude to set those priorities. Sooner or later that will cost us all, terribly.
Please remember that SS and Medicare are just welfare programs...
As we know, the politicians can stop making those payments to financially independent citizens whenever they develop the fortitude.
And of course that would make sense if it was meant to be there to support the old, widows and dependent children.
I remember it well, but our politicians have, for a long time, categorized it as "insurance" or an "investment," and to admit now that it is a welfare program for the old, the widows and orphans, would paint them as big-time liars and probably cause a rebellion among those who believe their payments entitled, even guaranteed them, something. Yes, it can be cut off in that it isn't "essential" in terms of what we should be spending on, but only a full reform of the system is going to change the "rules" sufficiently to make it politically palatable. And with too many demagogues posing as statesmen, well....
Please remember that SS and Medicare are just welfare programs... Everyone receiving these benefits is on the dole.
As we know, the politicians can stop making those payments to financially independent citizens whenever they develop the fortitude.
And of course that would make sense if it was meant to be there to support the old, widows and dependent children.
If these payments are not essential for many Americans, then let's cut them immediately so the people with big savings account don't receive that tax payer money from the trough.
Post a Comment