Republican Losing The Spending Argument

[108]

And not because of the message, but because Americans don't trust the way they are handling it

It's what happens when you spend recklessly during times or relatively economic prosperity, then do a complete reverse when spending actually becomes necessary during an economic collapse that the new president walked into....and not helping one bit to get the country back on track..


Link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/02/27/republicans-are-losing-the-spending-argument/)

For the past several years, congressional Republicans have focused relentlessly on a single message: Washington — led by President Obama — is spending too much money, and it needs to stop.

But according to new Washington Post-ABC News polling, that laser-like focus isn’t helping Republicans win the argument over federal spending — with 67 percent of those tested disapproving of the “way Republicans in Congress are handling federal spending.”

While Obama’s numbers aren’t stellar on that same spending question — 52 percent disapproval — he is in considerably stronger shape than his Republican adversaries as Washington braces for the $1.2 trillion in automatic cuts known as the sequester to take effect on Friday. In fact, Obama’s 43 percent overall approval on his handling of federal spending is the same number as those who strongly disapprove of how congressional Republicans are handling it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2013/02/2013-02-24-fedspending-graphic.jpg

[PIMking]

whats sad about this country is that we have a group of people that wont listen to Obama no matter what, then we have a group of people that wont listen to the republicans no matter what, then we have the idiots that believe everything they're told and how it's Bush's fault still and then we have the rednecks that aint trusting a muslim black man... What could possibly go wrong?

[cocodrilo]

What I don't understand is why all the arguing is about discretionary spending cuts and tax increases, which together don't amount to a hill of beans when the real problem is entitlements. I don't understand why entitlement reform seems to be a taboo subject on both sides. At least it gets no play in the media. If you listen to the news, the politicians are arguing about anything except the real problem, and I don't understand this. If it is simply an irrational fear to touch Social Security and Medicare as it is, then we are doomed. So why don't they all just shut the hell up?

[gator996]

whats sad about this country is that we have a group of people that wont listen to Obama no matter what, then we have a group of people that wont listen to the republicans no matter what, then we have the idiots that believe everything they're told and how it's Bush's fault still and then we have the rednecks that aint trusting a muslim black man... What could possibly go wrong?


That about sums it up... :joecool:
:grin:

[gator996]

What I don't understand is why all the arguing is about discretionary spending cuts and tax increases, which together don't amount to a hill of beans when the real problem is entitlements. I don't understand why entitlement reform seems to be a taboo subject on both sides. At least it gets no play in the media. If you listen to the news, the politicians are arguing about anything except the real problem, and I don't understand this. If it is simply an irrational fear to touch Social Security and Medicare as it is, then we are doomed. So why don't they all just shut the hell up?


This is brought up in every budget discussion I've heard in the last 20 years


Obama has chain CPI on the table...wants to do entitlement reform with tax reform.



Outrage is OK...knowing what to be outraged about is better.

[PSGator66]

The Dems have the advantage of the liberal media activists who spin the truth knowing that the majority of uninformed Americans will believe the tales that they spin.

[gator421]

The Dems have the advantage of the liberal media activists who spin the truth knowing that the majority of uninformed Americans will believe the tales that they spin.

As opposed to the clear vision everybody else has?

[cocodrilo]

This is brought up in every budget discussion I've heard in the last 20 years


Obama has chain CPI on the table...wants to do entitlement reform with tax reform.



Outrage is OK...knowing what to be outraged about is better.

I've seen clip after clip after clip of Obama and Boehner on the deficit in the media. If either one of them has uttered the word "entitlement," I don't remember it. That leads me to believe they don't want to discuss it. But that's just me.

[gator996]

Well then you don't have a good memory...

When was the 1st time you heard "chain CPI", ".means testing", etc


You may want to say you haven't heard anything about entitlement reform but you should have...

[Minister_of_Information]

Congress always polls below the executive. A more meaningful comparison would be the approval level of constituents for their own Congressman.

[cocodrilo]

Well then you don't have a good memory...

If you say so.


When was the 1st time you heard "chain CPI", ".means testing", etc


I have never heard of "chain CPI" and don't know what it means. I've heard of "means testing," but not from Obama or Boehner, the two guys who seem to count in terms of getting something done. If I heard Obama or Boehner refer to "chain CPI," I think I would remember because I wouldn't know what the hell they were talking about. I have said before on this forum that I am an economic dummy. All I know is what these "leaders" tell me.


You may want to say you haven't heard anything about entitlement reform but you should have...

Of course I have heard about entitlement reform. To repeat (no need to respond again), I haven't heard about it from Obama or Boehner, our two "leaders" whom people tend to listen to when they speak.

[dudehead]

I don't understand why entitlement reform seems to be a taboo subject on both sides.

because the "greatest generation" is now enjoying the benefits of Social Security and Medicare and they will hammer any pol or media outlet that dares to suggest anything that will deprive them of their government teat. And their families agree with them because they can't afford (or don't want to pay from their money) to take care of mommy and daddy.

I can't tell you how many families come to me wanting to do long term care planning to "protect their estate from the government and the nursing home", i.e, planning to qualify parents for Medicaid and LTC benefits, who at the same time rant about government entitlement spending and those lazy "near do wells." It's surreal.

[108]

because the "greatest generation" is now enjoying the benefits of Social Security and Medicare and they will hammer any pol or media outlet that dares to suggest anything that will deprive them of their government teat. And their families agree with them because they can't afford (or don't want to pay from their money) to take care of mommy and daddy.

I can't tell you how many families come to me wanting to do long term care planning to "protect their estate from the government and the nursing home", i.e, planning to qualify parents for Medicaid and LTC benefits, who at the same time rant about government entitlement spending and those lazy "near do wells." It's surreal.

SS is there's, and there are some easy ways to fund it better...with Medicare, its about finding a way to cut costs

and there are some good ways to do that, but it won't go without a big fight from the ones profiting from it, and their puppets in government

[cocodrilo]

SS is there's, and there are some easy ways to fund it better...with Medicare, its about finding a way to cut costs


That's what our "leaders" need to be talking about, not about the sequester spending cuts, Obama wanting more taxes ad nauseum etc, which are virtually meaningless in terms of the deficit.

This avoidance of entitlement talk reminds me of the old story about the government not telling us the truth about flying saucers because it would cause national panic.

[108]

That's what our "leaders" need to be talking about, not about the sequester spending cuts, Obama wanting more taxes ad nauseum etc, which are virtually meaningless in terms of the deficit.

This avoidance of entitlement talk reminds me of the old story about the government not telling us the truth about flying saucers because it would cause national panic.

tax increases are necessary too....we just went 12 years with tax cuts without spending cuts, 2 wars, a prescription drug bill on the cc, and an economic collapse which caused temporary spending

[G8trGr8t]

Didn't they just raise taxes?

[T3goalie]

It is a false premise that a President inherited anything or walked into anything when he served in the Senate and he and his party voted for the previous administrations largesse. So long as people believe that it is always the other party's fault, nothing will get done to solve any problems. The ultimate bogey man is always the last administration.

[mocgator]

This just in: government that just cut low and middle income budgets by 2% will die if it has own budget cut by 2%.

[chemgator]

SS is there's, and there are some easy ways to fund it better...with Medicare, its about finding a way to cut costs

and there are some good ways to do that, but it won't go without a big fight from the ones profiting from it, and their puppets in government
Easy ways to fund SS better? Like what, steal from the rich? SS is and always was a forced savings program wherein the average person should be able to take out what the average person puts in, plus interest, and minus the minimal expense of running the program. There is a reason that there is a cap on how much of your income can be taxed as SS. If you take more from people and don't give more to them when they retire, then it's not a forced savings program, it's socialism and theft.

[gatordowneast]

So Republicans are wrong on the need to cut spending, so we follow the democrats and go bankrupt? Huh? Can someone explain this to me?

It seems real simple. Raise taxes to fund all the foolishness and the economy will tank but "some" people will keep getting their free chit, but less taxes will come in because the economy tanks and people lose their jobs.

OR- be responsible and get our fiscal house in order. Our spending is up 40% since the empororer was crowned.

[Minister_of_Information]

I think this all starts with baseline budgeting. We need to repeal that law and make annual increases require a vote rather than be automatic. Then you wouldn't have the democratic shenanigans like failing to pass a budget for multiple years just to ensure the maximum possible increase of Federal spending without the possibility of cuts. I wonder if that law is even constitutional given its tacit, prejudicial encumbrance of the power of the purse by future Congresses.

[108]

Didn't they just raise taxes?

they did, but that was a drop in the bucket compared to the $16 trillion owed now

Multiple Tax Cuts without spending cuts
Wars
Double Defense budget
Medicare Part D
Financial Collapse

Going to have a hard time just doing it with spending cuts

[gatordowneast]

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

[gatorman_07732]

they did, but that was a drop in the bucket compared to the $16 trillion owed now

Multiple Tax Cuts without spending cuts
Wars
Double Defense budget
Medicare Part D
Financial Collapse

Going to have a hard time just doing it with spending cuts

They made a deal and now the President doesn't want to stick to it. The word of this President means absolutely nothing.

[108]

Easy ways to fund SS better? Like what, steal from the rich? SS is and always was a forced savings program wherein the average person should be able to take out what the average person puts in, plus interest, and minus the minimal expense of running the program. There is a reason that there is a cap on how much of your income can be taxed as SS. If you take more from people and don't give more to them when they retire, then it's not a forced savings program, it's socialism and theft.

means testing, raise the cap, raise age, diversify investment in equities, to name a few

[Matthanuf06]

Easy ways to fund SS better? Like what, steal from the rich? SS is and always was a forced savings program wherein the average person should be able to take out what the average person puts in, plus interest, and minus the minimal expense of running the program. There is a reason that there is a cap on how much of your income can be taxed as SS. If you take more from people and don't give more to them when they retire, then it's not a forced savings program, it's socialism and theft.

The easiest way is a lockbox/personal accounts that is invested in the capital markets. If we did this on day 1 we'd be trillions richer.

[gator996]

The easiest way is a lockbox/personal accounts that is invested in the capital markets. If we did this on day 1 we'd be trillions richer.

This is a solution I could support...


Universal retirement accounts, for instance, would combine the best features of traditional pensions and 401(k)s. As with traditional pensions, employers, employees and the government would all contribute, the accounts would guarantee a payout for life, and assets would be pooled to maximize returns and minimize individual risk. But like individual retirement plans, the accounts would move with employees from job to job and, most important, the accounts would be personal -- workers would own the assets in their own account. Given the country's struggles with health care reform, the political feasibility of such an approach is dubious. But these plans do work: the Netherlands and Switzerland, among other countries, have similar types of universal private retirement accounts

[mastoidbone]

PUB message is a mess now and polls show it.
They are against the seq--but for the cuts--which Obama created--but now pubs want.....

Both sides are a mess.
Cut everything---everything.
Govt pay, pensions, defense, every dept, cut benefits, cut Medicare and Medicaid, ration care.....etc

No one will tell you the truth.....and raise taxes.

But dems won't touch 90% of cuts we need and pubs won't go for more taxes.

But where can you get 16 trillion?
90% should be cuts and 10% taxes.

[gator996]

Tax hikes?

Well I guess that kills that idea....

[gatorman_07732]

Tax hikes?

Well I guess that kills that idea....

Didn't they already raise taxes?

[Matthanuf06]

This is a solution I could support...

Universal retirement accounts, for instance, would combine the best features of traditional pensions and 401(k)s. As with traditional pensions, employers, employees and the government would all contribute, the accounts would guarantee a payout for life, and assets would be pooled to maximize returns and minimize individual risk. But like individual retirement plans, the accounts would move with employees from job to job and, most important, the accounts would be personal -- workers would own the assets in their own account. Given the country's struggles with health care reform, the political feasibility of such an approach is dubious. But these plans do work: the Netherlands and Switzerland, among other countries, have similar types of universal private retirement accounts

Yep. There are plenty of ways to implement it, and frankly guarantee a ROR higher than SS now. I did the math on it and our typical return on our SS contributions is like 1%.

The US citizens and their SS contributions are by far the greatest deal the US government could ever get. For all intents and purposes It's a synthetic long maturity bond with rates significantly lower than the capital markets would demand. That is why the Gov doesn't want to change it.

For us citizens its a no brainer. Each and every one of us would get more money, while also providing a bigger safety net.

[G8trGr8t]

Didn't they already raise taxes?

Never enough....no matter how high taxes go they will spend them before they pay down the debt

[gator996]

Didn't they already raise taxes?


Yeah, and...????


POTUS has been pretty consistent & clear about all of this budget back-and-forth.

The only people that declared that additional revenues were off the table were Boehner & McConnell...


Obama is working towards the Simpson-Bolles numbers whether the conservatives like it or not...

They had the "big" deal offered in the summer of 2011 and screwed the pooch...


Now Obama is working to those numbers in steps and is determined to get more revenue than he asked for in the summer of 2011 because another year & half has gone by and the debt problem has grown.


Take the spending cuts, revenue hikes already agreed to since that summer from hell and closing loopholes along with a managed sequestration replacement (planned spending cuts) and Obama will hit the Simpson-Bolles targets...


And then he'll move onto Immigration, Gun control, Afghanistan, Iran, & Energy.

[gatorman_07732]

Yeah, and...????


POTUS has been pretty consistent & clear about all of this budget back-and-forth.

The only people that declared that additional revenues were off the table were Boehner & McConnell...


Obama is working towards the Simpson-Bolles numbers whether the conservatives like it or not...

They had the "big" deal offered in the summer of 2011 and screwed the pooch...


Now Obama is working to those numbers in steps and is determined to get more revenue than he asked for in the summer of 2011 because another year & half has gone by and the debt problem has grown.


Take the spending cuts, revenue hikes already agreed to since that summer from hell and closing loopholes along with a managed sequestration replacement (planned spending cuts) and Obama will hit the Simpson-Bolles targets...


And then he'll move onto Immigration, Gun control, Afghanistan, Iran, & Energy.

Stealing other peoples money

[chemgator]

they did, but that was a drop in the bucket compared to the $16 trillion owed now

Multiple Tax Cuts without spending cuts
Wars
Double Defense budget
Medicare Part D
Financial Collapse

Going to have a hard time just doing it with spending cuts

Are you insane? The fact that you can tax the wealthy at a 100% rate (which they will not tolerate, by the way) and not balance the budget doesn't mean anything to you? And a blind man can see that if you tax the wealthy too much, they will pack up and move elsewhere. For years, wealthy British entertainers lived in the U.S. because the tax rates were so much lower (and they spent their money here as well, which added jobs). If you start confiscating their money, they will move elsewhere. Ask the French how they feel about one of their leading actors leaving the country. The other thing about increasing taxes to decrease the deficit is that Congress will decide that they have new spending priorities before the ink is dry on the tax increase and the money will already be spent. If Obama can increase discretionary spending 84% without any new money coming in, how much will he increase spending with new tax money coming in? Congress and Obama have no desire to balance the budget, and you would have to be extremely gullible to think they do. Yes, tax increases are part of the solution, but a minor part.

Actually, you will have an easy time balancing the budgets just with spending cuts, if you look at what the nation needs, and not what individuals want. You can start by cutting programs that aren't working. The department that handles the program "Head Start" has gone on record stating that there is absolutely no educational benefit to a child who goes through this program (specifically, that by the time they reach 2nd grade, children who go through this program are no smarter than children of the same background who did not). So what does our imbecile-in-chief commit to doing immediately after being re-elected? Expanding the $8 billion/year program. That's right, expanding a failed program. Why? According to Donna Brazile, the dem's leading strategist, "it's for the children". That's how dems think. Giving failure to 4-year-old children is better than giving nothing to them. And we're providing do-nothing jobs! For only $8 billion a year! Soon to be $10 billion a year!

Entitlements do need to be cut back, and if Congress does not have the intestinal fortitude to do it themselves, have referendums on which ways are needed to cut spending on these programs. Congressmen are off the hook, as long as they vote for a program that reflects the voters' wishes. Once upon a time, the U.S. functioned without these programs, and we did not resort to cannibalism or other barbaric behavior. I don't see why a scaled-back version of these programs would be so devastating.

[Minister_of_Information]

They want capital gains too.

[chemgator]

means testing, raise the cap, raise age, diversify investment in equities, to name a few
All failures or ways to convert a forced savings program into a theft/forced charity program. (I know, socialism is good for you.)

Raising the retirement age provides minimal additional income--the main benefit of this is it reduces expenditures. People putting large amounts of money into SS will retire before the retirement age anyway because they can afford to.

Investing in equities just makes the finances for SS less stable. Investing in T-bills does not give a great return, but it is guaranteed. If you want retirement money in equities, invest outside of SS. If we have an extended recession / depression that includes a stock market crash (or two), then we'll have a serious problem. This recession has been relatively mild from a stock market perspective. I promise you, if the Dow Jones was hovering around 6,000 right now, you would not recommend such a foolish idea.

[ATLitigator]

What I don't understand is why all the arguing is about discretionary spending cuts and tax increases, which together don't amount to a hill of beans when the real problem is entitlements. I don't understand why entitlement reform seems to be a taboo subject on both sides. At least it gets no play in the media. If you listen to the news, the politicians are arguing about anything except the real problem, and I don't understand this. If it is simply an irrational fear to touch Social Security and Medicare as it is, then we are doomed. So why don't they all just shut the hell up?

this is all that needs to be said....

[mastoidbone]

The study has been done---spending cuts far more effective then tax increases.
http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/alesina/files/Large%2Bchanges%2Bin%2Bfiscal%2Bpolicy_October_200 9.pdf

[DeanMeadGator]

they did, but that was a drop in the bucket compared to the $16 trillion owed now

Multiple Tax Cuts without spending cuts
Wars
Double Defense budget
Medicare Part D
Financial Collapse

Going to have a hard time just doing it with spending cuts

Politicians are too busy blaming everyone in the other party to do anything.

1. Stop blaming and start leading.

2. Blessed be our children for they shall inherit the national debt.

[Matthanuf06]

All failures or ways to convert a forced savings program into a theft/forced charity program. (I know, socialism is good for you.)

Raising the retirement age provides minimal additional income--the main benefit of this is it reduces expenditures. People putting large amounts of money into SS will retire before the retirement age anyway because they can afford to.

Investing in equities just makes the finances for SS less stable. Investing in T-bills does not give a great return, but it is guaranteed. If you want retirement money in equities, invest outside of SS. If we have an extended recession / depression that includes a stock market crash (or two), then we'll have a serious problem. This recession has been relatively mild from a stock market perspective. I promise you, if the Dow Jones was hovering around 6,000 right now, you would not recommend such a foolish idea.

Wow. This is what is wrong with this country.

FYI of the Dow was at 6k you'd still be getting many times more money than you would with our current system. People really have no clue how bad of a deal SS is. Put it this way, if you deposited your SS tax in a crappy savings account at death your return on that would be significantly superior to what you get from SS. It's pathetic

And the volatility of the market is mitigated since this is a long term annuity type program. It's essentially perpetual, with huge inflows to boot.

You wouldn't treat it like a 401k where your value fluctuates based on the market. You'd treat it more like a pension plan. Guarantee something as weak as 4%. That is far superior to the 1% we get now. The market will surely do better than 4% long term (we are talking 50 years) and some of the surplus can be used for other programs (as well as tax reduction).

Therefore short term stock market fluctuations won't impact SS. If anything it'll impact the surplus of the program.

In addition the injecting of trillions of dollars into the capital markets would be the largest stimulus this country has ever seen.

[Minister_of_Information]

So the best way for the government to ensure its future ability to meet its obligations is for it to invest in government bonds.

Sadly it is not unbelievable that this argument is being advanced with a straight face.

[gatorman_07732]

So the best way for the government to ensure its future ability to meet its obligations is for it to invest in government bonds.

Sadly it is not unbelievable that this argument is being advanced with a straight face.

The mentality that somehow government is always the solution. More and more centralized government....lots and lots of centralized government. We can't spend enough according to some, and we have no debt problems according to some. Just keep on spending. God money after bad.....flush
If we ever have any chance for the future to succeed this mentality needs to squashed like a roach.

[DeanMeadGator]

As opposed to the clear vision everybody else has?

Let's not worry. Future generations will inherit the disaster that is being created. We are stealing from them. They will blame us, and rightly so.

All blame, no leadership.

What - me worry? Alfred E. Newman.

[Matthanuf06]

So the best way for the government to ensure its future ability to meet its obligations is for it to invest in government bonds.

Sadly it is not unbelievable that this argument is being advanced with a straight face.

It's ridiculous. So we loan the government us at 1% over 50 years, and then the government takes that money and invests in its own debt a significantly higher rates over 30? Lol

[cocodrilo]

Today in a news conference I heard Obama utter the words "entitlement reform." I almost fell out of my chair. It's encouraging to know that he has at least heard of it. I'm now bubbling with optimism. No, wait, the Republicans will now probably be against it.

[gatorpa]

Today in a news conference I heard Obama utter the words "entitlement reform." I almost fell out of my chair. It's encouraging to know that he has at least heard of it. I'm now bubbling with optimism. No, wait, the Republicans will now probably be against it.

His idea of "entitlement reform" will be no SS for people who are "rich"...by his definition.

[Dreamliner]

Americans are angry and disillusioned because the Republicans aren't willing to spend quite as much as they want them to spend.

[DeanMeadGator]

Americans are angry and disillusioned because the Republicans aren't willing to spend quite as much as they want them to spend.

What Americans are angry?? Who is "they"?

Do our children and grandchildren want us to spend (steal) more of their money and thereby ruin their economic well-being?

[Dreamliner]

What Americans are angry?? Who is "they"?

Do our children and grandchildren want us to spend (steal) more of their money and thereby ruin their economic well-being?

Face it, you're in the minority. Most Americans do not support government cuts.

[geauxgator1]

So Republicans are wrong on the need to cut spending, so we follow the democrats and go bankrupt? Huh? Can someone explain this to me?

It seems real simple. Raise taxes to fund all the foolishness and the economy will tank but "some" people will keep getting their free chit, but less taxes will come in because the economy tanks and people lose their jobs.

OR- be responsible and get our fiscal house in order. Our spending is up 40% since the empororer was crowned.

If Obama and Michelle would just take one less vacation a year, we could probably balance the budget. Or maybe just not take separate vacations. The royalty thing is out of hand.