Republican Losing The Spending Argument

[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]

Originally Posted by G8trGr8t

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]

Originally Posted by 108

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]

Originally Posted by chemgator

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]

Originally Posted by chemgator

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]

Originally Posted by Matthanuf06

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]

Originally Posted by gator996

Tax hikes?

Well I guess that kills that idea....

Didn't they already raise taxes?

[Matthanuf06]

Originally Posted by gator996

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]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

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]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

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]

Originally Posted by gator996

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]

Originally Posted by 108

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]

Originally Posted by 108

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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/fac...tober_2009.pdf

[DeanMeadGator]

Originally Posted by 108

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.