Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    6:50 PM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Fiscal Cliff averted (for now)...but I'll just say it: We DO need to start cutting back spending... Back to Topics
RNorm

Champion Author
San Bernardino

Posts:53,705
Points:1,342,775
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Jan 1, 2013 11:16:51 PM

"With bipartisan support, the House approved the fiscal cliff bill late Tuesday night after Republican leaders ultimately decided not to try and tack on an amendment to the Senate version of the legislation, which passed around 2 a.m. ET Tuesday morning.

The package (PDF) puts off budget cuts for two months and preserves Bush-era income tax cuts for individuals earning less than $400,000 or couples earning less than $450,000.

The bill now heads to the president's desk for his signature. Check back here for the latest updates. "



So lets see REAL spending cuts are in round 2?
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
johnnyg1200
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:8,900
Points:1,324,275
Joined:May 2011
Message Posted: Jan 18, 2013 10:27:25 PM

"We don’t need to start with the military or entitlement programs."

If you eliminate these from cuts, you are unable to bring the deficit to zero even by eliminating ALL OTHER SPENDING!”””””
.
I agree with you we will need to address the military and entitlements, but we will never be able to sell any cuts as long as the 100% wasteful spending like the garbage I outlined not is addressed. As I said this is the perfect place to start.


[Edited by: johnnyg1200 at 1/18/2013 10:27:58 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:24,211
Points:2,869,615
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Jan 18, 2013 10:19:42 PM

"We don’t need to start with the military or entitlement programs."

If you eliminate these from cuts, you are unable to bring the deficit to zero even by eliminating ALL OTHER SPENDING!
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,643
Points:3,507,120
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Jan 18, 2013 10:01:38 PM

I agree with you RNorm, we do need to start cutting spending by, let's say, 5% a year for the next, oh, 20 years or so. No argument there. But the devil is in the details. What are you going to cut? What can't be cut? How much will you cut those things that can be cut and how will we determine which are which (cuts vs. don't cuts)
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:16,652
Points:2,397,885
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 18, 2013 9:21:21 PM

Nicely done, Johnny! And you only barely scratched the surface of Washington waste, that's the sad part of it all...
Profile Pic
johnnyg1200
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:8,900
Points:1,324,275
Joined:May 2011
Message Posted: Jan 18, 2013 9:12:23 PM

I think that the idiots in Washington haven’t got a clue. The only thing they know how to do is spend money, when they run out of money they raise taxes, when they can’t raise taxes any further they borrow money, first from social programs that were supposed to be off limits and then form other countries like China. Then when they reach the end of their credit limit they ask for a higher limit.

I say don’t give them another dim in additional tax money or a higher credit line until they learn what is important. We don’t need to start with the military or entitlement programs.

We need to start with things like.
First let me say that I did not fact check any of the sources listed. Some of the waist is well known and some not but I would bet everything I have this is just the tip of the iceberg.
.
1. The Department of Agriculture’s Market Access Program spends $200 million a year to help U.S. agricultural trade associations and cooperatives advertise their products in foreign markets. In 2011, it funded a reality TV show in India that advertised U.S. cotton.
.
2. Studying pig poop. The Environmental Protection Agency awarded a $
$141,450 grant under the Clean Air Act to fund a Chinese study on swine manure and a $1.2 million grant to the United Nations for clean fuel promotion.
.
3. Amtrak snacks. Federally subsidized Amtrak lost $84.5 million on its food and beverage services in 2011 and $833.8 million over the past 10 years. It has never broken even on these services.
.
4. Using military exercises to boost biofuels. The U.S. Navy bought 450,000 gallons of biofuels for $12 million—or almost $27 per gallon—to conduct exercises to showcase the fuel and bring it closer toward commercialization. It is the largest biofuel purchase ever made by the government.
.
5. “RoboSquirrel.” $325,000 was spent on a robotic squirrel named “RoboSquirrel.” This National Science Foundation grant was used to create a realistic-looking robotic squirrel for the purpose of studying how a rattlesnake would react to it.
.
6. Conferences for government employees. In 2008 and 2009 alone, the Department of Justice spent $121 million to host or participate in 1,832 conferences.
.
7. Cupcakes. In Washington, D.C., and elsewhere across the country, cupcake shops are trending. The 10 cupcake shop owners who received $2 million in Small Business Administration loan guarantees, however, can only boast so much of their entrepreneurial ingenuity, since taxpayers are backing them up.
.
8. Food stamps for alcohol and junk food. Though they were intended to ensure hungry children received healthy meals, taxpayer-funded food stamps were instead spent on fast food at Taco Bell and Burger King; on non-nutritious foods such as candy, ice cream, and soft drinks; and on some 2,000 deceased persons in New York and Massachusetts. Food stamp recipients spent $2 billion on sugary drinks alone. Improper SNAP payments accounted for $2.5 billion in waste, including to one exotic dancer who was making $85,000 per year.
.
9. Beer brewing in New Hampshire. Despite Smuttynose brewery’s financial success and popularity, it is still getting a $750,970 Community Development Block Grant to build a new brewery and restaurant facilities.
.
10. A covered bridge to nowhere. What list of government waste would be complete without a notorious “bridge to nowhere”? In this case, it’s $520,000 to fix the Stevenson Road Covered Bridge in Green County, Ohio, which was last used in 2003.
-
Top 10 Examples of Wasteful Federal Spending in 2012
-
Dont forget theseThe National Science Foundation was given $1.2 million for a World of Warcraft study. Adults aged 60-77 were asked to play World of Warcraft for two hours per day for two weeks to see if there were any signs of cognitive improvements. The result? For adults who had already scored well on cognitive testing, there was no improvement. For those with lower initial scores, there were some improvements.

Is gaydar real? The National Science Foundation spent $30,000 flashing photos of gay and straight people for for 50 milliseconds in front of college students. The students were then asked to guess the person’s sexual orientation. The result? Judgements were 60% accurate.

Now I am all for NASA but this is insane

NASA currently has no manned space fleet or plans for a human space to Mars, but that hasn’t stopped them from planning what they’re going to eat when they do. NASA’s Advanced Food Technology Project spends about $1 million working on the “Mars Menu” every year. This year, researchers at Cornell University and the University of Hawaii were given an additional $947,000 to study the best food for astronauts to eat on Mars. If they ever get there.
-

Wastebook 2012 Unveils Wasteful Government Spending
-
For more than 40 years, both the Democratic and Republican parties have used the American taxpayer to subsidize their party conventions. From candidate films to entertainment, from volunteer gifts to transportation costs, the American taxpayer shells out more than $100 million every four years for each party to hold its own “hallelujah party,” in the words of Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK). At a time when Americans are feeling the squeeze of dwindling household income, higher taxes, and increased costs of gasoline and other items, being forced to subsidize a party celebrating Washington politicians is just another slap in the face to American taxpayers.
-
Only Washington bureaucrats could justify funding a $2 million intern program that results in the hiring of just ONE intern. Weren’t Americans promised back in 2008 and 2010 that Washington would run a leaner, tighter operation with less waste, more transparency, and more taxpayer accountability? With inefficient programs like this, it’s no wonder the United States is sinking in a quagmire of debt of nearly $16 TRILLION!
-
In 2011, your tax dollars went toward building an International House of Pancakes in the heart of Columbia Heights—one of Washington’s trendiest and most desirable neighborhoods. Why is the HHS busying itself by doling out your hard-earned money to a successful restaurant chain in an elite D.C. neighborhood that is already swarming with eatery options? No amount of syrup can sweeten this sour deal.
-

Incredibly, Washington is spending $2.6 million training Chinese prostitutes to drink more responsibly on the job. This is the kind of wasteful spending that President Obama and Congress have stubbornly refused to cut. Instead, they planned to raise taxes on families and entrepreneurs by trillions of dollars! Only action by citizens like you will break the Washington liberals of this kind of frivolous splurging.
-
Evidently the foot room is better! Federal employees cost taxpayers $146 million each year when they upgrade to business class flights. The Government Accountability Office found that more than half of these upgrades were not properly authorized. The rest of us have to fly coach and live on a budget—it’s time our government does the same.
-
Government spending test
-
Who could forget these two.
-
Government Agency In Charge of Cutting Costs Spends $835K On Lavish Convention
-
The $3.4 Million Turtle Crossing
-
6. $4,200-$5,500 TAX CREDIT FOR PURCHASING GOLF CARTS:

7. $219,000 TO STUDY THE SEX LIVES OF FEMALE COLLEGE FRESHMEN:
I wish I could have gotten in on that one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

9. $325,394 TO STUDY "MATING DECISIONS" OF CACTUS BUGS:
.
13. $54 MILLION IN STIMULUS FUNDS USED FOR THE NAPA VALLEY WINE TRAIN:

15. $250 STIMULUS CHECKS WENT TO PRISONERS:
-
Stimulus waste: 15 notable sinkholes
-

Washington doesnt have a spending problem, They have it down to an art form.



[Edited by: johnnyg1200 at 1/18/2013 9:20:09 PM EST]
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,674
Points:2,872,180
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Jan 18, 2013 7:57:10 PM

From a different topic:

Worryfree,

If someone goes into a restaurant, orders food and eats it, and has their credit card rejected because they have no available credit, does the restaurant owner ask them if they want to order dessert?
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,674
Points:2,872,180
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Jan 18, 2013 7:46:46 PM

Without Deep Spending Cuts, the Republicans Will Lose the House in 2014

>>. . . A new Rasmussen survey shows that 62 percent of Americans favor across-the-board spending cuts. That includes every program of the federal government, according to the survey.

So Republicans can persuade the public about bold spending cuts. They can make it their key message and central marketing strategy. If they don't, they risk losing the House in 2014.

Voters are smart. Another Rasmussen poll shows that 68 percent of Americans say cutting government spending is the solution to our economic problems. Support for cutting government spending has generally remained in the high 60s to low 70s over the past couple of years. Voters realize full well that a private, free-enterprise economy that holds on to more of its hard-earned money while the government share of the economy shrinks is pro-growth. Limited government is a tax cut.

Unlike the recent "fiscal-cliff" tax-hike deal, we need to let successful earners, investors, and risk-takers keep more of what they earn as an incentive to remain the activists who drive the economy. Of course, Obama wants another $1 trillion in taxes. But Republicans must just say no. (While they're at it, the GOP should cut tax rates for large and small businesses to 25 percent.)

As an extension to this hard-line spending message, the GOP must make it clear that spending cuts equal economic growth. Think Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, and James Buchanan -- all Nobel prize winners who argued that less spending means more growth . . .<<

Profile Pic
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,909
Points:3,250,035
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 18, 2013 3:07:56 PM

>>Some of those perks include: having his limo transported by plane wherever he travels, getting to see first-run and not-released movies free of charge, never stopping for a stop light or sign and his own private zip code.<<

Wow, with perks like these, you can see why people want to be President. But let's examine these, one by one, to see how they actually save taxpayer money.

>>having his limo transported by plane wherever he travels<<
Saves the cost of a rental limo

>>getting to see first-run and not-released movies free of charge<<
"free of charge" sure sounds money-saving to me. Of course, after the first year, that plus internet will run him $159 per month.

>>never stopping for a stop light or sign<<
This is a huge gas saver - not just for the limo, but the entire motorcade. Leading by example!

>>his own private zip code.<<
I thought that was just for the really fat Presidents...
Profile Pic
goforlars
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:10,431
Points:757,260
Joined:Aug 2001
Message Posted: Jan 18, 2013 1:21:37 PM

Who Pays For Presidential Perks?

Being the President of the United States comes with a tremendous amount of pressure and responsibility. However, the commander in chief does enjoy preferential treatment most of us will never experience.

Some of those perks include: having his limo transported by plane wherever he travels, getting to see first-run and not-released movies free of charge, never stopping for a stop light or sign and his own private zip code.

Which brings us to today’s Just Explain It.

What’s the value of the presidency when you add in all the perks for being Commander-in-Chief?

We may never be able to put a dollar amount on the value of the presidency. That’s because some of the costs associated with the position are buried in many different budgets and scattered between different governmental departments.

Let’s take a look at some of the presidential perks covered by your tax dollars. They not only make the president’s life easier, they’re for security and practical purposes too.

Number one -- the president’s salary is $400,000 a year. The Chief Executive also gets a budget for entertainment, business and travel expenses.

Number two -- Transportation. To get the president from place to place safely, he has Air Force One, Marine One and a limo available at a moment’s notice. A 2012 Congressional Research Service report found that Air Force One costs about $180,000 an hour to operate.

According to the Hawaii Reporter, one round-trip flight to Honolulu by President Obama last month cost about $3.2 million. But the president made two of them because of the fiscal cliff crisis. That doubled the price tag to $6.4 million.

Number three – The White House. For the 2008 fiscal year, Bradley Patterson, a retired Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, estimated the cost of running the White House was almost $1.6 billion. And that amount didn’t include unpublished classified expenses.

The president’s White house staff also comes at a steep price. In 2012, the White House reported its payroll grew from $37 million in 2011 to $37.8 million. The list includes 468 names. 139 of which make more than $100,000 a year.

Number four – Secret Service access. Protecting the President takes a great deal of manpower. The agency’s budget this year is $1.6 billion. A portion of that will go toward protecting president while in office and for life.

And number five – Retirement plan. According to CNBC, President Obama will receive over $191,000 a year for life as soon as he leaves office.

A former president’s net worth can grow substantially in retirement. After two terms in office, The Atlantic magazine reported Bill Clinton’s net worth at around $40 million. The increase was due to numerous speaking engagements and book deals.

Did you learn something? Do you have a topic you’d like explained? Give us your feedback in the comments below or on twitter using #justexplainit.
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,674
Points:2,872,180
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Jan 18, 2013 1:09:14 PM

>>C'mon man, I've seen several proposals to lower corporate taxes...regardless, why do corporations need welfare? They don't.<<

The problem is RNorm that our corporate taxes are higher than other countries. You and Obama may mean well, but if you raise tax rates, all you are doing is chasing more jobs to other countries.

I know it hurts for democrats to give corporations low tax rates, but is it worth chasing more jobs out of the country just so that you feel better? Then you have higher unemployment rates and less tax revenue for our government to spend.
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,674
Points:2,872,180
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Jan 18, 2013 12:51:05 PM

>>C'mon man, I've seen several proposals to lower corporate taxes...regardless, why do corporations need welfare? They don't.<<

The problem is RNorm that our corporate taxes are higher than other countries. You and Obama may mean well, but if you raise tax rates, all you are doing is chasing more jobs to other countries.

I know it hurts for democrats to give corporations low tax rates, but is it worth chasing more jobs out of the country just so that you feel better?
Profile Pic
noseatbelt
Champion Author Indiana

Posts:8,133
Points:212,590
Joined:Feb 2004
Message Posted: Jan 17, 2013 5:49:28 PM

So, keeping our corporate taxes in line with other countries we do business with would be corporate wellfare, why? Most economists I've heard talk about it seem to think it would work in our favor, by helping keep both jobs, and companies, here. Is that a bad thing?
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:41,166
Points:4,669,650
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jan 17, 2013 9:34:52 AM

RNorm, "
If we're going to cut, then start with corporations first. If they're in business to make money, then they don't need corporate welfare to do that...."

Define "corporate welfare". Is it tax deductions for research and development? Is it a tax credit for taxes paid to other countries on profits earned in another country?
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:16,652
Points:2,397,885
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 17, 2013 12:11:05 AM

Agreed on "corporate welfare". All corporations should be treated the same, whether they are pets or not for any particular party. All Americans should be also treated the same. Tax code is a monstrosity designed to take a level playing field and skew it all over the place to give favor to certain entities.

Taxes needed to be increased, and they were, for middle and upper classes. Now spending needs to be trimmed, including the haphazard tax code. I dare say that we should not raise the debt ceiling, but determine a target for a lower one next year, and each year after that. Then trim spending accordingly. You all realize that the so called "fiscal cliff" simply lowered the increases in spending, even the fiscal cliff didn't reduce debt.
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:53,705
Points:1,342,775
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Jan 16, 2013 6:40:19 PM

"The problem is RNorm that our corporate taxes are higher than other countries. You and Obama may mean well, but all you are doing is chasing more jobs to other countries."


C'mon man, I've seen several proposals to lower corporate taxes...regardless, why do corporations need welfare? They don't.
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,674
Points:2,872,180
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Jan 16, 2013 5:26:50 PM

The problem is RNorm that our corporate taxes are higher than other countries. You and Obama may mean well, but all you are doing is chasing more jobs to other countries.

>>What's wrong with raising taxes on the wealthy AND reigning in entitlements<<

Apparently Obama has made it clear that he is done with spending cuts.
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:53,705
Points:1,342,775
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Jan 16, 2013 5:14:42 PM

What's wrong with raising taxes on the wealthy AND reigning in entitlements AND stopping corporate welfare once and for all???

What gets me about all of this is all these people who act as if corporations are people (they're not) and they're entitled to corporate welfare (they're not), but yet to give welfare to human beings is evil?

If we're going to cut, then start with corporations first. If they're in business to make money, then they don't need corporate welfare to do that. And if their solution is to raise prices, then let the market decide if their product is that valuable or not.
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:16,652
Points:2,397,885
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 16, 2013 4:25:01 PM

Mich: <<<"Why do you think we got the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy eliminated, EzExit?????????">>>

***************

Gocat gets it, how come others can't grasp the big picture? Read Gocat's response, I couldn't have said it better...

Profile Pic
gocatgo
Champion Author South Carolina

Posts:19,342
Points:3,218,810
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Jan 16, 2013 4:14:43 PM

It is now and always will be about the Golden Cows of budget cuts. There are few programs and spending items that should not be on the bloody altar. There of course lies the problem. I am one dem that believes it is time to get serious about trimming the fat and getting down to the essentials.
Any dem that believes raising taxes on the wealthy was a cure all is living in Lalaland.
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:74,463
Points:3,122,100
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Jan 16, 2013 3:52:23 PM

Why indeed!?

Incessant whining by leftists is the only reason. Nothing in economics, logic, or actual fairness would have led the nation to raise tax rates on only one segment of the people.
Profile Pic
Michiganian
Champion Author Michigan

Posts:6,259
Points:1,279,765
Joined:Jun 2004
Message Posted: Jan 16, 2013 3:50:24 PM

Why do you think we got the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy eliminated, EzExit?????????
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:16,652
Points:2,397,885
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 16, 2013 3:45:24 PM

I sure wish that Obama would even give half the energy to leading the charge to curtail the hemorrhaging budget as he is giving to gun control. I guess it is a matter of priorities and the end game he sees for the country (hopeless deadlock, divided nation, collapsed economy, and unarmed citizens).
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,674
Points:2,872,180
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Jan 16, 2013 1:34:27 PM

I'm glad that you are for spending cuts, RNorm. I see you had to take that swipe at Republicans, though.
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:16,652
Points:2,397,885
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 4, 2013 11:44:58 PM

RNorm...

Well put! Bingo & Boom to you!
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:53,705
Points:1,342,775
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Jan 4, 2013 6:06:15 PM

"If we make spending cuts now it will impact the economy negatively.

That will reduce revenue; which will cause the debt to rise."


Stevie, the problem isn't the spending cuts or the raised taxes, but really, the problem is if we keep taking the new revenue and do more spending, the debt becomes unsustainable and no one will buy the debt and the entire economy implodes.

What we need to start doing is increase revenue, decrease spending and begin paying down the debt.

How we start doing that can be done in several different ways, but if we don't do ALL THREE of those things, we're gonna run the ship aground.

And in that respect, the US Government IS like a giant household with the same economic dynamics that we all have: income, spending, debt and budgeting.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,841
Points:458,225
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 4, 2013 5:26:19 PM

Washington is not a household.

Washington spending directly helps the economy. Put the brakes on spending and it puts the brakes on the economy. That will make the debt worse. Is that what you want?

If you want the debt to grow then urge for drastic spending cuts.

If you want the economy to grow then urge for a careful drawdown where possible without making drastic changes. Especially to programs that low income people depend on. Because every dime they get goes right back into the economy. Look for your cuts in programs that don't support as many jobs or people. Such as expensive weapons.
Profile Pic
florida1541
Veteran Author Columbus

Posts:399
Points:4,760
Joined:Aug 2012
Message Posted: Jan 4, 2013 4:02:43 PM

washington has to start thinking like every other household , if you don,t have the money or a way to get the money don,t buy it
Profile Pic
noseatbelt
Champion Author Indiana

Posts:8,133
Points:212,590
Joined:Feb 2004
Message Posted: Jan 4, 2013 3:51:36 PM

Steve, if anyone doesn't get it, it's you and people that think like you. The over spending by washington has got to stop. Will it be painful? you bet it will, but it has got to happen, there is no way around it.

europe, has also proven, that over spending, and skies the limit promises don't work. Why do you think the austerity measures were initiated? As we have been told, there is only so much of other peoples, or tax payer, money to go around.

[Edited by: noseatbelt at 1/4/2013 3:58:41 PM EST]
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:22,703
Points:328,205
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Jan 4, 2013 3:45:05 PM

Why don't harsh austerity measures apply to the rich?
Profile Pic
florida1541
Veteran Author Columbus

Posts:399
Points:4,760
Joined:Aug 2012
Message Posted: Jan 4, 2013 3:45:01 PM

sorry steve can,t agree with you this time , stop the spending period once we have a balance then go back and do exactly as mitt said look at the program and ask is this worth borowwing the money from chia ? if not we skip it and move on if it is and we agree it is then we get behind it and suport it but we have to come together and we have to stop the spending, like the 76 billion we just spent in the tax bill , and by that you can see washington is not willing to make the tough chioces
Profile Pic
michaelphoenix2
All-Star Author Tucson

Posts:887
Points:12,080
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Jan 4, 2013 3:41:07 PM

I thought Europe proved that harsh austerity measures don't work towards saving the economy.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,841
Points:458,225
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 4, 2013 3:32:47 PM

Talk about not getting it.

If we make spending cuts now it will impact the economy negatively.

That will reduce revenue; which will cause the debt to rise.

And so the cutters will want more cuts. And then there will be more people out of work. And the govt will be paying the unemployment benefits. Which will cause the debt to rise.

And so the cutters will want more cuts. And then there will be more people out of work. And the govt will be paying the unemployment benefits. Which will cause the debt to rise.

And so the cutters will want more cuts. And then there will be more people out of work. And the govt will be paying the unemployment benefits. Which will cause the debt to rise.

And so the cutters will want more cuts. And then there will be more people out of work. And the govt will be paying the unemployment benefits. Which will cause the debt to rise.

And so the cutters will want more cuts. And then there will be more people out of work. And the govt will be paying the unemployment benefits. Which will cause the debt to rise.

And so the cutters will want more cuts. And then there will be more people out of work. And the govt will be paying the unemployment benefits. Which will cause the debt to rise.

And in the end we will be in the same place as Greece.

It truly is all about the economy.

We have a slow recovery going.

Let it continue and it will grow.

Cut now and the recovery will end. Is that what you want? A rebound recession?

We could make slow drawdowns on spending. Let attrition reduce spending. Stop embarking on new spending. No more new weapons spending. Allow projects to reach end-of-life. Look at cutting spending that does not support as many jobs. Cut subsidies to oil companies. There ya go. Oil jobs will still be there anyway. Those companies are not about to scale back. Those jobs are safe. Why should driving a polluting gas car be subsidized? It shouldn't. Let the free market work there without government manipulation. So what if gas prices rose a little bit? They do anyway for a variety of reasons. People just need to be a bit more thrifty with gas anyway. I still see a lot of people wasting gas.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,249
Points:1,956,105
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Jan 4, 2013 2:49:14 PM

AC: " But that means cutting or freezing entitlements, and possibly cutting welfare payments to the poor."


It won't ever happen by legislative action; last November proved that. However, it will happen nonetheless; but it will happen only when the federal government becomes incapable of making all the payments, because economic conditions prevent it from doing so (e.g. no one will buy our debt, hyperinflation, etc.).

mudtoe
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:16,652
Points:2,397,885
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 4, 2013 2:42:37 PM

I'll have to try YD's debt reduction program, charge up all of my credit cards, spending more than I have for stuff I could really live without, and after that, just start reducing this ridiculous spending habit in little steps, until 20 years from now I am only spending exactly my income. You forgot the part where my indebtedness actually starts decreasing in your post though. How long will this take? Or is it that I would just juggle this until I die and have it be someone else's mess?
Profile Pic
YDraigGoch
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:7,346
Points:86,435
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 4, 2013 2:34:07 PM

OK, we got past the fiscal cliff. Or fiscal front step?

We all have heard the joke about the guy who claims he survived a fall off a thirty story building. Later, you find out he fell off the front step of a thirty story building. Well, that is pretty much the case here.

Still, this would have been a good first baby step in the right direction. I say “would have been” because this is being touted as the “Big Fix”. Which it isn’t.

True conservatives would look at this problem, and start working on long term solutions. Implement one small step after another. Raise taxes a little, cut spending a little. See what happens, then take another small step. But radicals on the left don’t want spending cuts, and radicals on the right don’t want tax increases.

First, of course, we need a freeze on spending increases until the debt is below xx.x% of the GDP. Economists can probably give us a reasonable target.

Then we start the “cut spending / raise taxes” thing, in small increments. Small increments do not upset the overall economy enough to crash it. We create something called a PLAN, and then we create laws that won’t allow deviation from that plan.

In manufacturing, we refer to that as a PROCESS. After a process is defined that gives you the results you want, you are not allowed to deviate from that process for ANY reason.

If we as a country would develop such a process, we might have a chance at recovering in maybe twenty years. And we probably could do it, except for the flies in the ointment. I’m talking about fanatical radicals on both sides who want “sweeping changes”. They have “BIG PLANS” to fix things fast. Which, as any true conservative knows, almost never works.

Small incremental changes may be boring, and take a long time. They may try one’s patience sometimes. But in the long run, permanent results are accomplished.

WWII ended in 1945. Britain did not come back all the way until 1982. They did it slowly, step by carefully planned step. And it worked, in spite of all the political setbacks. In fact, if politics had been forced out of the equation somehow, they probably would have cut ten or fifteen years off the process.

We can do it too.
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,643
Points:3,507,120
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Jan 4, 2013 1:17:53 PM

RNorm - we talked about this at lunch yesterday a bit. Yes, the bill only ADDED to the debt, and staved the problem off for 60 days. We still need to make REAL budget cuts (and that means today, not bogus "cuts to future spending" - those are not real savings).

What we really need is to get the budget cut, possibly raise taxes some, and generate a slight SURPLUS. At that point, we can use that surplus to knock down the national debt. Do that, and see the dollar value SOAR, and mortgage interest rates (and credit debt rates) fall. It would be fantastic for our country. But that means cutting or freezing entitlements, and possibly cutting welfare payments to the poor. These are considered unpopular remedies. However, I don't see any other way around it. And yes, though I don't like it, defense will also have to be cut back some.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,249
Points:1,956,105
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Jan 3, 2013 7:50:14 PM

We are imposing it right now on ourselves and on our children and grandchildren by spending almost twice what we take in. By the time we have the coyote "oh sh**t" moment it will be far far too late.


mudtoe
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,841
Points:458,225
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 3, 2013 7:45:10 PM

"...and we start to fall toward our [self-imposed] economic doom."
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,249
Points:1,956,105
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Jan 3, 2013 6:52:08 PM

SS: "The "cliff" turned out to be a molehill. And we all know who the moles are. "


I unfortunately have to agree with you, with one caveat. That being that the cliff we are headed for won't be an artificial one ginned up by Obama, but instead will be a real one when interest rates start up and foreign governments won't buy our debt anymore. We will be like the coyote in a road runner cartoon. One day we will find ourselves standing on empty air right next to the cliff we just went over; and like the coyote we will have just enough time for that "oh s**t!" moment as the reality of what's happening sinks in and we start to fall toward our economic doom.


mudtoe

[Edited by: mudtoe at 1/3/2013 6:53:36 PM EST]
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:53,705
Points:1,342,775
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Jan 3, 2013 5:38:48 PM

Here's the thing, most, if not all, of us have families and have had to put ourselves on a budget for whatever the reason. If you want that new car, you save for it. If you want to get out of debt, you curtail spending and pay down the debt. We all do this. It time for the government to do the same.

Yes, Obama has spent less than all of the presidents before him (that's a fact) but since so many before him have spent like drunken sailors, then Obama has to break that cycle and spend even less.

Its a tough job, but somebody has to do it; and since he's there now, he just needs to do it; even if its unpopular.

We have to start thinking about our country's future; just like each of us have made hard decisions because we were thinking about our family's future...
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,938
Points:1,887,560
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 3, 2013 5:24:52 PM

"Obama won this round. He got tax increases and we did not get any spending cuts."

We got exactly the opposite of spending cuts...we got more spending than we got revenue from the increased taxes. Like RNorm said....show us the real spending cuts!
Profile Pic
michaelphoenix2
All-Star Author Tucson

Posts:887
Points:12,080
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Jan 3, 2013 5:04:52 PM

"Obama won this round. He got tax increases and we did not get any spending cuts."

I dont know why but for some reason i read this as if you were a 1980s saturday morning cartoon villian shouting at the camera "I'LL GET YOU NEXT TIME! NEXT TIME!!!"

Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,841
Points:458,225
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 3, 2013 4:56:00 PM

The "cliff" turned out to be a molehill. And we all know who the moles are.
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,674
Points:2,872,180
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Jan 2, 2013 6:50:21 PM

Obama won this round. He got tax increases and we did not get any spending cuts.
Profile Pic
Nomofriggincube
Champion Author Miami

Posts:10,664
Points:2,074,170
Joined:Oct 2005
Message Posted: Jan 2, 2013 6:41:40 PM

Just don't cut entitlements or federal salaries! Otherwise cut all you want as long ass it is with new taxes on the rich and not middle class
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:22,703
Points:328,205
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Jan 2, 2013 5:57:59 PM

Be careful lest you call down the wrath of the language police.

There is still the matter of sequestered cuts to address. Perhaps those would be more to your liking.
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:16,652
Points:2,397,885
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 2, 2013 4:38:05 PM

Marty: <<<"It's not always the Rpublicans' fault, but it is this time.">>>

************

You're only half right, both republicans and democrats have yet again done a huge disservice to this country. At least they are steering the country into a ditch in a bipartisan manner, but while they are finally working together, I find little comfort in their producing pig crap and calling it potato salad.
Profile Pic
teacher_tim
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,837
Points:840,570
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jan 2, 2013 4:27:50 PM

Passing tax increases and INCREASING SPENDING is counterproductive, though the Mr. Magoo's in the HYSE partied hard for 2% gain. All that was done was to raise the REAL cliff even higher.
Profile Pic
noseatbelt
Champion Author Indiana

Posts:8,133
Points:212,590
Joined:Feb 2004
Message Posted: Jan 2, 2013 4:16:41 PM

worry, you are right, elections have consequences, like our debt going to over 20 trillion dollars, after four more years of obamanomics. obama might have won this fight, but he is far from winning the battle, obama better enjoy his victory dance, because he might not get another chance. Sooner or later, the gullable people will realize that their giving obama another term, will be disasterous for the country.

What most people, don't realize is that nearly everyones taxes are going to go up. between withholding taxes going up by 2%, and all the new obamacare taxes,and fees. But we hear little or nothing about that from obama and friends, and yet obama still says taxes won't go up on the middle class. just more dishonesty from obama. I did see that the A.P. finnaly reported on the with holding tax is going up, but I have yet to see it reported on most of the msm.

A friend of mines son in law is from england, bot is now a citizen of this country. he says he came here to get away from the mess over there, but now obama seems to want to send us down the same path.

[Edited by: noseatbelt at 1/2/2013 4:18:02 PM EST]
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:22,703
Points:328,205
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Jan 2, 2013 4:15:04 PM

"Marty, being a liberal thinks its all the Republicans fault. Me, being a conservative think that the Democrats are unreasonable."

Labels don't serve any useful purpose. Sometimes the Democrats are at fault; sometimes the Republicans are at fault, like now. Their biggest fault is their fealty to Norquist and the radical fringes under the Republican umbrella.
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:22,703
Points:328,205
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Jan 2, 2013 4:05:31 PM

"Why should I not be surprised that it's always the Republican's fault in some way, shape or fashion."

It's not always the Rpublicans' fault, but it is this time.
Post a reply Back to Topics