Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

apolitical political oldies


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> apolitical political oldies Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
apolitical political oldies - 12/2/2009 10:05:23 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
I was going to lay this out in great detail, but have decided against it, going to just throw a few links mostly.

So, I will stipulate that REAL deficit spending probably started at LBJ and went to hell in a handbasket after that.

It is reliant on the simple premise that you can't provide guns AND butter.

OUR spend and borrow ways are killing us. We need to stop indexing entitlements (for one thing) quit robbing from social security and instead start earning interest on that and other programs.

Simply put the government monster is the policy that is keeping unemployment high, there is no money to borrow in our economy, the government is eating it all up.

There is a hell of alot to do to get our finances under control, but some of the first steps are cutting waste, streamlining systems, cut bloat, and jack up our imbicilic representatives and say look, lets get this house in order, change the G-R-H balanced budget bill to 2/3rds vote, get all this shit on budget, no more not on the table pork shit.....and get competitive in this world goddammit, BOTH PARTIES and ALL PRESIDENTS or start rolling some fucking heads....enough........
Here:

http://www.uhuh.com/taxstuff/gracecom.htm
http://schumer.senate.gov/new_website/record.cfm?id=265222&
http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/C509DF2D-4DB2-4092-8E18-4AF00A4E6974/0/weaponacq_pr4.pdf
http://pogoarchives.org/m/dp/dp-hightower.pdf


http://www.freedomworks.org/publications/the-carfa-process-can-reduce-government-waste

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Rudman%E2%80%93Hollings_Balanced_Budget_Act
http://budget.senate.gov/democratic/commhist.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
http://outsidetheboxecon.blogspot.com/2009/10/some-graphics-on-us-fiscal-position.html


Ron

(one more: last I knew which admittedly was some time ago, there were over 332 accounting systems in use by the federal government)

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

Profile   Post #: 1
RE: apolitical political oldies - 12/2/2009 10:11:38 AM   
AnimusRex


Posts: 2165
Joined: 5/13/2006
Status: offline
At the risk of being overly wordy, here is the text of a entry I posted at RedState:

First, the basic facts:
The total income for the fiscal year 2010 federal government is $2.333 Trillion. The total spending is $3.591 Trillion. The budget deficit then, stands at 1.405T, or more than a third of the total budget.
Of the $3.591 Trillion, 1.421 Trillion is discretionary, able to be cut. The remaining $2.17 Trillion goes for Social Security, Medicare/ Medicaid, interest on the debt, and so forth. The biggest portion of this is Social Security/ Medicare/ Medicaid accounting for about $1.3 Trillion of the $2.17 Trillion.
The federal discretionary budget for FY 2010 is $1.421 Trillion; It is broken down into military spending $901 Billion (62%) and non-military $520 Billion (38%).

Now for some conclusions:
Any discussion about fiscal conservatism must begin with a desire to balance the budget, to erase the yawning chasm between income and outlay. As long as budget deficits are considered acceptable, they will only grow larger, until the day of reckoning.

There are really only three alternatives- the budget gap can be erased by higher taxes, lower spending, or a combination of the two. I am not including ideas such as a rise in tax receipts, or sudden drop in Medicare spending, since those are highly unlikely. A sudden expansion of the economy will produce higher tax revenue; but it jis just as likely that a recession could follow, wiping out whatever gains the boom produced. It is wiser, more prudent, and more conservative to budget according to the facts on the ground, not on a fortunate turn of events.

So lets suppose we try the first notion- raising taxes. Is it possible to wring another $1,405,000,000.00 out of the economy? Even if the political will were there, I doubt it would be feasible- A surge of taxes on that order would act as a drag on the economy, and could actually backfire and produce another recession.

So lets turn to spending cuts. Where would we cut $1,405,000,000.00 from the federal budget? How do we cut 1/3 of federal spending?
First, the budget deficit can’t be erased simply through discretionary spending- The entire discretionary budget (including Defense) accounts for less than the deficit.
It is also clear that cutting non-discretionary spending means cutting Medicare/ Medicaid, since they account for more than half of non-discretionary budget.

So any spending cuts will have to involve discretionary spending. And there can’t be any discussion of spending cuts without looking at the military budget because it consumes 63% of the discretionary budget
Or to put it another way, fixating on the pennies we spend on the NEA, National Park Service, and bridges to nowhere is absurd, compared to where the money really is, which is Defense, Medicaid/ Medicare.

So this explains one thing- it explains why no political party or movement or individual has been able to reconcile budget income and outlay since Eisenhower. The three biggest expenses of the federal government are also the three most popular, and the most resistant to cuts. Even if, by some miracle, all spending other than Defense, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid were to be eliminated- zeroed out, cut entirely- the government would still spend about $2.3 Trillion, compared to the $2.333 Trillion of income.

So the task for anyone proposing to carry the banner of fiscal conservatism will be to put forward a set of budget priorities that leads to erasing the massive deficit, either through increased taxes, reduced spending, or some combination thereof. In reality, there will need to be a combination- there just isn’t any way to kill such a massive beast through one silver bullet.



P.s: Not long after this my RedState account was banned; presumably for the heresy of suggesting that we could cut defense spending or raise taxes.

< Message edited by AnimusRex -- 12/2/2009 10:13:09 AM >

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: apolitical political oldies - 12/2/2009 10:27:16 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
well, yes and no, if you remove indexing.............and start throwing off Student Loans, SBA FHA, Freddie and Fannie and Sallie and Pension Benefit Guarentee Corp and all thatout of strict entitlement, as well as revamping retirements and bennies for the government, Hell, does McCain need his social security check, ya think? He's been paid out for years and years.....

And the Social Security system should be flush with money (if you remember the 83 doubling of ss tax) but it is all in IOUs now (intragovernmental debt), that money instead of being borrowed could be loaned at interest, as well as all the other fed reciepts sitting around in non interest bearing accounts, lets take another slant on that Kenyesian 'we owe it to ourselves' mantra.

But cleaning up the $640 toilet seats and $547 hammers and $7000 coffee pots is going to help as well.

Ron

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to AnimusRex)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: apolitical political oldies - 12/2/2009 10:43:47 AM   
Anarrus


Posts: 475
Joined: 11/8/2005
Status: offline
Hi Ron,

I agree with you about the toilet seats, hammers and coffee pots. Seems to me though, the govt's just gotten too big to police themselves about wasteful spending. A small mom & pop company has a hard enough time keeping track of all the pennies spent, now multiply that times the thousands of items and expenditures the various agencies in our govn't have to keep track of.  Plus there's no vested interest in keeping the books healthy. In the black or in the red seems all the same to them. Can you say outta fuckin control?

_____________________________

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."...Goethe
"Send lawyers, guns and money" ..Warren Zevon

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: apolitical political oldies - 12/2/2009 10:46:44 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
well the grace commission was a group of about 2000 volunteers, now we could afford to pay some to watchdog with mandates to ferret out waste and inefficiencies, at those prices.

and there is like SCORE and other groups that still remember ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you ........is NOT what JFK said.

Ron

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Anarrus)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: apolitical political oldies - 12/2/2009 10:51:10 AM   
AnimusRex


Posts: 2165
Joined: 5/13/2006
Status: offline
Ron-
Its true there could probably be substantial savings from trims of all gov't programs.

But since a full 1/3 of all the money we spend is defense related; and given that we could just shut down the entire federal government except for SS/ Medicare and defense, and STILL have a deficit, fixating on cost overruns of hammers and toilet seats isn't going to get us where we want to go.

Indexing is a good start, but budgeting- whether its your home budget, a business budget, or the federal budget- is a making of hard choices, priorities, and choices.

Up til now, both parties are trying to convince us that there is no sacrifice, no pain, no difficulty in reaching a balanced sane budget, that it can all be reached by simple trims and accounting tricks.

This is a lie, pure and simple. We can reach a balanced budget only by making painful and difficult sacrifices, either thruough taxes or cuts or both.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: apolitical political oldies - 12/2/2009 10:57:53 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
and I agree it is taxes, cuts and no raises for a while to any program, nobody has money unless it is paid.

But some figures have upwards to 30% waste. Now, that is certainly arguable, but everything needs to go on the table, can't keep this spending off book.

Hell of a time to raise taxes, we should have did it in the whirlwind, and dropped them now instead of the other way round.

But we have to deflate, to beat hell, or the interest on the debt will exceed revenue and there wont be a thing to spend and borrow on in entitlements.

Ron

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to AnimusRex)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: apolitical political oldies - 12/2/2009 11:29:15 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

I will stipulate that REAL deficit spending probably started at LBJ


I'd go back further, Ron.

In the 1910s and 20s, we had larger markets, as WWI had Europe busy destroying itself. Even farmers did great (today, 1910s price parity is considered the gold standard by wishful farmers). We, however, acted like that market boost belonged to us and would continue forever, so instead of using the windfall wisely, we build policy around assuming it was our permanent birthright.

We repeated the mistake after WWII, ignoring that much of the prosperity of the 50s was temporary market share while Europe rebuilt. By the 70s, watching it melt away, we looked for whom to blame. Again, we had treated windfall as a new age.

Throughout, both parties, all policies, have been expansionary--spend here, invest there, reduce waste, cut taxes. Never, demand-side or supply-side, do we follow the necessary contractionary policy during times of growth. To suggest doing so would be political suicide.

And consumers are often no better. People buy bigger homes, fancier cars, more gadgets during good times, while savings remains near or below zero. Tougher cycles come, and people are hit hard, with nothing to fall back on.

Many business make similar mistakes--acting is as all will always be growth, instead of planning for the long term.

Government is no better--and shows no sign of reform. But if they did--people would vote them out.

How's that for change?

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: apolitical political oldies - 12/2/2009 7:05:37 PM   
TheHeretic


Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline
Ok, the $600 toilet seat was a neat place to hide the funding for wings of aircraft we didn't admit having...

Otherwise, I'm in.  Which way to the armoury? 

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.


(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: apolitical political oldies - 12/2/2009 9:40:22 PM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline
Heretic, they drew you in. Proof :

Out of one side of their mouth they purport to have diplomacy, but from a position of power. This justifies the spending. And then IF these weapons they use this secret money for is spent on those for national defense, why would it be secret. It would provide a very effective deterrent to fucking with the US. Wasn't that the goal, peace through strength ?

Now if for one it is not made known, that means that it cannot be used as a deterrent. Therefore the only assumption is that it was meant to be used.

It also alludes to the fact that it is intended to be a surprise weapon. No not proof, but if it is the way I think it is, that would be fact. Why else would anything be a secret if it weren't meant to be a surprise ?

Think about it.

T

(in reply to TheHeretic)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: apolitical political oldies - 12/2/2009 10:29:18 PM   
TheHeretic


Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline
Of course it is supposed to be a surprise, Termy.  It wouldn't be a secret weapon if everybody knew about. 

We don't read the tea leaves the same way on this stuff. 

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.


(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: apolitical political oldies - 12/2/2009 11:05:56 PM   
Silence8


Posts: 833
Joined: 11/2/2009
Status: offline
Is really no one going to mention banking reform?

(...awkward pause...)

Jesus Christ shit pants, at least trash the Federal Reserve. 700 billion free money to private banks, where does that fit in, discretionary spending?

Honestly, I wish nationalized banking would at least be discussed thoughtfully, but I know your masters have got you good.

How many financial crashes does it take to screw in an American light bulb?

(in reply to TheHeretic)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: apolitical political oldies - 12/3/2009 4:38:34 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
Not enough to get people to learn basic economics or understand why some regulation is necessary, apparently.

(in reply to Silence8)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: apolitical political oldies - 12/3/2009 5:28:27 AM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silence8

Is really no one going to mention banking reform?

(...awkward pause...)

Jesus Christ shit pants, at least trash the Federal Reserve. 700 billion free money to private banks, where does that fit in, discretionary spending?

Honestly, I wish nationalized banking would at least be discussed thoughtfully, but I know your masters have got you good.

How many financial crashes does it take to screw in an American light bulb?


Ok... trash the Fed Reserve in favor for.................?

Are you leaning towards a government run banking system?

Im lost as to what you are referring too.


_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Silence8)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: apolitical political oldies - 12/3/2009 6:35:34 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
NPR all things considered last nite:

a Maj.Gen (ret) Fields, who it seems is the Inspector General for the Afghanistan dust up, says that the IGs have been called to the job late, real late last year, and the Afghanis are telling them that only 0.25-0.30 cents on the american dollar being spent for non-military (ours) projects are making it to what it is contracted for. The IG is starting to collate and analyse contracts, and they are rather agreeing with that figure pending further investigation.

Ron

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: apolitical political oldies - 12/3/2009 7:26:06 AM   
Silence8


Posts: 833
Joined: 11/2/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl


quote:

ORIGINAL: Silence8

Is really no one going to mention banking reform?

(...awkward pause...)

Jesus Christ shit pants, at least trash the Federal Reserve. 700 billion free money to private banks, where does that fit in, discretionary spending?

Honestly, I wish nationalized banking would at least be discussed thoughtfully, but I know your masters have got you good.

How many financial crashes does it take to screw in an American light bulb?


Ok... trash the Fed Reserve in favor for.................?

Are you leaning towards a government run banking system?

Im lost as to what you are referring too.



Something transparent, where private interests don't conflict with public ones.

The government is in charge of printing paper money, right? Why shouldn't the government be in charge of 'printing' virtual money?

Strict limits on leveraging. Oversight of loans. Simplicity, transparency, limits on rates of growth.

Nothing creative, dynamic, or interesting. Let's assume that complexity in finance is at least partly, if not wholly, strategic, for the purpose of making expendable people and professions seem less expendable. No more 'ticking time bomb' financial blackmail. No one 'doing God's work'.

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: apolitical political oldies - 12/3/2009 9:54:42 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
Folks are confusing currency with money supply, and that's muddling up your points.

< Message edited by Musicmystery -- 12/3/2009 9:55:12 AM >

(in reply to Silence8)
Profile   Post #: 17
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> apolitical political oldies Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.125