Ok, well, the stimulus is going away automatically, so you'll get your wish on that. Now, after that. Are you happy with the 2008 level of spending, or are there things in the 2008 budget that you think the people want to see cut, and if so WHAT ARE THEY? Don't give me "people want to cut spending". Of course they do, in the abstract. Tell me what specifically they want to cut. barfo
Government spending is a lobster trap. There's no going back. Spending happens, people get used to spending, and then the spending doesn't go away... even when the revenues do. Given that democracy gets it from both sides (corporations taking as much as they can, citizens on the dole not wanting to give anything up once they've gotten used to it) it seems inevitable that something will have to give. It's sort of depressing. Ed O.
I think people realize that when their paycheck runs out and there's no room on their credit card that they have to stop spending. We're headed toward running out of room on the govt. credit card as quickly as our elected officials can spend. It's nothing to do with the abstract. If they decided to cut spending, they would, and everyone's favorite ox would be gored. I'd be happy if we started by eliminating corporate welfare and cutting the military budget by 25%.
You know quite well Denny that that is just Republican talking point pablum. Reagan enacted the biggest tax increase in history. Bush 41 famously raised taxes. Clinton cut the size of government. If Obama has to raise taxes it is because Bush 43 cut taxes while waging 2 wars - the only president in history to do that. We have to pay that bill sometime. I get so tired of hearing that BS. Republicans are incredibly fiscally irresponsible.
Mmm hmm. Corporate welfare is a bit ill-defined so I'd have to see what you meant exactly, and how much we'd save. Cutting the military budget 25% would be just fine with me. But, the topic was what "the people" want. I could be wrong but I don't think "the people" want a 25% cut in the military budget. Would be great if they did, we'd save ourselves some serious dough. barfo
I'm not a republican, nor do I favor republicans. I favor those who would cut spending and hold it to what govt. takes in on lower taxes. Ron Paul, and his kind.
Like I said, everyone's ox has to be gored. Along with cutting the military, other programs would have to be cut. Corporate welfare? Tax breaks for all sorts of things as well as outright handouts. Funding for ethanol, farm subsidies, and that sort of thing. Take a good look at California. Our budget problems here are a preview of what happens when you wildly spend during the good times and face budget realities when the times aren't so good. We're having to fire teachers and firemen and policemen along with all sorts of govt. employees. Take a look at Stevenson's post and there's a clue. Shrink govt. expenses simply by having less govt. employees. For most organizations, salary is a dominant expense! That's how clinton kept costs down, and the private sector thrived and we had surpluses. Perhaps I sound like a broken record, but our fiscal health at any tax rate is tied to jobs and a good economy. The govt. can only get revenues where the money is and that's the middle class, like it or not. If you consider Bill Gates is the world's richest (or one of the) people, his entire net worth is $50B while the govt. spends $3.6T - taking all his money would barely make a dent and the negative effects of taxing net worth would kill this country anyhow. The thing is, you can tax 1 guy $100 or two guys $50 and get that same $100 in revenues. It's better to have the 2 guys employed than the one. Or 100 guys... It is surprising that a harvard law degree doesn't make that sort of thing obvious.
I think "the people" need to stare at "this chart" for perhaps "a while": So how much of this money we spend being borrowed from other people on the same chart?
Well... now we are quite a ways from discussing Krugman's thesis, aren't we? I believe he was saying that there isn't the will to cut anything. You saying that things just are going to have to be cut doesn't really change - or challenge - that. Yah, I know. What I don't know is whether cutting that stuff actually matters or not. How much do we spend on those things? I looked at it up close for years. Moved back to Oregon. barfo
Let's face reality here, rather than argue untruths. [video=youtube;SHDkI1kwgbo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHDkI1kwgbo[/video]
I already made my point (and scored) about Krugman's thesis. The point being if entitlements are 20% or 40% of the budget, that leaves the remaining 60%-80% of the budget that can be cut back. I actually am not a deficit hawk in general. It really depends on what the money is being spent on. Borrow $1T at 1% and invest it in something that pays 2% and why should I gripe? Borrow $1T and spend it on cheese for the unemployed and the product is literally shit. The things that govt. is talking about spending on anymore is borrowing at 2% to get a 1% return, and they're trying to make up the different with volume. It simply doesn't make any economic or fiscal sense.
And I already pointed out that that was an off-topic point because you are depending on cutting the stimulus money to get those numbers, and the stimulus is already going away automatically, and besides, Krugman was talking about long-term trends, not just this year. Not to mention that your numbers are pretty darn fuzzy. In no recent year have entitlements been anything like 20%. Right. Let them eat cake, eh Marie? barfo
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-02-01-budget-obama_N.htm Obama unveils record $3.8 trillion budget WASHINGTON — President Obama sent Congress on Monday a record $3.8 trillion budget for 2011 that would boost war spending, trim some domestic spending and rely on $1.3 trillion in new borrowing. The budget would be the third in a row with a deficit of more than $1 trillion, following this year's record $1.6 trillion, a figure the White House increased in its budget. The red ink would be cut in half by 2014, mostly by allowing tax cuts on families making more than $250,000 to expire in 2011. So the deficit will be cut in half because the so-called stimulus is going away automatically? Doesn't look like it. The stimulus money is spent by 2010, so why is the budget so huge through 2014? Oh wait, the budget isn't going to be cut at all, is it? Obama claims the deficit will be cut in half by raising taxes is all. What's your next theory? Mine is that over time, few (if any) govt. programs ever go away or get smaller. While the "trim some domestic spending" might seem encouraging, it's the ~$20B in cuts they were bragging about last year. In any case, another line from the article: Democrats were restrained in their praise of the budget. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., only lauded the fiscal commission, whose recommendations would not be binding.
