As long as the GOP won't consider any tax increases nothing worthwhile will happen.

The government is getting plenty of my money. The problem is out-of-control spending, not that they aren't sticking their hand into my pocket often enough. Between income tax, social security tax, medicare tax, gas taxes, property taxes, fees, sales taxes, I think they're getting plenty from me.

Where do you want them to cut from? It's easy to scream about out-of-control spending without telling anyone where you'd like it cut from.

Easy, cut 25% across the board, and then an additional 25% from all entitlement programs.

All the entitlement programs are a good start. Education for another; I understand helping to bring schools to rural areas, but pretty much everything else it does is a bloated bureaucracy that is not actually improving education anywhere. I've come around to agreeing that defense spending is out of control, with too many folks lining their pockets for very little return, although I also remember what a mess Clinton turned it into with the way his cuts were done so I'd like to see them done smarter.

But you also aren't going to come anywhere close to raising an additional $1.6 trillion through tax increases, either. Mind you, I will say that I'm all for closing various loopholes that let profitable companies shift all their profits to overseas subsidiaries (I guess that counts as a tax increase, so maybe I'm being a bit wishy-washy here), and frankly would just like to see the Fair Tax brought in and the income tax code scrapped for the abomination it's turned into, although I'm sure the government will manage to screw that one up, too, but right now governments are just spending way out of control.

It's not just federal, states need to get this reined in as well and stop relying on the Feds to bail them out. North Carolina's state budget has shot through the roof in the 15 years I've been here. Just returning to the 1996 budget levels adjusted for inflation would be a huge win for the state.

Abolish Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Cut defense spending by 90%. Nothing else.

I'd take that, too ;) But $1.65 / $3.7 = 45%, so I'm not also looking for a 10% increase in taxes as well, which is what it would roughly take after those cuts to get balanced, unless maybe you get that from cutting all those corporate income tax shelter loopholes.

Education is a miniscule part of the federal budget. Eliminating it completely would barely even put a dent into the deficit. And a good portion of that isn't going to actual schools, but to subsidizing loans so that people can attend college.

Nonetheless, you would like to see an end to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. What do you plan on doing with old people who need medical care or housing? Force them to live on the street or just die?

I don't think we can cut defense spending by 90%, that's where I disagree. "Provide for the common defense" is the only one of those programs actually delegated to the federal government, and I don't think we can do that with a $100billion budget (which is about where you end up even if you include all defense-related spending, not just DoD. I could see cutting it in half to $500billion maybe (including all non-DoD, so DoD is getting just a cut of that, not all of that directly) by getting rid of some of the big money-wasting strategic projects, but we still need a Navy and an Air Force, even if just as transport to move troops to where they are needed, healthcare for our troops, and the like. Although I'm just pulling that figure out of the air, I'd need to take a much closer look to see if that can go down or up much. But $100b sure seems like way too little for a key component of what our federal government is actually supposed to be doing for us.

Easy if it was a computer game. Telling everyone on Social Security that their income is being cut by 50% would seem to lead to some problems. As well as telling doctors/hospitals that all their Medicare/Medicaid patients will be paying 50% would seem to have a large impact on the health care system. Not to mention having to tear down those VA hospitals/clinics and cut their pay (they did only risk their lives for us, no biggie).

As you said, it's easy. This won't cause any problems.

Whereas defense spending is the very last thing I'd cut & previously paid Social Security is ethically untouchable. The others are negotiable points but only over time.

Which really just illustrates why so little gets done. We're a nation badly in need of a divorce due to irreconcilable differences but nobody can figure out a way to handle the property settlement, we don't want to upset the children, and we lack the courage to leave a loveless marriage.

Most people want the same things. This "divorce" stuff is just drummed up crap from cable news networks or blowhard radio hosts. Have a candidate get up and say he wants to cut defense, social security, and medicare and he won't get elected in any part of this country.

There are no irreconcilable differences when it comes to the biggest parts of our federal budget. It's just most people think we can somehow get spending under control and leave those things alone.

It's still money that could be put to much better use. That department as a whole is pretty much a complete waste of taxpayer dollars. We can't just cut the big spenders, we also need to get rid of all these other growing fiefdoms as well. Education was one easy example target for me.


Maybe get their family take care of them like we used to (and like my own family recently did with two grandmothers)? Maybe let one of the many aid organizations set up for this handle it much more efficiently than the government ever does?

Medicare/Medicaid elimination probably goes along with REAL healthcare reform where we get back to a system that gets money from patients to healthcare providers without sucking up huge chunks of money on the middlemen and the paperwork to appease them and thus making it easier on families to take care of their elderly members, and frankly probably also goes along with taking bigger advantage of hospice and less dependence on expensive treatments and hospital stays that extend lives by very short durations at huge costs.

Even if we don't cut social security completely, we can look into raising the retirement age for it to be better in line with what the program was originally intended to do.

It's actually " . . . provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States . . ."

Most of what we currently call "discretionary spending" falls under the General Welfare umbrella.

Don't forget Southerners that believe the world began going down hill in 1860.

I haven't had a show in years, and rarely watch any of them. Trust me, that isn't where I got it from.

That's fine, but the people have voted time and time again that they don't want that. There are not many candidates running on the "abolish Social Security" platform for a reason. I'm all for massive reforms (but as Jon said, you can't stop paying people who paid in for the last 40 years), but ultimately voters are not in favor of messing with Social Security.

I agree with some of what you've been saying on this. Couple problems though.

1) It's easy to say don't spend big money on a treatment for an 85 year old guy, but when it's your loved one, you'll think differently. It's an idea much easier on paper than in reality. None of us want to send our cancer stricken senior to die because treatment would be too expensive for someone that age (even if it is more practical).

2) Very few elderly people can afford health care. You'll have to be in the top few percentile to pay for it on your own.

3) Most importantly, people want Medicare. You can't get elected in this country by telling people you want to eliminate it. Heck, a Republican President, House, and Senate passed a massive expansion of it less than a decade ago. There is no side of the political spectrum that wants what you're saying.


I agree on this, although it will need to be grandfathered in. We also need to start giving younger people more incentive to save for retirement and put less burden on the program. I don't know why we limit things like the Roth IRA like we do. We should be heavily encouraging people to contribute and for companies to match these things.

I'm just saying that on the major budgetary issues in this country, there is really not a lot of difference. Both sides are much closer than you are stating.

Defense spending is out of control. It absolutely can (and should) be cut by huge amounts.

Our defense spending is like 18x that of the #2, and combined with our NATO allies it's over 20x higher than the highest non-ally.

(Disclaimer: I saw those numbers the other day in a magazine - I don't recall if they were multiples or percentages...I know it makes a significant difference, but I'm at work and don't have the magainze or the time to go find the numbers).

Regardless - the point is the same. Our defense spending is way out of whack to where it needs to be, and it's contributing in a very large part to the massive acceleration of our national debt. Same thing happened to the Romans, and their massive military machine sure as shit didn't save them.

I agree with military spending, but I think it's worth noting that spending on that does create jobs in this country. Someone needs to build those fighter jets, those bombs, etc.

Saw an interesting discussion on CNBC the other day about the budget. The private sector is not going to help grow our economy for the coming years, and housing won't either. Something needs to drive it and some can argue that government should temporarily. That when you cut a defense budget by 20%, you are costing a lot of people jobs. You are hurting private businesses that sell those people food, clothes, etc. It's just not as easy as some of you guys make it sound.

I understand that view, and it is correct in that regard - spending on defense does create jobs and pump money into the economy here - I just think that it tends to not be the most efficient spending, and that the multiplier-effect that you get from defense-spending is less than the multiplier-effect you'd get if say (for sake of example) you took the guys who make the treads for the tanks and put them to work making electric cars, or solar panels or making "Consumer device X."

Maybe that's just a perception thing though.

Not to mention the Necessary and Proper Clause. John Marshall did away with this silly idea that Congress can't do anything that isn't specifically written in the enumerated powers section way back in 1819. His argument heavily focused on this. Consider the states rights sections of the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution...



There's a key word missing in the Constitution's version.

Federal taxation is at it's lowest level since Truman and there's no way the country will give up all the government benefits that have come since then. I'd prefer to go back to the Clinton rates for everyone, but at a minimum we have to let the upper rates return to Clinton levels if there's any hope of balancing the budget.

Also, no automatic spending increases on any federal program that is greater than the rate of inflation.

This.

I don't understand how if everyone is struggling and less money is coming in (ie, inflation), why the government budget needs to increase by 5+% across the board each year?

It's like me taking a pay cut at work but then maxing out credit cards so that I can add 2 more movie channels to my satellite bill, eat out more often and buy nice things for my girlfriend. At some point in time, you need to atleast slow down the bleeding on spending and a start would be to stop the mandated spending increases.

But I thought that if we didn't pay doctors and hospitals whatever they want that the country wouldn't have healthcare anymore!

That's the whole "Bread and Circuses" problem with Democracy that has brought down so many others before, and it's a reason we have a Representative Democracy so that the reps can do the right thing, not the thing that gets them re-elected. Instead we have politicians that promise to take care of everybody, leaving nobody to actually pay the bill, and all the "poor" are more than willing to keep voting for them. And since these policies help mean the group of "poor" or at least folks who perceive themselves as "poor" keeps right on growing, putting more of them in office. That's why entitlements are unsustainable, and yet we keep growing them. Socialism in action, and it's bankrupted plenty of countries.

So as long as we keep Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and keep growing their ranks and running these programs well beyond their original intents, we will be driving this country to bankruptcy.

Arguing that military spending creates jobs is all well and good but its one of the least efficient ways in which to do that as its not a cyclic instance - someone spends money to make a weapon and that is purchased and either sits or causes destruction.

Someone spends money creating a new type of computer, that computer is then purchased and used in a constructive manner to potentially create even more jobs ....

Yes. There's a legitimate concern about the impact on the economy - there were some very publicized base closures in the 80s and 90s that essentially killed cities across the country and the livelihood of everyone that lived in them. People remember what a political issue that was, but it's a ridiculous reason to spend taxpayer money - "because we're already spending it." As are reasons such as "but X group isn't going to like that." We're way past the point at where fixing the federal government's fiscal situation would have anything other but a drastic and bad impact on a lot of people. Too bad. This is exactly why some people complained about waste and corruption and pointless spending in decades past. It's too late now to just trim the fat.

Why not then keep the people in those bases employed by the government but use them for something productive instead of military purposes? - get them to rebuild the road infrastructure perhaps, bridges, etc. ... at least then that money is going into something constructive rather than destructive?

Please note I'm not trying to argue for the entire country becoming pacifist or having no defense - just the US is spending what 20x more than any other nation on the planet on defense, cut that down to 10x and reroute the rest of the money into constructive things which will help revitalise the economy further.

Get your filthy Euro-logic out of here! It's got no place in our society!!! ;)

I am all for more live-fire combat exercises!

There is nothing more productive than a strong military used well. We could stand improvement on the latter bit I'll grant you.


But that's the wrong comparison, as we don't face a single enemy but rather a collection of them.

Social Security and Medicare aren't just for the poor.

That may be a problem, but it isn't the problem you describe.

You realize even if you aggregate all of our enemies we still far outstrip them in defense spending (and that's even before considering that they start from a much lower technological base and are geographically isolated from us and lack the technology to adequately bring the war to us).

It's not even close to 20x. In 2009, the US spent $663 billion (don't know if that also includes the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan), second was China at $98 billion (roughly 6.7x). But if you look at spending as a percentage of GDP, The US spends 4.3% of GDP on defense vs. China's 2.0%, Russia's 3.5%, UK's 2.5%, France's 2.3%.

List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Yes, yes, LOL wikipedia as a source. This is the source for the numbers on the table: SIPRI Publications )

The budget issues will ultimately require more than just moving money around, I think.

Edit: Of course, the main issue with the military is what we're spending the money on. The biggest security threat to the U.S. is terrorism, and though I'm not a military spending expert, it seems like we're still preparing for a more traditional World War. I have no doubt that we could spend much less on defense and the nation could still be much more secure. I'm just saying that in that transition - there will be economic hardship, and there's just no way around that. That has to be accepted. The economy and labor force would eventually adapt. States all over the country are making tough money decisions - the federal government has always just REFUSED to do that.

Since FDR, we have been told the government will take care of us. That's really just like the factory workers of our parents' generation and our grandparents' generation. Eventually, just like those factory pensions, the government is going to get to a point where it can't pay it out.

Everything would be fine if our population pyramid had a broader base, but it doesn't. Things are going to get worse, and we are better off cutting our losses. I've done calculations before and the amount I put into SS would pay for my parents to live with me. Not to mention if I got a cut of what my brother put in as well.

The other problem is that the government has taught us how to not save our money. We should provide for our retirement, and not have the government do it for us.

Unfortunately, the lifelong politicians benefit from our dependence upon the government and are able to milk it for their own benefit.

The reality is that really America doesn't particularly face any more 'enemies' any more than the rest of the western world does - yet the rest of the western world seems to be managing just fine with reducing their armed forces ...

Also can you explain how you see a strong military as 'productive' and exactly what your definition of 'strong' military is - America accounts for 40% of the entire WORLDS global arms spending* ... do you not think that accounting for 20% of the worlds arms spending would be enough to maintain a 'strong military'?.

*Military budget of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you include the wars then the figure for 2011 is between $1.060–$1.449* trillion admittedly only 15x China's current spending.

Before 2010 the cost of the wars wasn't included in the budget figures which is why there's a big discrepancy between the figures (it also depends heavily on whether you include costs such as veterans, pensions, debt interest etc. in the figures all of which are very real but conveniently left off by politicians when required - all countries do it, if you want to see real statistical artists at work watch the UK government change how it calculates its unemployment figures every few months).

This is an article which sums up how I see things personally ... it demonstrates simply that while America spends a lot of time buffing up its military prescence its losing its influence not through military might but because other countries are outstripping it technologically and economically. The fact that politicians are proposing cutting back further on education and suchlike is only going to make this worse as time goes on ...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...nding-us-china

*Military budget of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (references to various docs at the bottom were this comes from)

So do you advocate the government then paying everyone a lump-sum for what they've paid into SS in their life and just shutting it down? Or do we just lose all that money that we've paid in?

What about people who don't have the room for their parents to live with them and don't have the ability (financial or otherwise) to move to get that room, or build that room out?

What about people who don't have the financial savvy to save that money in a responsible manner, or don't have the financial net worth to hire somebody to do it for them? Or are we just going to let them fall on their faces and then as a society have to absorb the cost of what happens when they fail?

There's practical issues you're not considering.

I think you misread the wiki chart. DOD spending + "Overseas Contingency Operations" is the DOD budget + the wars, and that makes $721 billion. To get to $1.449 trillion, you are including all kinds of things that undoubtedly are not included in China's (or anyone other country's) number.

To me the saddest thing with societies challenges is that people are simply looking at them in fiscal terms which shows frankly just how far mankind has to go before he's truly civilised.

It dumbfounds me that a race with such incredible wealth does its best to ensure that its inefficiently distributed to the extent that the vast majority of the inhabitants of the planet either eat poorly or work themselves into the ground and have stressful lives .... when to be frank people should be working less and having healthier more enjoyable lives - where's the 4 day week and robot butler I was promised when I was a kid .... come to mention it aren't I meant to be commuting to work with a jetpack by now? ;)

Ok fair enough, still think its farcically high though ;)

fake dola,

I'm all for cutting defense spending in half (or at least bring it down to 2.5% of GDP, in line with that of most other industrialized nations spend). Just figured I'd throw that out there before someone accuses me of not wanting to cut defense spending.

Well yeah, it is. I just get all high and mighty about the accuracy of statistics sometimes. I can't help being a nerd. :)

Probably not. FICA taxes cover both SS and Medicare. Could you afford to both board your mother and pay for her healthcare? Given the max tax for FICA right now is around 15k, I doubt it.

But even if you could, what about the half of households that have incomes below 50k? Their FICA taxes would be around 7k. That's nowhere near enough to board and insure anyone over 65.

SS can be fixed for decades with some minor changes. It really isn't the problem. The medium and long term deficit is driven primarily by healthcare costs. That's why Simpson-Bowles didn't accomplish much until the year they magically say medical inflation all but stops.

Here's a good summary on SS and why it isn't an unsolvable problem by Kevin Drum.

The main problem with social security is they don't keep social security in it's own fund but keep it with general revenues where the money taxpayers pay in can be used by Congress to fight wars, create new homeland security departments, pay federal employees, fund pet projects... So while I don't know enough of the math to agree or disagree with the article you posted I think he is talking about a world where Congress is actually responsible is uses social security taxes for social security. Is the program sustainable on its own? Probably. Is social security, health care, welfare, corporate welfare, endless war...? Not a chance. But what the hell Obama is only a couple trillion over the budget after his state of the union about cutting back.

Too bad Al Gore is fat. That whole lockbox thing would have been a good idea.