But you do move $730B further towards balancing the budget and demonstrate to the public that you actually give a shit about the rampant taxpayer-funded waste in our government.

Just because it doesn't get you all the way to balancing the budget doesn't mean that it justifies the lame point being made by anyone who uses it as a rebuttal.

First, by keeping taxation where it is you're radically redefining the role of government. There's plenty, a majority in fact, that doesn't think that's the right thing for the country.

But let's say you find your favored 538. Those 538 will lose their next election and be replaced by people who vote closer to the will of the people. A current congress can't tie the hands of future congresses. Whatever the first 538 did will be overturned and the deficit will have barely been touched. You can't get a balanced budget without political buy-in.

One, I seriously doubt that level of waste and fraud, but even given that my point is that you still have a long way to go. Balancing the budget on cuts alone radically changes the role of government and there's no indication the populace will support that.

I dont think anybody suggested any of that. Again, all or nothing is not the only 2 options to a given problem.

The problem is the obfuscation of everything & accountability of nothing. Rather than have MY state legislature directly accountable for bad choices being made (and me having the ability to vote their asses out when unhappy with their performance), what we have today is (potentially) YOUR representatives making such decisions for me. Brings to mind "no taxation w/o representation" as I (and others) are being taxed by an entity that I (and others) cannot directly hold accountable. And no...voting out the voter of the voter is not a reasonable level of accountability.

So point being, there are some necessary federal government run programs & administration needed but continuing to expand their reach & authority will simply allow them to screw up more and obfuscate the consequences/accountability by pulling in more "revenue". I believe "checks & balances" has become so cliche that people ignore it now...but it is probably the most important component to our government functioning properly, imho. Government with no accountability is simply a dictatorship being masked.

I alluded to this in my previous response...but YOU can vote them out directly if they are that bad. You can also move if the community is that bad. I suppose you can leave the country and maybe the world eventually but I'd rather localize as much as practical/possible so that communities & states have the right balance of authority/accountability to their voters. And with less fed revenues, there cannot be massive bailouts of states without multiple states all agreeing to do so (and consequently being accountable to their voting base).

That is a load of crock. $2.2 trillion in revenue = Bush-era government size.

So where does the 1.5 trillion in cuts come from?

Sorry, I should have cut the last sentence from your post. I'm on record as agreeing we can raise revenue as long as we also make MAJOR spending cuts. I was arguing that we're back to FDR level government, but then again the government was pretty big back then. What exactly do we "lose" if we go back to FDR level government? The education department (no big loss)? What exactly do you mean by "pre-FDR size"? That's the part I think is a bunch of crock.

As long as we've built a culture where a huge chunk of the population is dependent on the government for their survival, we aren't going to get out of this without lots of people being pissed off. So apparently we're just going to drive the bus right off the cliff. "Efficiency in medicine" won't cut it, the problem is too many people have their hands out for freebies and will wail and scream and vote folks out of office if their handout gets cut at all.

Just because it goes along with something I alluded to a couple of pages ago...

My Way News - AP-GfK Poll: People divided on looming debt crisis

They're divided on whether to raise the limit, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll that found 41 percent opposed to the idea and 38 percent in favor. People aren't exactly blase. A narrow majority in the poll expects an economic crisis to ensue if the U.S., maxed out on its borrowing capacity, starts missing interest payments to creditors. But even among that group, 37 percent say no dice to raising the limit. ... Republican leaders are insisting on huge spending cuts as a condition for raising the debt limit. This position finds solid support from Republicans in the poll and backing from a plurality of independents.

President Barack Obama is pushing for increased tax revenue to be part of the deal, and that insistence led House Republican leader Eric Cantor of Virginia to walk out of the negotiations this past week.

About half of Democrats in the poll said the debt limit should be raised regardless of whether it's paired with a deal to cut spending.

The survey found no significant differences by education, age, income, or even by party, in perceptions of whether a crisis is likely if the limit is not increased. There was widespread dissatisfaction with how Obama is dealing with the deficit - a new high of 63 percent disapproval on that subject - and an even harsher judgment of how both parties in Congress are doing on the issue.

37% have no idea of what the crisis would entail, that's for sure.

LOL.

It's simply not possible that 37% have decided enough is enough.

Just an FYI, that 17 billion was not taxpayer money. :)

Yep. i have a father with cancer who in the last 7 months has easily used more money than he ever contributed. and when the baby boomers start getting serious but treatable illnesses it will be a monster. and there is nothing much to do, it's not like the government can ever take away medicare from the boomers. guess the gen y kids are screwed.

Or maybe 37% know that a crisis is coming one way or another and just want to get it over with now instead of passing it along to their kids or when they are older and much less likely to be able to adjust to it.

I honestly don't understand the mindset of forcing a crisis now to avert a possible crisis later. It's like cutting off your leg to make sure you won't get gangrene sometime later in life.

I don't get making deals to protect all the boomers who looted the country.

37% don't share your politics that’s for certain. Besides that I don't know how you don't see how you are doing the exact same thing those 37% are doing. Maybe you are right and maybe you aren't. The certainty that you have that you are right is as laughable as the people you make fun of for being certain the other way. Why exactly is this crisis certain and if that is the case than why is putting it off going to do anything but make it worse? I certainly realize that answering those questions is a lot tougher than making fun of someone with the exact opposite view.

Who knows I also may be wrong. Shit I don't know what will happen for certain but I know that continuing to raise the debt ceiling while making no cuts and/or increases in taxes is what will happen if the D's and R's have their way. Why? Because it has happened on basically every issue the past ten years. (That’s being generous but I don’t feel like getting into some nonsense about Eisenhower or Jimmy Carter or something. I am talking modern politics)

Fear. (either terror or environmental or economic)
Polarization.
More fear.
Compromise that helps nobody but corporate interests and the very rich.
Business as usual.
Repeat cycle.


Why do I know this is what will probably happen?

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=2&vote=00054

2006 Roll Call Vote

Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chafee (R-RI)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Enzi (R-WY)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Roberts (R-KS)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

NAYs ---48
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Burns (R-MT)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Clinton (D-NY)
Coburn (R-OK)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Ensign (R-NV)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wyden (D-OR)

If that were the case, the older people would be happy to reduce SS and Medicare benefits. Nobody is looking out for future generations no matter what they tell you.

It was about the troops and world wide war then. But the same idea. If we didn't let them keep spending we were headed to catastrophe. Good thing we let them keep spending! LOL.

Fair enough. I did take an easy crack there when it's true...I have no idea either. One thing's for certani though - the markets and the economists I've heard/read think that it would be a disaster.

And I'm pleased to see you acknowledge the need for spending cuts as well as revenue increases.

It's a definite crisis later until Washington shows some aptitude for fiscal responsibility. This IS the later crisis being talked about in the late '80s / early 90s, and no one has done anything about it. We have one side offering some piddling cuts to make it seem like they want compromise without actually proposing the kind of meaningful reign in of spending this is going to take, and the other side refusing to talk any sort of revenue increase whatsoever.

What I want to see is Repubs call the Dems bluff: agree to eliminate the Bush tax cuts and reduce defense spending, if the Dems agree to make meaningful cuts in "non-discretionary" spending that will keep them from continuing to spiral out of control. Heck, I'll even take it the other way around: Dems agree to meaningful cuts in non-discretionary spending if the Repubs will give on their side.

But if neither one happens, then we're heading for a crisis one way or another that they haven't fixed in the last 20 years, so why should I believe it's going to get fixed if only I agree to a tax hike? No tax hike = I have more money to prep for the oncoming storm.

There is that...

No doubt. If panerd were in charge I would cut the military and spy agencies down before anything else but I guess all of the empires and all of the totalitarian states that followed throughout the history of the world aren't enough evidence that things are out of control. I wouldn't be against other cuts and/or taxes but that is the starting point that people are scared about because of the fear instilled in us for the past 10 years. It is completely out of control.

But as has been pointed out those are the "easy" cuts because they are discretionary. Until we get to the root of the "non-discretionary" spending, we're screwed.

I don't recall a member of either party ever setting a hand on either of those though. Some Democrats and Republicans talk a big game on the campaign trail but the fact that Patriot Act continues to pass overwhelmingly shows that the military industrial complex aint going anywhere until this country is broke.

Agreed. I do think that this is one of the compromises Repubs need to make along with tax increases. I do agree with the Repubs that talking tax increases needs to come AFTER spending cuts, including Defense, since Congress has shown a willingness to increase taxes in the past, but never to cut spending (unless you call "lowering the increase from the year before" cutting spending like they usually do...)

Fixed that for you.

Most R's who did they would be dragged from their office & lynched ... and they should be.

I would argue that fixing government spending is going to require everybody in office to do something that will prevent them from getting re-elected, which either means a whole new crop of folks in there (I'll take that), or the same ones going back in since the other side pissed people off as well. MADD should keep both sides honest here.

However, you don't think it's worth a modest tax increase and some defense cuts to get entitlement programs scaled back to something much more reasonable for the folks who NEED it rather than the buy-the-votes program it's turned into?

I definitely don't think Defense should be cut to the bone; heck, that's the one program we are talking about here that is actually handed to the Federal government in the Constitution, but I do think there is enough waste there that it could do the same job minus a chunk of the funding it gets.

We can stop right there, because there's NOTHING that you're going to finish the sentence with that I would believe justifies a tax increase of a single penny. Not one percent mind you, not a penny on the dollar, I'm referring to a single honest to goodness one cent coin, billed to the taxpayer at the rate of 1/365th per day.

Could I come up with something? Maybe (it'd be a damned short list even for me) but even that would be subject to the caveat that every effort was made to fund XYZ with existing money repurposed from lower priorities & you'd be hard pressed to convince me that had happened.


I'd argue that there's minimal "waste" but there's a notable misappropriation of the existing spending (i.e. too much of things we don't need as badly versus too little of things we need more of).

You've been around long enough to know that Jon doesn't believe in any compromise at all. :lol:

In general I agree, I'm just trying to figure out how to fix this mess. You are against tax increases, against cutting defense, and have noted that anyone who tries to cut social security and medicare is committing political suicide, so what IS your fix?

My hope is a modest tax increase to get rid of the debt we have already accumulated order to get long overdue spending cuts, then later once the debt is gone we can roll down taxes to match what we really needs to be spent. La la land, I know, but the whole conversation is la la land. I don't think either side is going to do it, which is why I don't really disagree with those that think we should just not increase the debt limit and FORCE some drastic changes in spending.

I doubt it as well. I think $730B is LOW if we're tallying up wastefulness. I've dealt with rewarding contracts in the federal government. The waste and corruption on most contracts is astronomical. If the general population saw what I've seen, they'd disband the current government and turn to anarchy as a reactionary response.

That last bit may turn out to be the most negotiable. Did you see today's poll showing that roughly 2/3rds agree that the programs can't continue at their current level w/out increased funding. Tie that to another recent poll showed that 61% preferred a (generically) smaller gov't with lower taxes. The two things could dovetail and lead to cuts, although not between now & August.

Let's note here, just for the record, that I'm not particularly concerned over the eventual raising of the debt limit, at least not nearly so much as I am almost violently opposed to tying any tax increase to it. I'm exponentially more of a spending hawk (specifically what it's spent on) than I am a deficit hawk.

The problem is though Jon, that you'll point to those two polls saying that people agree the program can't continue and 61% prefer a generically smaller government with lower taxes (well gee who doesn't...that sound great to me too!). But when it comes time to putting their proverbial money where their mouth is (ironic in this example) people don't want any of the programs that actually ya know...benefit them cut. Poll after poll shows that.

The problem is that you're dealing with a (on a macro level) unintelligent and uninformed electorate.

My city has been in the news the past few years regarding budget cuts. A lot did get cut (but most people didn't notice, tbh) when sales tax revenues fell over 25%. No tax increases during that time either. Cuts were made by lay offs, furloughs, early retirements (70% of the budget is for personnel), as well as cut in streets, parks and safety.

Anyway, sales tax revenues have been steadying going up the past 8-10 months and the city has been spending the extra revenues frugally and with a purposeful set of priorities. It's like real life, having to prioritize and justify every dollar.

The federal departments, on the other hand, seem to still be in a "use it or lose it" mentality. In other words, they basically get they got last plus a marginal increase (or decrease). That is the wrong way to go about it (beyond committed funds). Each department should justify each expenditures from zero (there's enough staff to handle all of that), not based on what you spent and wasted last year. Cities do that, states do that, and you and I do that.

There are federal whistleblower laws that award percentages of fraud to the exposure. If you can show that much you should turn it in.

Obviously, my experience is a sample of the overall mess. But I hadn't heard that there are awards. What's the percentage? I'm always interested in money.

I'd also note that some of my experience regarding wastefulness doesn't amount to fraud, but some of the people that would not have been employed in the private sector and would have been fired years ago are still employed in the government sector. That's just as big of a waste as fraud, yet it happens all the time in government jobs.

That's been the conventional wisdom, I've argued it myself plenty of times. What I was suggesting is that, at least more than I can recall in my lifetime, that perhaps the third rail of politics isn't carrying quite as much juice as it used to. Still enough to be (politically) fatal in most cases I imagine, but perhaps not quite as deadly as it once was.

Addendum to the city budget quip above:

From the city's budget manager:

In previous years, “our revenue (from fines) wasn’t coming in close to what we had budgeted, so we lowered our budget number significantly. Now they’re tracking higher,” she said.

I know for Medicare fraud, it's 10%. The whistleblower in this case walked away with $2.64 million.

This press conference is an absolute snoozer. More of the same rhetoric that got us in this predicament.

He's calling for a permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts?

Seriously? I missed the press conference...did he really?? :eek:

Oh wait - my sarcasm meter was broken.

link

Yawn: Same bs. It's all politics. Thats all it is.

Spending cuts: Need to be done but probably won't. Ha ha ha, It's Washington DC! Ho hum what can we do?

Raise debt limit: No choice but to raise it. Terrorism, invoke 14th amendment. WMD. :confused:

Lol. Isn't this what happened the past 8 years with the exact opposite sides and exact opposite arguments? Raising the debt limit was because of terrorists and WMD. God damn some people sure don't think for themselves to continue to fall for this bullshit...


By the way they are going to raise the debt limit. Why? It's all a show, neither side gives a fuck about finanicial responsibility. Just the illusion of responsibility. Just like the Democrats didn't give a shit about our soldiers dying in Iraq during this vote where the D's and R's really thought on their own outside of party lines.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=2&vote=00054

2006 Roll Call Vote

Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chafee (R-RI)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Enzi (R-WY)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Roberts (R-KS)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

NAYs ---48
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Burns (R-MT)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Clinton (D-NY)
Coburn (R-OK)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Ensign (R-NV)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wyden (D-OR)

So basically another liberal hack (who likes to pretend he's conservative simply because he occasionally gets something right in spite of himself) doesn't like the current GOP. Damn, I'm shocked.

You left out raising revenues. Until you accept that that will need to be done too you're not a part of the serious, adult conversation.

We all get the vote in 2006. Can you please stop posting it with every reply?

:lol: