Re "Federal Tax Revenues" I erred in that I shoulda said "Federal Income Tax Revenues" - sorry 'bout that, and no problem bustin' me for it.
Now, lets look at some figures. Go to
CBO: Historical Budget Data .
I believe that series of tables makes my case. You're perfectly entitled to disagree; in fact I expect as much. However, I'm convinced things ain't so bleak as some would like to make 'em out to be. That's the nature of political discourse, after all. Without divergent opinion, there'd be neither politics nor discourse.
From my perspective, I'm relatively comfortable with the efforts of The Current Administration in regard to spending - among other things. There are areas I feel deserve greater attention, and/or more stringent controls and cutbacks, but overall I'm glad The Democrats no longer have control of the tiller of The Ship of State - they were steerin' us hard toward the rocks, IMO.
The deficit isn't being paid down. It's being added on to.
This is the best line of the previous post"
Quote:I agree that there won't be a collapse soon but failure to address the deficit sets us up for one in the future.
This is what I'm saying. Bush can talk all day about how well we are doing financially, but the fact is we came up half a trillion short this year, and are looking to come up short again next year. And that doesn't even COUNT the WoT. Or Bush's SS cut proposal. OR making the tax cuts for the rich permanent.
There are a whole lot of bills being put to the side table in the American household these days. I don't think the economy is going to tank tommorrow, but I do think it's a
major problem that we are running debt up faster than we are paying it off!
Soon, our defecit will be above 5% of our GNP, and let me tell ya, it isn't going to be pretty when foreign investment moves elsewhere. Which has to happen sooner or later; right now, 80% of world investment is in the US, which isn't sustainable on the long run. Now that more countries are catching up to the lead we took about 50 years ago, we're not as competitive in terms of economics as we used to be. We're still better than most other places, but what happens when some of these bill collectors come looking for money? As I said, it won't be pretty.
Cycloptichorn
The reality of tax revenues
Baldimo writes:
Quote:Why do you think taxes are going to be raised to fix the issue? Couldn't it be that instead of raising taxes, whish is always the lefts answer that we could cut spending on programs that aren't needed or at least cut back on spending in those programs? Just because there is a program in place doesn't mean we have to continue funding a worthless program. I would rather see programs cut or receive less funding then raise taxes.
Two questions that if you can answer then I might believe you about taxes not needing to be raised.
1.)Tell us which programs you personally now recieve benefits from that you are willing to cut. No fair only cutting other people's benefits.
2.) Do a budget with REAL numbers based on the federal budget that gets close to eliminating the deficit without raising taxes. (A simple spreadsheet exercise using link below.) If you manage to get the first part done, then tell us how you propose to pass it.
Use Table 3.2
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/hist.html
(I won't hold my breath waiting for your answers.)
Timberland wrote:
Quote:Now, lets look at some figures. Go to CBO: Historical Budget Data .
I believe that series of tables makes my case. You're perfectly entitled to disagree; in fact I expect as much. However, I'm convinced things ain't so bleak as some would like to make 'em out to be. That's the nature of political discourse, after all. Without divergent opinion, there'd be neither politics nor discourse.
The exact same numbers there as on the site I posted. (Bush tables are more complete than these truncated CBO ones. Both come from CBO.)
Which table do you think gives 1980 dollar numbers?
I don't see one. I stand by my figures on 2004 being the worst deficit since 1947 in inflation adjusted dollars based on table 1.3. of Bush budget historical tables. I see nothing to dispute that. (see link and numbers in previous post)
Facts of inflation adjustment are not opinion. We can't really have an opinion on this. Either the numbers are correct or they are not.
Which table shows that deficit grew at a faster rate in any 3 years other than the last 3?
Give me the years you think it did. 2002 to 2004 had the following deficits as % of GDP -1.5, -3.5, -3.6. That means the defict went up 2.1% of GDP and more than doubled as % in 3 years. Which 3 year periods before 2001 did that? Simple math is simple math. Use % or use figures, I don't care. I can't compare hard numbers to nonexistent numbers.
Parados: Just in case, you can now exale!
Quote:1.)Tell us which programs you personally now recieve benefits from that you are willing to cut. No fair only cutting other people's benefits.
There are no programs I currently receive that would need to be cut, because I don't receive any programs. My son does receive SS payments due to him being deaf and I wouldn't mind if those were cut. His payments from SS are not what SS was intended for.
Quote:2.) Do a budget with REAL numbers based on the federal budget that gets close to eliminating the deficit without raising taxes. (A simple spreadsheet exercise using link below.) If you manage to get the first part done, then tell us how you propose to pass it.
First of all I don't have a clue how to use a spreadsheet, but I would recommend starting in a couple of places.
First of all reevaluate the # of people on welfare and cut out those that are capable of getting a job. I'm willing to bet that 75% of the people on welfare are able to work and don't because of welfare.
Second of all stop all none emergency services to illegal citizens. This means they can't come into the hospital for a cold and charge the taxpayers for it. If it is a true emergency, meaning life or death then treat them. After they have been treated, they should be turned over to immigration authorities and turned over to their native countries. #'s I have found indicate that one hospital has had to write off about 2 million dollars in costs due to illegal aliens health care.
Border hospitals Take this # and multiply it by about 20 and you are talking about a large amount of money.
Third, speed up the process of the death penalty. Those on death row get a DNA test in conjunction with all evidence and if they are found guilty then the sentence should be carried out. No waiting 20 years and sucking more money from the taxpayers. It currently costs about $30,000 a year to house a criminal and over 20 years it costs about $600,000. Imagine the amount of money we could save by cutting the process down.
Fourth make the official language of the US English and stop spending the money to print govt material in foreign tongues. Why should we have to print material in another language? We speak English here in the states, so if you come here to live then you should speak the language. If I were to move to another country, I wouldn't expect them to print their materials in my language, I would learn the language if I intended to stay.
The 4 listed items above are a good start to cutting back on spending in our country. If I come up with any others, then I will let you know.
Quote:Fourth make the official language of the US English and stop spending the money to print govt material in foreign tongues. Why should we have to print material in another language? We speak English here in the states, so if you come here to live then you should speak the language. If I were to move to another country, I wouldn't expect them to print their materials in my language, I would learn the language if I intended to stay.
THough I do appreciate solution-oriented arguments, and therefore laud your attempts as much as I disagree with them, I did a report on this a few years back and was surprised to find the cost of printing forms in other languages in the state of Texas was about 16 million dollars a year.
Which is a lot of money, but chump change when it comes to the federal level. We're going to need some stronger stuff than this to balance our budgets.
Cycloptichorn
You take 16 million dollars and you multiply that by 50 states and you get 800,000,000. I wouldn't call that chump change by any means.
What about the other proposals that I mentioned? They are at least sound ways of cutting the budget without raising taxes. There are to many things in this country that we should have to pay for and are forced to payfor because of the govt.
Yeah, saving 800 million is a lot of money (though Texas, being so close to Mexico and being highly populous, probably is a lot higher than the average budget for bilingual printing) but it's chump change on the federal level.
Truly. Our defecit this year was over 500 billion dollars IIRC. 800 million, while a ton of money, is less than .2% of the defecit alone.
So, we're going to need to save a lot more than that. As for your other proposals, let's see.
I agree with ya on the death penalty although I would like to see laws passed requiring the stiffest of DNA and other forms of evidence as neccessary for the imposition of such penalty.
It's hard to tell with the hospitals and emergency services. Many health professionals take an oath to help people, and many feel that money just doesn't matter when it comes to saving a life. It's difficult to say sometimes when something is life-threatening; a simply treated infection can kill a man if untreated. Something which would have only cost the State a few hundred dollars now costs thousands or more once the gentelman is in life-threatening danger. Not a good outcome.
We need to close the damned border, I'll tell ya, as the first step to saving money on illegals. And it can be done, humanely, if we wanted to. We don't. Our elected leaders certainly haven't shown any desire to do so...
Cycloptichorn
Baldimo wrote:
Quote:Parados: Just in case, you can now exale!
Just as I expected. All hat and no cattle.
Your tiny proposals are a drop in the bucket of the overall budget.. Saving 1 billion in a 600 billion deficit gets you almost no where. Texas is one of the largest states. ALL states do NOT have the same costs as Texas. Are you still in Jr High so I should accept this from you?
Gee, and you don't even have a clue of what government provides for you. Lets start by taking away all your roads. Then we should take away all your food inspection. Then how about your clean air. Why do we need interstate transportation? That should reduce the number of goods you can buy. THen if we eliminate farm subsidies your food bills should double or triple. Yeah. NOTHING that you get from the govt.
parados, I don't see any reason to argue with you over points I've not made. Suffice it to say I do not believe the current deficit situation is anywhere near "crisis" levels. I note that expanding economic activity is resulting in greater-than-pojected revenue collection, which is reducing the rate of deficit growth. This despite the fact we're at war - actual, armed conflict. That itself is a considerable drain on the exchequer.
Now, I would like to see the hammer dropped on fraud, waste, and pork-barrell politics. And I'm a strong advocate of evaluating programs by performance - throw out the dead weight. Demand accountability, insist upon personal responsibility. If a program is not fulfilling its purpose - showing actual positive cost-benefit relationship , determine why, and either fix it or chuck it.
And just for reference, I'll note as well that I personally derive no direct individual benefit from any Federal program or entitlement, other than Veterans' Benefits. Apart from that contractual obligation pursuant to my military service, the extent of my relationship with the Federal Government is that pay taxes and vote.
Just noticed your mention of farm subsidies - a real sore spot with me .... bein' a farmer of sorts, and livin' in a farmin' region. The bulk of agricultural subsidies do nothin' for the individual farmer - they're great for the big ag corporations, but the fella with a couple hundred acres, a hundred or so cows, a mortgage to pay, and a family to feed usually has a night job to keep the bills paid ... and just about every farm wife I know works outside the farm too.
A bit of trivia for ya - a dairy farmer gets roughly the same for milk today as 30 years ago. And that $3.95 box of cornflakes on your breakfast table contains less than a penny's worth of corn at farm price.
parados wrote:Baldimo wrote:
Quote:Parados: Just in case, you can now exale!
Just as I expected. All hat and no cattle.
Your tiny proposals are a drop in the bucket of the overall budget.. Saving 1 billion in a 600 billion deficit gets you almost no where. Texas is one of the largest states. ALL states do NOT have the same costs as Texas. Are you still in Jr High so I should accept this from you?
Gee, and you don't even have a clue of what government provides for you. Lets start by taking away all your roads. Then we should take away all your food inspection. Then how about your clean air. Why do we need interstate transportation? That should reduce the number of goods you can buy. THen if we eliminate farm subsidies your food bills should double or triple. Yeah. NOTHING that you get from the govt.
Seeing as how you are some what new, you don't know me or my past. I will have to deal with you later. Your response to my post is more childish then my post.
Quote:"The Deficit", while at a record current-dollar-amount level, is nowhere near a record in terms of percentage of GDP or in terms of constant 1980-dolar-value levels, and while it is growing, it is growing far less vigorously both than even recently projected and in terms of percentage comparison relative to many, many periods of deficit expansion.
Quote:parados, I don't see any reason to argue with you over points I've not made.
I'm sorry, I guess my version of able2know must have misquoted you then.
I didn't realize that your statement that the deficit was "no where near a record level" in spite of the fact that it IS the record in 1980 dollars was not a "point". I guess in future I should just let your factual errors go without correction. Lets let you make up facts then you can attack me for correcting you. That should work great. It will make for a wonderful time for all.
Now that the sarcasm is done. Lets discuss this a bit more. I am happy to discuss your opinion. I just have a problem when you preface your opinion with factual mistakes. You are entitled to your opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts. Lets be adult here. If I make a factual mistake feel free to correct me and support it with a source. I will do the same for you. Then both of us can try to be gracious when corrected or provide an alternative source disputing it.
I am aware of the farm subsidy program. My brother farms the land my great grandfather homesteaded. (I milked cows before and after school.)Most farmers play the games of farm subsidy. Some skirt the law. Like the families that incoporate 5 farms so they can get around the limits. But even those that don't get close to the limits have to play games with yields and acreages to maximize their subsidy.
Can't see the Federal goverment for the forest
Claiming you get no personal benefits from the Federal government is like claiming you get no benefit from trees while you live in a house made of wood and filled with wood products, eat food out of cardboard containers, use electricity made from coal, and breath out CO2 that trees turn back into O2 so you can breathe it in again.
Without the Federal government, your life would be a miserable existence. Try driving anywhere without using a road mantained or built with some Federal dollars. Your schools were partially built with Federal grant money. 50% of the internet routing system that gets you this message is paid for by government in one form or another. Just because you don't get a check doesn't mean you don't benefit.
Baldimo writes:
Quote:Seeing as how you are some what new, you don't know me or my past. I will have to deal with you later. Your response to my post is more childish then my post.
One would expect that since you quote Heinlein you would understand "sarcasm." I'm a "young fool" for not realizing you take everything you read literally.
Nice to know that you have been here a lot longer than I have. I guess that makes you the "old one." And we all know there is no one quite like the "old one".
parados, looks like we're gonna hafta agree to disagree, as it seems we're talkin' past one another here; you appear to see the budget deficit as a crisis issue, I see it as un unpleasant, but manageable, under-control, ongoing fact of life - sorta like taxes themselves. Can you point to a period during which there was no Federal Deficit? While there have been occasional years of annual current-account balances and even a few surplusses, overall, the government has been in debt essentially since before its founding. Now, if the rate-of-deficit-growth does not slacken significantly, and do so in the relatively near term, I'll change my mind. However, at present I am reasonably confident reasonably competent folks are takin' reasonably structured steps to control the situation.
And, yes, there are Federal programs from which all derive benefit - that's not the point, as I see it. What is in contention would be the waste, fraud, pork, and unproductive, even counterproductive entitlements to which so many are so firmly attached.
Oh, and just curious, here - if you don't mind, would you care to elaborate on just which conditions would hafta pertain in order for you to display a bit of adult-like graciousness when presented with differin' opinion?
Timberland
Quote:I am reasonably confident reasonably competent folks are takin' reasonably structured steps to control the situation.
This is one we will have to disagree on. I don't consider it reasonably competent to submit a budget that has a higher deficit than previous year. Then admit you left several items out like the $80 billion for Iraq and the $2 trillion to privatize SS over the next decade. Oh, and by the way we didn't include the money to make the tax cut permanent either. I consider that either malfeasance or complete incompetence.
Quote:And, yes, there are Federal programs from which all derive benefit - that's not the point, as I see it. What is in contention would be the waste, fraud, pork, and unproductive, even counterproductive entitlements to which so many are so firmly attached.
So then lets discuss those parts of the budget that need fixing. I agree that there are parts but we all have our own pet projects. In my opinion the only way to fix it is to decide together what government should provide. From that point it becomes easier to see what programs fit into our mutually agreed upon government services.
Quote:Oh, and just curious, here - if you don't mind, would you care to elaborate on just which conditions would hafta pertain in order for you to display a bit of adult-like graciousness when presented with differin' opinion?
I love well thought out opinion that differs from mine. It forces me to have to examine and defend my positions. "Well thought out" means opinions concluded from known facts. What I don't like is opinion that changes facts to suit that opinion. I am fine that you think Bush's budget is "reasonably competent". We can discuss that, you giving your reasons and I giving mine. But where I would have a problem is if you deny that the Bush budget failed to include funding for the ongoing War in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Quote:Now, if the rate-of-deficit-growth does not slacken significantly, and do so in the relatively near term, I'll change my mind.
This is a reasonable statement. I hope that I too can change my mind if presented with facts that differ from what I perceive to be the truth. Checkable facts are the best way to change the mind of a reasonable person.
The expenses pertainin' to the wagin'of war are typically not Annual Budget items; they are just about by defintion "Extraordinary Other Expenses". I disagree entirely with the concept of a "$2 Trillion" cost resultin' from the partial privatization of Social Security - I see that as a bogus, talkin'-point, boogeyman scare figure, devoid of foundation. In fact, I believe partial privatization is only the first of many steps that need be taken to prevent the otherwise inevitable collapse of what has become an overgrown, beaurocracy-ridden, patronage-bound, under-performin' boondoggle, and that it will in fact result in significant cost-savings and overall greatly increased efficiencies within the unruly beast.
I think the role of the Federal government ought to be concentrated in such areas as national defense (which would include border and immigration control, and, of course, Veterans Affairs), interstate commerce (which would include such things as food and drug safety and responsible environmental and job-safety legislation), the operation of the national treaury and mint, the administration and stewardship of publicly held lands and property, the protection of individuals and entities from government interference with or usurpation of constitutionally guaranteed rights, and the establishment and enforcement of reasonable - if ambitious - national standards for such things as national healthcare and national educational policy.
Of the top of my head, at the moment, thats about it. There's no doubt more I'd include with a bit more thought - and much I'd specifically exclude - affirmative action and "Special Rights" for any demographic sub-group, ethnic, theologically, political, or gender/gender preferrence based, for instance. It is my conviction that The Constitution guarantees equal opportunity, not equal result. All should be able to achieve, or fail, as their abilities, circumstances, and happenstance permit - no artificial barriers, no handouts. If you want it, build it. If you want to keep it, maintain it. If you lose it through no fault of your own, opportunity and access to means (access to those means - not the means themselves ... private insurance, loans, loan guarantees, and tax incentives are fine by me - handouts ain't) by which to recover from that loss should be available, but nobody is entitled to a free ride. Conversely, if you blow it on your own, if your loss results from malfeasance, incompetence, neglect, or otherwise screwin' up, its your loss. Build your house on a fault line, in a fire-prone area without taking steps to control hazardous buildup of vegetation, on a flood plain, on a low-lyin' beach exposed to hurricanes and tidal surges, in the known potential path of avalanche, and what happens in the event of disaster is up to you - and your insurance company if you had happened to have found one dumb enough to go in with you on the bad bet.
Of course provision must be made for the truly disadvantaged, and for the innocently indigent. Those provisions, however, should be societal, not governmental. Our current welfare system, for instance, serves no purpose more fully than ensurin' there will always be a need for our current welfare system.
Well - end of rant.
For now.
Quote: I disagree entirely with the concept of a "$2 Trillion" cost resultin' from the partial privatization of Social Security - I see that as a bogus, talkin'-point, boogeyman scare figure, devoid of foundation.
I've seen 1-2 trillion depending on who ya ask.
A rather arbitrary number, no matter what the true total is. Suffice it to say there will be a rather large shortfall in the middle.
Cycloptichorn
Timberland wrote:
Quote:. I disagree entirely with the concept of a "$2 Trillion" cost resultin' from the partial privatization of Social Security - I see that as a bogus, talkin'-point, boogeyman scare figure, devoid of foundation.
If you remove money from the projected revenues then it has a cost associated with it. We can disagree with whether that cost is $1 or $5 trillion, but the fact of the matter is you have reduced your projected revenues over the next 10 years and have to make it up somehow. It is a little hard to project what Bush's SS privatization plan will cost since he is so vague on it. The other cost that comes from privatization is that you have to start paying back SS trust fund earlier than was originally projected.
As for the purpose of the Federal govt. We seem to agree on much of it. Where we disagree is on attempting to help those that need help. A report was just released today on 28 economically developed countries. The US was second to last beating only Mexico in the % of children living in poverty. I think that is terrible for a country, that claims it is the best in the world, to have 21% of our kids living in poverty. Scandanavian countries have less than 5% of their children living in poverty. The reason? A government policy that deals with it. Trying to help our kids out of poverty is not only good for the kids but is good for the future of this country. The kids ARE our future. Education is not just about schools. It involves attempting to interject early in development. Studies show that preschool does more to help kids educational prospects than any other thing. Doesn't that seem like a good investment? A well educated workforce will do more for economic growth than any tax cuts ever will.
In an ideal world, everyone should have to stand on their merits. Unfortunately we will never live in that utopia. Affirmative Action is an attempt to right past wrongs. You don't give all the money and power to one group then make it fair by saying. "OK, now you are equal and have to compete equally", without trying to rectify the starting points for each group. Its too bad that the group that discriminated against everyone else now has to face some discrimination of its own but it isn't the end of the world and it isn't even close to what other groups have had to face. If you can't stand out as a white person among other white people then maybe you aren't working hard enough.
