Balance the Budget?

[DiamondDave]

i think public finances do have to be increased on the receipt-end for a solution to be credible, ddave. rather than claiming that anything which doesn't line right up with your world-view is a conspiracy, it could help that you recognize the impact that making more has relative to spending less. the latter simply does not cut it often times, and a challenge for lawmakers is created whereby they need to figure out how they are going to deal with the need to increase revenues without extinguishing economic activity.

even though i agree that the choices available are limited, perhaps to proposals which are actually on the table, i think this is a good exercise for people like yourself who feel that balancing a budget is as simple as you put forward rhetorically. the OP challenges rhetorical conservatives to make the tough decisions which lawmakers are likely to have to, but most merely bitch.

I did not claim conspiracy... I only contend that the government has, and has been allowed to, expand beyond the scope of it's intended power.. and that over-spending has led us to the financial situation we are in, and cutting spending is the only way out.... We MAY have to increase taxation (ahem... start taxing the ~50% that pay no income taxes now) in order to start paying back some of this debt... but that should not only fall on the shoulders of those who extreme progressive deem 'the evil rich'

Balancing the budget will not come easily, just as placing debt repayment into the budget will not be.... but reeling back the tendrils of government has got to be the major focus, as it is the major problem

Whether some current or even potential politicians make it difficult or not is of no consequence... people who do not believe that government exists to create a nanny state need to strive towards governmental change that will facilitate the needed cutback of government spending

 

[antagon]

repaying the debt is in the budget, ddave. what is not is a surplus which banks one budget into the next.

its hard to say what's responsible for a debt or a budget defecit. obviously your opinions on what should be cut will differ from the next guy. your nostalgia for the early years of the republic might not account for the sovereign crises the US found itself struggling with in the early years. we certainly couldn't balance a budget back then.

i am convinced that there's a hype factor among those who you feel will be the saviors of fiscal discipline. they dont have any ideas, they don't seem to have thought anything out or considered anything which we've learned about economics since the founding. ultimately their bound by wagners law like everyone else.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

100% with cuts.

DONE!!!!!!!!!!

 

[DiamondDave]

repaying the debt is in the budget, ddave. what is not is a surplus which banks one budget into the next.

its hard to say what's responsible for a debt or a budget defecit. obviously your opinions on what should be cut will differ from the next guy. your nostalgia for the early years of the republic might not account for the sovereign crises the US found itself struggling with in the early years. we certainly couldn't balance a budget back then.

i am convinced that there's a hype factor among those who you feel will be the saviors of fiscal discipline. they dont have any ideas, they don't seem to have thought anything out or considered anything which we've learned about economics since the founding. ultimately their bound by wagners law like everyone else.

We have not had a surplus since 1957

I can say I am paying down my credit card $1000 extra this year... but it really is not factual when I add an additional $2000 to the total

I have no ideas?? Hardly... I have tons of ideas on what should be cut... and as for bringing it about... I grind politicians I come in contact with about the rules of the constitution and about the wasteful government spending... and I only support candidates who have an agenda to bring about some of that change.. and they drop from my support if they do not follow through... and as for my ideas about what should be cut... you are right that an idiot progressive will say cut the military (though military is one of the things constitutionally charged as a responsibility of the Fed) while calling for more and more increased entitlement programs (which are not a charge of the Fed in the constitution)... I go strictly by the enumerated powers and stand for having a constitutional amendment to rightfully empower the FED with additional responsibilities or powers... and that if congressional justification is not directly shown, the agencies and programs need to be defunded and gotten rid of

 

[GHook93]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...ollars-are-spent-where-do-you-say-to-cut.html

82% of the Federal budget goes to Five Things

21% Medicare/Medicaid and CHIPS
20% Defense (including the Two Wars)
20% Social Security
14% Entitlement Programs like Welfare, Food Stamps, Section 8, Pension Guaranty Fund and Unemployment
7% Federal "Highway Robbery" Pension Plans


- Right off the bat 7% Pension Plan should be eliminated! The Private Sector went from 90% having Pension Plans in the 60s to less than 1% today. There is no god damn reason the Federal (and State) workers shouldn't do the same.

- Along with Pension Plans going, goes the Pension Guaranty Fund. Then Welfare, Food Stamps and Section 8 should be reduced or at the very least made temporary. Esp Welfare. None of these programs should be available to ILLEGALS (which all are). All should require regular drug tests. Nor should discourage marrying or getting a job! Either a reduction of this 14% is sorely needed and should happen TODAY!

- Medicare and Social Security: Here is the reality, when the 65 age limit was set people didn't live as long. Nowadays they live much long and reality needs to reflect that. Both these programs should have the starting age raised to at least 70!

- CHIPS and Medicaid: Honestly with the Obamacare elimination of preexisting condition, this will have less people into these programs. Many people, like my former brother-in-law (who has MS) was forced into the CHIPS program, because no one would insure him (he tried but was turned down by everyone). Not sure what can be done here, except for a means test and allowing one good piece of Obamacare to take effect.

- Defense: I could be considered a hawk, however, I see a need to cut the Defense budget. Look in bad economic times everything needs to be cut. That includes Defense. Yes when we get out of Iraq that will save money. However, more must be done and will be done. Look I fear Islamic Terror also, but we have to face reality sometimes and reality is dictating everywhere needs to be cut.

 

[Flopper]

i think there ought to be independent budget oversight, or that the treasury should be elevated to a constitutional branch alongside the executive legislature and judiciary. i'd say that the latter ought to work via consensus and be isolated from the public vote and high turnover like the judiciary. then a budget can be handed to the congress, and they'd have to deal with what they've been handed.

the point is that the government cant always be accountable for its best interest and its budget at the same time, such that human oversight rather than a document makes more sense.

You're absolutely correct. Independent oversight is needed. Although budget approval will always be a political process, there needs to be recommendations from a non-partisan entity. Although the CBO is non-partisan, it acts more as a number cruncher for congress and does not usually offer any guidance.

 

[Oddball]

FWIW if it was up to me we would first install a balanced budget amendment to the constitution and then sit back and watch Congress wrestle over how to get it done.

I assume none of us is really a qualified expert on the budget.

There already is a balanced budget provision in the Constitution...Only specie is to be considered lawful money.

The problem with deficits and debt is directly traceable back to the creation of the Fed and it's worthless fiat currency scam.

budgets were optionally debt-funded a century before the republic, and the US did not balance its early budgets at all. we were at risk of default following 1812, for instance. your claim is not based in reality. a central bank is a crucial component for running a state with private banks and issuing a currency. no two ways about it. commodity-backed currencies are just as scandalous, moreover.

Bullshit.

The debts accrued back then were for actual specie, which went a long way toward them keep their borrowing limited.

If it's one thing the framers mistrusted almost universally, it was central banks and fiat currencies....See: "Ain't worth a Continental".

Like I said, the total explosion of debt and federal bureaucracy can be directly traced back to 1913.

 

[Flopper]

repaying the debt is in the budget, ddave. what is not is a surplus which banks one budget into the next.

its hard to say what's responsible for a debt or a budget defecit. obviously your opinions on what should be cut will differ from the next guy. your nostalgia for the early years of the republic might not account for the sovereign crises the US found itself struggling with in the early years. we certainly couldn't balance a budget back then.

i am convinced that there's a hype factor among those who you feel will be the saviors of fiscal discipline. they dont have any ideas, they don't seem to have thought anything out or considered anything which we've learned about economics since the founding. ultimately their bound by wagners law like everyone else.

We have not had a surplus since 1957

I can say I am paying down my credit card $1000 extra this year... but it really is not factual when I add an additional $2000 to the total

I have no ideas?? Hardly... I have tons of ideas on what should be cut... and as for bringing it about... I grind politicians I come in contact with about the rules of the constitution and about the wasteful government spending... and I only support candidates who have an agenda to bring about some of that change.. and they drop from my support if they do not follow through... and as for my ideas about what should be cut... you are right that an idiot progressive will say cut the military (though military is one of the things constitutionally charged as a responsibility of the Fed) while calling for more and more increased entitlement programs (which are not a charge of the Fed in the constitution)... I go strictly by the enumerated powers and stand for having a constitutional amendment to rightfully empower the FED with additional responsibilities or powers... and that if congressional justification is not directly shown, the agencies and programs need to be defunded and gotten rid of

I think we had a surplus in 1969 and 98-01.

History of Deficits and Surpluses In The United States

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I find it disingenuous that it labels not-extending th Bush Tax Cuts, which are set to expire, 'raising taxes'. Not cutting taxes =/= raising taxes

If taxes go up, they have been raised. It's rather simple.

 

[loosecannon]

lots of this stuff i've yapped about already, but there are no options to cap welfare entitlement to a social or economic standard, while they are raised along such standards as inflation.

excellent point.

i suppose there's a mention of the carbon tax initiative. i didn't select that, however, the next 50 years will likely entail government revenue derived from direct usage like the massive industry excise in obamacare, while income tax rates will continue to be suppressed. i would include fees for legal immigration status and citizenship... more like 'ask not what the government can do for free, ask what fee you'll pay the government.' this puts folks who aren't heavy users of government support at a smaller tax liability to those like banks and insurers who lean on the government like a chaise lounge.

User fees instead of taxes. I have long promoted the same idea.

Good post, good ideas. But we need a whole lot more of them to balance the budget. We need a top down overhaul of our tax policy and a top down reappraisal of our budget. With professional but not partisan input.

 

[loosecannon]

FWIW if it was up to me we would first install a balanced budget amendment to the constitution and then sit back and watch Congress wrestle over how to get it done.

I assume none of us is really a qualified expert on the budget.

There already is a balanced budget provision in the Constitution...Only specie is to be considered lawful money.

The problem with deficits and debt is directly traceable back to the creation of the Fed and it's worthless fiat currency scam.

wrong as usual. Could you try to be honest for once?

 

[loosecannon]

It's important to make progress toward a balanced budget but it's not necessary that we balance it. We have had a deficit 36 of the last 40 years. I think the most important factor to consider is the effect on interest rates. When it appears that we have runaway deficit spending and are making no progress in controlling the deficit, then investors both here and abroad become hesitant about lending to the US. This will push up interest rates and can make things a lot worse. Of course, it's all relative to what other countries are doing to control deficit spending. Right now Europe is belt tightening and the US should follow suit.

DUDE! The Fed has openly admitted to monetizing our debt for 18 months! AND the Fed controls interest rates on our debt. Why are you posting nonsense?

 

[antagon]

There already is a balanced budget provision in the Constitution...Only specie is to be considered lawful money.

The problem with deficits and debt is directly traceable back to the creation of the Fed and it's worthless fiat currency scam.

budgets were optionally debt-funded a century before the republic, and the US did not balance its early budgets at all. we were at risk of default following 1812, for instance. your claim is not based in reality. a central bank is a crucial component for running a state with private banks and issuing a currency. no two ways about it. commodity-backed currencies are just as scandalous, moreover.

Bullshit.

The debts accrued back then were for actual specie, which went a long way toward them keep their borrowing limited.

If it's one thing the framers mistrusted almost universally, it was central banks and fiat currencies....See: "Ain't worth a Continental".

Like I said, the total explosion of debt and federal bureaucracy can be directly traced back to 1913.

this is nonesense, buddy. some of the framers knew there was a need for a bank from the get go. your almost universal claim defies the history congress set voting the first national bank into place under washington. you will find 1913, the federal reserve and income taxation created a more sustainable public/private finance platform than ever before and that war, not bureaucracy, is responsible for the country's 'explosions' of debt, historically. this goes all the way back to the revolutionary war.

 

[antagon]

i think there ought to be independent budget oversight, or that the treasury should be elevated to a constitutional branch alongside the executive legislature and judiciary. i'd say that the latter ought to work via consensus and be isolated from the public vote and high turnover like the judiciary. then a budget can be handed to the congress, and they'd have to deal with what they've been handed.

the point is that the government cant always be accountable for its best interest and its budget at the same time, such that human oversight rather than a document makes more sense.

You're absolutely correct. Independent oversight is needed. Although budget approval will always be a political process, there needs to be recommendations from a non-partisan entity. Although the CBO is non-partisan, it acts more as a number cruncher for congress and does not usually offer any guidance.

i would actually like the quantitative budget to be handed to the congress so that their role could only be qualitative. the CBO is effective enough with respect to suggestions, and there are plenty of internal committees to keep the government informed as to where the lines of fiscal balance are, they simply have the option to ignore those lines for political expediency. i dont believe that the budget needs to be balanced every time. along a business cycle, the government should run smaller budgets in the peaks - surplus budgets - and potentially larger deficit budgets in troughs. this cannot be determined by elected officials, history has indicated.

 

[antagon]

repaying the debt is in the budget, ddave. what is not is a surplus which banks one budget into the next.

its hard to say what's responsible for a debt or a budget defecit. obviously your opinions on what should be cut will differ from the next guy. your nostalgia for the early years of the republic might not account for the sovereign crises the US found itself struggling with in the early years. we certainly couldn't balance a budget back then.

i am convinced that there's a hype factor among those who you feel will be the saviors of fiscal discipline. they dont have any ideas, they don't seem to have thought anything out or considered anything which we've learned about economics since the founding. ultimately their bound by wagners law like everyone else.

We have not had a surplus since 1957

this is not accurate. for one thing, there was a budget surplus in 98, 99, 00, maybe 01?

I can say I am paying down my credit card $1000 extra this year... but it really is not factual when I add an additional $2000 to the total

what i mean is that the required debt service (like the credit card min. payment and interest) is factored into every budget, a factor which is creeping up and up, obviously.

I have no ideas?? Hardly... I have tons of ideas on what should be cut... and as for bringing it about... I grind politicians I come in contact with about the rules of the constitution and about the wasteful government spending... and I only support candidates who have an agenda to bring about some of that change.. and they drop from my support if they do not follow through...

particularly, i was talking about politicians. i believe that most of the politicians who you speak to merely stroke your values for your support. in real politics, your take on the constitution is not considered correct, and small government ideas about the US aren't serious. my guess is that these politicians are fully aware of this when they shake your hand. the fact of the matter is that when the spotlight is on them, they are not willing to repeat your values to the public. they certainly are not going to repeat them on the floor of congress. when they do publicly shill for the get out of our way crowd, their approach is all rhetoric, no substance or practical applicability.

...and that if congressional justification is not directly shown...

this is not how the US works or was intended to. this was never a paper government, ddave. sorry... of the people, for the people is more like it.

 

[GHook93]

Step 1 - Cut Spending on the Top Five Budget Items:

82% of the Federal budget goes to Five Areas!!!

21% Medicare ($482 B)/Medicaid and CHIPS ($267 B)
Save $150 B
Raising the age to 70 should cut $100 B on Medicare $150K Cut (maybe more, my estimates are guesses as best)
With the pre-existing eliminator in Obamacare, which kicks in next year, stop allowing illegals free healthcare and medicaid, then we could probably eliminate $50 B!

- Medicare: Here is the reality, when the 65 age limit was set people didn't live as long. Nowadays they live much long and reality needs to reflect that. Both these programs should have the starting age raised to at least 70!

- CHIPS and Medicaid: Honestly with the Obamacare elimination of preexisting condition, this will have less people into these programs. Many people, like my former brother-in-law (who has MS) was forced into the CHIPS program, because no one would insure him (he tried but was turned down by everyone). Not sure what can be done here, except for a means test and allowing one good piece of Obamacare to take effect.

20% Defense $715 B (including the Two Wars - $172 B)
Save $150 B
Cut $100 B out! Find a way. $50 B at least should be saved when we leave Iraq.

- Defense: I could be considered a hawk, however, I see a need to cut the Defense budget. Look in bad economic times everything needs to be cut. That includes Defense. Yes when we get out of Iraq that will save money. However, more must be done and will be done. Look I fear Islamic Terror also, but we have to face reality sometimes and reality is dictating everywhere needs to be cut.

20% Social Security - $708 B
Raising SS age to 70 should safe $150 B

- Social Security: Here is the reality, when the 65 age limit was set people didn't live as long. Nowadays they live much long and reality needs to reflect that. Both these programs should have the starting age raised to at least 70!

14% Entitlement Programs like Welfare, Food Stamps, Section 8, Pension Guaranty Fund and Unemployment- $482 B:
Save $241 B

End the PGF, no Section 8, food stamps and Welfare for illegals. Make at least Section 8 and Welfare temporary.You could easily cut this in half. Cuting out $241 B!

- Along with Pension Plans going, there goes the Pension Guaranty Fund. Then Welfare, Food Stamps and Section 8 should be reduced or at the very least made temporary. Esp Welfare. None of these programs should be available to ILLEGALS (which all are). All should require regular drug tests. Nor should they discourage marrying or getting a job! Either a reduction of this 14% is sorely needed and should happen TODAY!

7% Federal "Highway Robbery" Pension Plans - $241 B
Save $241 B

- Right off the bat 7% Pension Plan should be eliminated! The Private Sector went from 90% having Pension Plans in the 60s to less than 1% today. There is no god damn reason the Federal (and State) workers shouldn't do the same. Have them go the individual retirement way with employer contributions, aka 401K and IRAs! When the private sector pensions went belly up the workers got the shaft also. Sorry, but this injustice needs to end TODAY!

Total savings from the Top 82% = $932 BILLION


Step 2 - Allow the Bush Tax Cuts to Expire on People Making over $1 Million:

Yep it sucks to be rich! LOL, not really. The only argument I listen to is that raising taxes on people who make $250K-$750K will hit the small business owner, hurt the economy and end up causing layoffs. True and that is why $250K get to keep their tax benefits. In reality $250K is not upper class, its upper middle class! $750K probably isn't the small business owner, but better safe then sorry. Once you hit the million mark, it's more than safe to say its not small busines anymore. All the crying of leaving the country, going overseas, stopping working, killing innovation, punishing the successful are talking points!

That is my plan and I'm sticking to it!

 

[DiamondDave]

repaying the debt is in the budget, ddave. what is not is a surplus which banks one budget into the next.

its hard to say what's responsible for a debt or a budget defecit. obviously your opinions on what should be cut will differ from the next guy. your nostalgia for the early years of the republic might not account for the sovereign crises the US found itself struggling with in the early years. we certainly couldn't balance a budget back then.

i am convinced that there's a hype factor among those who you feel will be the saviors of fiscal discipline. they dont have any ideas, they don't seem to have thought anything out or considered anything which we've learned about economics since the founding. ultimately their bound by wagners law like everyone else.

We have not had a surplus since 1957

I can say I am paying down my credit card $1000 extra this year... but it really is not factual when I add an additional $2000 to the total

I have no ideas?? Hardly... I have tons of ideas on what should be cut... and as for bringing it about... I grind politicians I come in contact with about the rules of the constitution and about the wasteful government spending... and I only support candidates who have an agenda to bring about some of that change.. and they drop from my support if they do not follow through... and as for my ideas about what should be cut... you are right that an idiot progressive will say cut the military (though military is one of the things constitutionally charged as a responsibility of the Fed) while calling for more and more increased entitlement programs (which are not a charge of the Fed in the constitution)... I go strictly by the enumerated powers and stand for having a constitutional amendment to rightfully empower the FED with additional responsibilities or powers... and that if congressional justification is not directly shown, the agencies and programs need to be defunded and gotten rid of

I think we had a surplus in 1969 and 98-01.

History of Deficits and Surpluses In The United States

Not when using complete statistics with budget and intergovernmental spending

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual

 

[DiamondDave]

repaying the debt is in the budget, ddave. what is not is a surplus which banks one budget into the next.

its hard to say what's responsible for a debt or a budget defecit. obviously your opinions on what should be cut will differ from the next guy. your nostalgia for the early years of the republic might not account for the sovereign crises the US found itself struggling with in the early years. we certainly couldn't balance a budget back then.

i am convinced that there's a hype factor among those who you feel will be the saviors of fiscal discipline. they dont have any ideas, they don't seem to have thought anything out or considered anything which we've learned about economics since the founding. ultimately their bound by wagners law like everyone else.

We have not had a surplus since 1957

this is not accurate. for one thing, there was a budget surplus in 98, 99, 00, maybe 01?

what i mean is that the required debt service (like the credit card min. payment and interest) is factored into every budget, a factor which is creeping up and up, obviously.

I have no ideas?? Hardly... I have tons of ideas on what should be cut... and as for bringing it about... I grind politicians I come in contact with about the rules of the constitution and about the wasteful government spending... and I only support candidates who have an agenda to bring about some of that change.. and they drop from my support if they do not follow through...

particularly, i was talking about politicians. i believe that most of the politicians who you speak to merely stroke your values for your support. in real politics, your take on the constitution is not considered correct, and small government ideas about the US aren't serious. my guess is that these politicians are fully aware of this when they shake your hand. the fact of the matter is that when the spotlight is on them, they are not willing to repeat your values to the public. they certainly are not going to repeat them on the floor of congress. when they do publicly shill for the get out of our way crowd, their approach is all rhetoric, no substance or practical applicability.

...and that if congressional justification is not directly shown...

this is not how the US works or was intended to. this was never a paper government, ddave. sorry... of the people, for the people is more like it.

Hiding spending from the budget does not equal a surplus

 

[Flopper]

It's important to make progress toward a balanced budget but it's not necessary that we balance it. We have had a deficit 36 of the last 40 years. I think the most important factor to consider is the effect on interest rates. When it appears that we have runaway deficit spending and are making no progress in controlling the deficit, then investors both here and abroad become hesitant about lending to the US. This will push up interest rates and can make things a lot worse. Of course, it's all relative to what other countries are doing to control deficit spending. Right now Europe is belt tightening and the US should follow suit.

DUDE! The Fed has openly admitted to monetizing our debt for 18 months! AND the Fed controls interest rates on our debt. Why are you posting nonsense?

Quantitative Easing, does not actually set interest rates but does put a downward pressure on the rates. It is recognized as an unsustainable policy and is intended only to provide an increase in the money supply to stimulate the economy when no other tools are available.

Reduction of the deficit is no guarantee that the fed will reverse their policy. In fact, if the government were to wipe out the the deficit by massive spending cuts over a short period of time the feds would use whatever tool is available to increase the money supply which at the current time is Quantitative Easing. This is why I believe we need a gradual reduction in deficits.

 

[antagon]

Hiding spending from the budget does not equal a surplus

when people refer to budget surpluses, they're referring to the congressional budget. there have been surpluses. the government has off-budget items, that is those which are determined automatically. there are surpluses and deficits (mostly surplus) off budget, and for that reason, congress is kept away from that cash. i'm not aware of the budgets in the late 90s having the sort of hiding that the iraq/afghanistan war budgets did. can you substantiate that?