Debt to grow by $7T over 10 years you say?

[candycorn]

I saw this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/178222-even-with-deal-debt-still-on-track-to-grow-by-7-trillion-over-next-10-years.html#post3939722

It leads me to this question.

Why not, in the first year of a Presidential term (lets say she/he is elected in 2012...the first year will be 2013), they and the Congress negotiate a 4 year budget?

It seems to me that any deal that doesn't make immediate cuts is subject to the fools the red states send to Congress in the next election...and subject to the fools that the blue states send as well.

So why not force a Quadrennial budget instead of the yearly, I-Never-Agreed-To-That fest that is sure to take place.

Thoughts?

 

[ba1614]

It's a not very funny joke the way they always punt the cuts to the next guy. It looks like these cuts take effect 2013, and I'll guarantee that if the obama somehow wins in 2012, that will be punted again until 2017.
Making them accountable makes sense to me, and what you suggest sounds reasonable. I would add that it has to balance at the end of the 4yrs. No accounting bullshit numbers either, real life money.

 

[zzzz]

Our legislatures are scared and that is how they govern. Scared of what? Scared of losing the next election. They do not govern for the good of the country, they govern for what is good for them. And that means they look out for the people who give them money for those elections because without money today you cannot be elected. So they will never make the decisions that need to be made or pass legislation that is unpopular no matter how much it is needed.

 

[candycorn]

It's a not very funny joke the way they always punt the cuts to the next guy. It looks like these cuts take effect 2013, and I'll guarantee that if the obama somehow wins in 2012, that will be punted again until 2017.
Making them accountable makes sense to me, and what you suggest sounds reasonable. I would add that it has to balance at the end of the 4yrs. No accounting bullshit numbers either, real life money.

I agree; no tricks; no counting savings as income...take your tax receipts from the year before and thats your budget. If the economy grows, your actual tax receipts should be larger in the actual calendar year. Use the Inaugural year as the benchmark for all 4 years even though the receipts will be larger. In the fifth year the re-elected President or the new POTUS does the same for the next 4 years. Sis boom bah.

 

[candycorn]

Our legislatures are scared and that is how they govern. Scared of what? Scared of losing the next election. They do not govern for the good of the country, they govern for what is good for them. And that means they look out for the people who give them money for those elections because without money today you cannot be elected. So they will never make the decisions that need to be made or pass legislation that is unpopular no matter how much it is needed.

Which is why, I think, it is a good idea to have a quadrennial budget Then maybe have enhancements that are matched dollar for dollar with revenue increases or cuts from the quadrennial but the idea that the next Congress will just wad up the deal passed today/tomorrow and toss it over their shoulder is not an academic argument. It WILL happen.

 

[Zander]

We don't even need cuts- a simple spending freeze at this years bloated levels - will balance the budget by 2016.

 

[Flopper]

I saw this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/178222-even-with-deal-debt-still-on-track-to-grow-by-7-trillion-over-next-10-years.html#post3939722

It leads me to this question.

Why not, in the first year of a Presidential term (lets say she/he is elected in 2012...the first year will be 2013), they and the Congress negotiate a 4 year budget?

It seems to me that any deal that doesn't make immediate cuts is subject to the fools the red states send to Congress in the next election...and subject to the fools that the blue states send as well.

So why not force a Quadrennial budget instead of the yearly, I-Never-Agreed-To-That fest that is sure to take place.

Thoughts?

A 4 year budget? It's taking over a year to get one year budget through congress.

 

[Full-Auto]

I saw this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/178222-even-with-deal-debt-still-on-track-to-grow-by-7-trillion-over-next-10-years.html#post3939722

It leads me to this question.

Why not, in the first year of a Presidential term (lets say she/he is elected in 2012...the first year will be 2013), they and the Congress negotiate a 4 year budget?

It seems to me that any deal that doesn't make immediate cuts is subject to the fools the red states send to Congress in the next election...and subject to the fools that the blue states send as well.

So why not force a Quadrennial budget instead of the yearly, I-Never-Agreed-To-That fest that is sure to take place.

Thoughts?

A 4 year budget? It's taking over a year to get one year budget through congress.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Changes of this nature won't happen. We need term limits.

 

[Zander]

Fiscal sanity in three easy steps....

Step 1- Freeze Federal Spending for 5 years- creates a massive surplus by 2016.
Step 2- Cap future Federal Spending at 18% of the prior years GDP
Step 3- Overturn Obamacare. We can't afford another entitlement program.

 

[Full-Auto]

Fiscal sanity in three easy steps....

Step 1- Freeze Federal Spending for 5 years- creates a massive surplus by 2016.
Step 2- Cap future Federal Spending at 18% of the prior years GDP
Step 3- Overturn Obamacare. We can't afford another entitlement program.

Hear hear

 

[Wiseacre]

The 7 trillion in new debt is the optimistic projection. Unless the GOP wins the WH is 2012 and 2016. Oh, and they gotta win the Senate and keep the House too.

 

[NYcarbineer]

We don't even need cuts- a simple spending freeze at this years bloated levels - will balance the budget by 2016.

Those are some wildly optimistic revenue projections.

Are you aware that 2011 revenues are less than 10% higher than they were in 2000?

 

[edthecynic]

The 7 trillion in new debt is the optimistic projection. Unless the GOP wins the WH is 2012 and 2016. Oh, and they gotta win the Senate and keep the House too.

Gee, in 2009 the CON$ were telling us just how bad it was to have one party control the House, Senate and White House. How the worm has turned!

 

[Zander]

We don't even need cuts- a simple spending freeze at this years bloated levels - will balance the budget by 2016.

Those are some wildly optimistic revenue projections.

Are you aware that 2011 revenues are less than 10% higher than they were in 2000?

Wildly optimistic? The revenue growth projection are from the CBO - maybe you should call them up and tell them why they are wrong? What percentage growth in revenues do you project, and what qualifications do you hold that would lend your projections any credibility? More importantly, do you think that federal spending should continue to grow by 8% per year as it has been??

These morons is DC play a shell game with spending numbers- they base their budgets on "baseline spending" that includes automatic increases in spending every year- the average is 8%. So if they project a 8% increase in spending for next year and they only get a 4% hike - they call it a 4% cut. It's pure insanity!

The facts show that the only way to get our deficits under control is to curb spending. It worked with a GOP Congress and Bill Clinton in the White House in the 1990's, and it's worked all over the world. New Zealand got rid of a big budget deficit in the 1990s with a five-year spending freeze. Canada also got rid of red ink that decade with a five-year period where spending grew by an average of only 1 percent per year.

We don't need higher taxes that will cripple growth, we need to FREEZE spending.

 

[MeBelle]

What ever happened to Pay-Go that was promised?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

We don't even need cuts- a simple spending freeze at this years bloated levels - will balance the budget by 2016.

Yeah.....'cause Everybody knows that prices/costs never increase, on anything.....like that $.28/gal I paid for gas, or a pack o' cigarettes.....in '65.

You Teabaggers will never be accused o' being economists.

 

[waltky]

Granny says, "Dat's right...

... all dem do nothin' politicians is doin'...

... is kickin' the can down the road.

 

[candycorn]

We don't even need cuts- a simple spending freeze at this years bloated levels - will balance the budget by 2016.

Yeah.....'cause Everybody knows that prices/costs never increase, on anything.....like that $.28/gal I paid for gas, or a pack o' cigarettes.....in '65.

You Teabaggers will never be accused o' being economists.

Of course it's en vogue to criticize all federal employees in this forum and elsewhere but the idea of making sure someone doesn't get a raise in 5 years is silly. I could bring up the troops and of course every righty will scream...WE NEVER SAID THAT!!!!. But really, a great many federal workers are doing yeoman's jobs every day. And there are some who haven't done acceptable work in years too; just like many in the private sector.

Yeah; freeze spending because gas never goes up to deliver mail, drive jeeps, fly planes, etc.... I know , I know...."these are the tough decisions we have to make thanks to the __________s." Fill in the _____ with whoever your personal boogeyman is.

 

[candycorn]

What ever happened to Pay-Go that was promised?

That was the last Congress...wasn't it? They change their minds and whoever was elected in '10 didn't sign off on it.

Hence the OP.