Gov't Spending Caps

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Wiseacre, Jul 6, 2011.

  1. Wiseacre
    Offline

    Wiseacre Retired USAF Chief Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2011
    Messages:
    6,025
    Thanks Received:
    1,192
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    Ratings:
    +1,194
    Most of us budget our money, make sure we pay the bills we gotta pay and then spend or save what's left according to our needs or wishes. All well and good, but why doesn't our federal gov't do the same? We should all live within our means, true? Well why shouldn't they?

    Historically, gov't spending at the federal level runs about 18.5%, these days it's up to about 25%. One of the things I want to see out of the debt ceiling negotiations is some kind of deal for spending caps, the gov't should not exceed say 19% or even 20% of the expected GDP for that fiscal year. I'd pay down the debt with any surpluses and require shortfalls to be paid for the following year. They can then work out how to best spend that money, starting with the non-discretionary stuff first.

    Usually revenue goes up year over year if your economy is okay, but I'd only allow a hike in tax rates if you could garner a two thirds vote on it in both chambers of Congress. I think this would necessitate more scrutiny of functions done at the federal level that are better handled by the states, and also cut more fat to have money for more needed programs.

    I know we've already got some form of pay-go, which has all but been ignored. IMHO, emergencies can arise and should be funded, but bypassing the spending cap has to be strictly limited. I'd require a two thirds vote in both chambers to do that too.

    Bottom line - do not allow Congress or the president to spend more than we take in, or at least close to it. I don't know of another way to restore some semblance of fiscal discline.
     
  2. midcan5
    Offline

    midcan5 liberal / progressive

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2007
    Messages:
    10,772
    Thanks Received:
    2,361
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Philly, PA
    Ratings:
    +3,281
    The analogy sounds fine until you consider most people have a mortgage, college debt, wedding debt, car debt, etc etc. It's just the way we live, you can debate it, but let's face it most of us started out in life with lots of debt. It isn't debt that matters it is income versus spending or values versus greed. Consider this graph, check out income.

    [​IMG]

    "The consequence can be seen, for anyone who is not blindly following a dismal ideology, that for decades le beau monde has peddled over the voices of reason -- and still does to this very day -- arguing that laissez-faire would bring heaven to earth. The result is here for all to see. Many will ask for more of the same in the name of sheer ignorance and emotional convictions based on an ideology they do not master, to the benefit of a class to which they do not belong -- not even considering the ecological bind that will bring us all to the realization that a paradigm change is not only required but needed if the survival of all species is a desired and chosen outcome." Swans Commentary: The Economy Is Not Coming Back: Part I: A Short History of the Maelstrom, by Gilles d'Aymery - ga287
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. Wiseacre
    Offline

    Wiseacre Retired USAF Chief Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2011
    Messages:
    6,025
    Thanks Received:
    1,192
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    Ratings:
    +1,194

    Like I said, you pay the bills you gotta pay, mortgage, car payment, whatever. I have no idea what else you're talking about though. You wanna come down to earth and explain why we should not set limits on how much the gov't can spend relative to how much revenue they take in?
     
  4. martybegan
    Online

    martybegan Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2010
    Messages:
    29,278
    Thanks Received:
    3,998
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +10,899
    Please remember WHO has to initiate spending bills in our system, the House. And throught a part of this time, WHO controlled said body?

    The issue is that, yes Keysian economics call for deficit spending in times of economic slowdown. What people have not applied recently is that you need to pay the debt back during boom times. What happens is the goverment during the boom time instead keeps spending at the higher levels, never going back. Clinton should have used the peace dividend for removing the debt from the 80's. Instead it went to increased social programs.

    Now the governemnt doesnt even give lip service to true keysian spending, basically going for all debt increases all the time.

    Keysian debt shouldnt last more than a decade, the current version is perpetual debt.
     
  5. hellofromwarsaw
    Offline

    hellofromwarsaw BANNED

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2010
    Messages:
    1,617
    Thanks Received:
    112
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    NY 26th finally Dem!
    Ratings:
    +112
    'Keysian debt shouldnt last more than a decade, the current version is perpetual debt."

    Unfair conclusion at this point- this is an emergency- and Clinton had a Pub House '94-2000
     

Share This Page