OK heres the deal

[mnbasketball]

You can make every excuse that you care to thnk of - until you're willing to discuss significant cuts in entitlement spending, you aren't serious about reducing the deficit.

But I am willing, what do you want to cut?

 

[mnbasketball]

You can cut defense spending ($655B) to $0 and take every dime from those making $250k/yr (<$534B) and cover just over 50% of entitlement spending.

800 billion is already pid for, how many times do we have to pay for them. You collect SS and other payroll taxes and then you want to act like they are not there.

How much is spent on entitlement?
How much is collected up front on entitlments?
How do you add deficiet interest on the debt to entitlements, why don't you add that to the military?

 

[M14 Shooter]

FY2009
Income, Social insurance taxes: $890B
Outlays, Soc Sec/Medicare: $1176B
Deficit: $277B
well since people actually do pay taxes shouldn't some of it goes to these things?

They do - to the tune of $890B/yr.
The point you miss is that spending on these entitlement programs exceeds their associated revenues - meaning that, contrary to what you're trying to say, they do indeed contribute to the deficit.

 

[mnbasketball]

The military budget of the United States during FY 2009 was approximately $683 billion in expenses for the Department of Defense (DoD) and $54 billion for Homeland Security, a total of $737 billion.[40] The U.S. defense budget (excluding spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Homeland Security, and Veteran's Affairs) is around 4% of GDP.[41] Adding these other costs places defense and homeland security spending between 5% and 6% of GDP. The DoD baseline budget, excluding supplemental funding for the wars, has grown from $297 billion in FY2001 to a budgeted $534 billion for FY2010, an 81% increase.[42] According to the CBO, defense spending grew 9% annually on average from fiscal year 2000-2009.

Now lets start talking about what is really growing, 9% a year.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You can cut defense spending ($655B) to $0 and take every dime from those making $250k/yr (<$534B) and cover just over 50% of entitlement spending.

800 billion is already pid for, how many times do we have to pay for them

OK... lets recalculate:
$890B revenue, $2288B outlay.
Deficit created by entitlement spending:$1398B
reduce defense spending to $0 - adds $655B to revenue
Deficit created by entitleent spending:$743B
Collect every dime from those making more than $250k - adds $534B to revenue
Deficit created by entitlement spending:$209B*
:shrug:

*As noted, this assumes that those making more than $250k/yr do not pay any income tax.
These people already account for ~38% of federal income revenue (about $350B) so taxing them at 100% will generate less than $200B - thus, the final deficit created by entitlement spending number is more like $550B

I ask again:
Now that you have cut defense spenidng to $0 and taken every dime from those making more than $250k.yr - how do you plan to make up that $550B?

No matter how you cut, no matter how you try to twist it, the only way to meaningfully address the deficit is to significantly cut entitlement spending.

 

[mnbasketball]

They do - to the tune of $890B/yr.
The point you miss is that spending on these entitlement programs exceeds their associated revenues - meaning that, contrary to what you're trying to say, they do indeed contribute to the deficit.

This is wrong, people are paying taxes on SS wages much of the time. The money being spent by these people is going to crate jobs which these people pay taxes also. The same goes for all entitlement programs, as it puts people to work, collects taxes and keeps people out of the need for help.

But when you have a defense budget, only a small part of it goes to create economic growth with in the USA.

and none of it has a special tax just to pay for it. it's 100% comming right out of the budget without any tax associated to pay for it.

 

[whitehall]

We can do both if we have quality leadership instead of timid socialist anti capitalist administrations. America runs on oil not windmills or tiny cars with gigantic batteries. There is no substitute for oil and yet lefties who should know better believe B. Hussein when he and his stooge Harry Reid say that "oil is evil". Obama hired a communist who once led an arson and looting rampage to be on his "green jobs" board. What does that tell you about his agenda? There are no green jobs. Obama referred to the US Chamber of Commerce as a sinister political organization. What does it tell you about his pollitical philosophy? The sooner the left wing puts pressure on Obama and Reid to cooperate with the congressional majority and create an environment in which the private sector will expand and prosper, the sooner the government will become solvent enough to fund needed infrastructure repair.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The military budget of the United States during FY 2009 was approximately $683 billion in expenses for the Department of Defense (DoD) and $54 billion for Homeland Security

DHS is not the military.
You cannot add those numbers together w/o throwing intellectual honesty right out the window.

FY2009, total defense spending: $655B
This number includes ALL defense spending, including supplemental wartime spending bills.

Now lets start talking about what is really growing, 9% a year.

Yes, lets.
Defense speonding FY2001:$306.1B
Defense spending FY2009: $655.0B
INcrease sine FY2001: $349B - 114%

Entitlement spending FY2001: $1096.1B
Entitlement spending FY2008: $1788.1B
Entitlement spending FY2009: $2282.7B
FY2008-2009 increase: $494B
Increase since FY2001: $1186.6B = 108.2%


The INCREASE in entitlement spendng, FY2008-2009 was 75% of TOTAL defense spending, FY2009.
The INCREASE in entitlement spendng, FY2008-2009 is 143% of the increase in TOTAL defense spending, FY2001- FY2009.

So.... the $349B increase in defense spending FY2001-2009 caused the deficits, but the $1186.6B increase in entitlements did not.

:roll:

 

[M14 Shooter]

They do - to the tune of $890B/yr.
The point you miss is that spending on these entitlement programs exceeds their associated revenues - meaning that, contrary to what you're trying to say, they do indeed contribute to the deficit.

This is wrong,

No. It is not. The numbers tell the story.
You cannot deny that story and remain intellectually honest.

 

[Ernie S.]

Want to put government money to good use? Hire several million of the unemployed to build a very very large wall across the southern border, then hire another several million to dig a large moat and then hire several million more to rid florida of Alligators. Now we're talking man.

Stealing my solution, are you? You forgot trucking all the dirt from the moat to New Orleans to raise them up above sea level.
Just remember that we hire illegals for the wall and moat. The wall goes up first, built from the southern side, then the moat gets dug, also from the southern side.

 

[mnbasketball]

Total Outlays (Federal Funds): $2,650 billion
MILITARY: 54% and $1,449 billion
NON-MILITARY: 46% and $1,210 billion

this is a lot closer to what is being spent, as you don't count the cost of the iraq war, or benefits to past military or other cost directly associateds to the military but picked up under other programs.

Now tell us what it looks like.

 

[mnbasketball]

For the 2010 fiscal year, the president's base budget of the Department of Defense rose to $533.8 billion. Adding spending on "overseas contingency operations" brings the sum to $663.8 billion.[1][2]

When the budget was signed into law on October 28, 2009, the final size of the Department of Defense's budget was $680 billion, $16 billion more than President Obama had requested.[3] An additional $37 billion supplemental bill to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was expected to pass in the spring of 2010, but has been delayed by the House of Representatives after passing the Senate.[4][5] Defense-related expenditures outside of the Department of Defense constitute between $319 billion and $654 billion in additional spending, bringing the total for defense spending to between $1.01 and $1.35 trillion in fiscal year 2010.[6]

Military budget of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Cecilie1200]

Right now we are in hard times and we are spending a lot of money trying to get things back to a manageable level where people have a chance to live a normal life.

The big question to me is what is the most important thing that needs to be done and how should we move towards that goal.

Fighting over little things or should we be putting our total sight on putting America back to work. Should we start doing things that will focus the private sector to create jobs by working on things we all understand that we need at this very moment. Good roads, new bridges, new electrical grids, new power plants.

Sure it is going to take public money, everything we do for the country cost public money, from running the govt to oversight, to building infrastructure to having a military.

Do people really believe that refraining from doing things as a govt because of it's cost is a bad thing, and who would do these things if not the govt .
Should we privatize the military and then think they will act in the peoples best interest? We all need roads and bridges, but should we go back to charging people a toll? The electrical system needs improvement, but if that cost is just added onto the cost of energy it most likely would force many business and citizens to not be able to afford what it would cost. Do we need to privatize the schools and turn the students over to local companies to determine what they are taught or forced to learn?

What is more important right NOW? what would you do?

Wow, that was general and random. Can you vague this up for us a little?

What the hell, precisely, are you wanting to do? What's the proposal here?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Total Outlays (Federal Funds): $2,650 billion
MILITARY: 54% and $1,449 billion
NON-MILITARY: 46% and $1,210 billion
this is a lot closer to what is being spent.

Not according to the CBO, whch I have cited and you have read.
FY2009
Total spending $3518.2B
Defense spending $655.8B = 18.6%
Entitlement spending $2288.7B = 65.0%
Non-defense spending $2862.4B = 81.4%

The INCREASE in entitlement spendng, FY2008-2009 was 75% of TOTAL defense spending, FY2009.
The INCREASE in entitlement spendng, FY2008-2009 is 143% of the increase in TOTAL defense spending, FY2001- FY2009.

Historical Budget Data

When you have a better srouce that ther CBO, which is tasked by law to keep track of these things, you let me know.
And, of course, when the CBO releases the FY2010 numbers, we can look at them as well.

as you don't count the cost of the iraq war...

Yes it does, as the CBO Defense spending number includes suppemental spending bills.

or benefits to past military...

Which are entitlements and counted under that spending.

or other cost directly associateds to the military but picked up under other programs.

Like, specifically, what, and, specifically, how much?
Be sure to include your cite.

Now tell us what it looks like.

It continues to look like you're trying to avoid an inescapable conclusion, that to meaningfully affect the deficit, it is necessary to cut entitlement spending.

 

[Avatar4321]

We're not spending money... we're printing money and monetizing debt. As for the rest... we need to get back to basics. Cradle to grave insurance is what is killing us... i.e., 35% of the American population (122,500,000) people on some sort of public assistance?

Undoable.

WOW, 122 million on public assistance, you want to explain this a little? Are you saying that SS which has a 2 trillion dollar surplus, that is public assistance?

SS has a two trillion surplus? Where did you hear that? There is no actual money set aside in a lock box. There is a file cabinet with IOU's where the SS money that comes in goes out immediately as part of the general budget.

What would I do? I'd got spending 25% right off the bat. Across the board. Will it hurt? Hell yeah, but every agency of the government with a budget needs to be told to reduce their budget and spending by 25% TODAY. Then no new debt can be incurred unless there is a proven way that it will be funded.

What is the first thing you do when you go to a credit counselor because you are teetering on the edge of bankruptcy? You cut up the credit cards, then you work out a plan to pay off the debt you have and a tight budget you can exist off of until you get your debt paid and you are back on your feet.

The gubmint ain't our mama. It isn't there to make everything better.

I have to disagree on one point. 25% is not high enough.

 

[M14 Shooter]

WOW, 122 million on public assistance, you want to explain this a little? Are you saying that SS which has a 2 trillion dollar surplus, that is public assistance?

SS has a two trillion surplus? Where did you hear that? There is no actual money set aside in a lock box. There is a file cabinet with IOU's where the SS money that comes in goes out immediately as part of the general budget.

What would I do? I'd got spending 25% right off the bat. Across the board. Will it hurt? Hell yeah, but every agency of the government with a budget needs to be told to reduce their budget and spending by 25% TODAY. Then no new debt can be incurred unless there is a proven way that it will be funded.

What is the first thing you do when you go to a credit counselor because you are teetering on the edge of bankruptcy? You cut up the credit cards, then you work out a plan to pay off the debt you have and a tight budget you can exist off of until you get your debt paid and you are back on your feet.

The gubmint ain't our mama. It isn't there to make everything better.

I have to disagree on one point. 25% is not high enough.

Indeed.

FY2009 spending was $3518B and generated a $1413B deficit.
Cutting total spending by $879.5B leaves a $533.5B deficit

But, even then, it leaves the same question I have been asking and have not had answered:
FY2009 total defense spending was $655B. Cut that to $0 and you still need to cut $224B to reach that $879.5B figure..
Cut...from where?

 

[mnbasketball]

United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Both Social Security and Medicare are funded by payroll tax revenues dedicated to those programs. Program tax revenues historically have exceeded payouts, resulting in program surpluses and the building of trust fund balances. The trust funds earn interest. Both Social Security and Medicare each have two component trust funds. As of FY2008, Social Security had a combined $2.4 trillion trust fund balance and Medicare's was $380 billion. If during an individual year program payouts exceed the sum of tax income and interest earned during that year (i.e., an annual program deficit), the trust fund for the program is drawn down to the extent of the shortfall. Legally, the mandatory nature of these programs compels the government to fund them to the extent of tax income plus any remaining trust fund balances, borrowing as needed. Once the trust funds are eliminated through expected future deficits, technically these programs can only draw on payroll taxes during the current year. In effect, they are "pay as you go" programs, with additional legal claims to the extent of their remaining trust fund balances.[86]

so if we don't do anything to ss over the next 23 years we will still be in the black. Minor changes like increasing the income amounts or a small increase in the tax would put it in the black till 2073. And this doesn't mean it would be broke, all it would mean is that there wouldn't be a trust to draw on, so benefits might have to be reduced, but they don't go away and that is with no help from the federal govt income tax.

But you seem to want to add everything to entitlements yet when it comes to things that are either defense or directly related to defense you say that ain't fair.

But what i said before still is true, money spent on SS and other entitlements goes directly into the economy and creates taxes and is spent in America which in turns allows business to hire people. so without it the govt wouldn't be getting nearly as much in taxes.

Now if you want to get rid of programs that don't fund themselves, well lets look at them, and that includes the military and tax incentives to companies who sometimes pay no tax even while getting millions in tax refunds.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Both Social Security and Medicare are funded by payroll tax revenues dedicated to those programs. Program tax revenues historically have exceeded payouts, resulting in program surpluses and the building of trust fund balances.

There is exactly $0 in the SS and Medicare trust fund.
This 'trust fund' is full of IOUs that, when reclaimed, are funded thru general fund - that is, they are paid by income and corporate taxes. When this happens it will, of course, only -increase- the deficit.
In fact, its happening right now - see below.

Now if you want to get rid of programs that don't fund themselves...

FY2009
Revenue generated by SocSec and Medicare: $890.9B
SocSec and Medicare outlays: $1176.7B
Deficit: $285.8B
SocSec/Medicare do not fund themselves; they contribute $285.8B to the deficit.

Nothing you have posted here in any way negates the argument that the only way meaningfully address the deficit is to meaningfully cut entitlement programs.

 

[Big Fitz]

Post two, still is [/thread]

We're just ******* around now.

 

[mnbasketball]

OH so the govt can just take our money we pay for SS and MED, borrow it and tell us we have it in the bank for a rainy day and then a guy like you comes around years later and says BS, that paper doesn't mean squat you got nothing that is owed to you.

Kind of sounds like fraud to me. Well I disagree, just because you spent the money for a war or whatever you used it for, It's still mine and as far as most of us are concerned the govt is required to come up with it, and **** you're tax breaks at the top.