 dogmaXYZPremium
join:2002-08-15
Boulder City, NV
kudos:1 | ...so I am going over the Presidents budget proposal... This budget, like every other budget before it for the past 65 years, places bets on whats going to transpire in the future. From the graph above, the forecast basically shows that either the economy will almost double, or taxes will rise, or there will be very steep inflation, or some combination of all three.
I think many will agree that the odds of the economy doubling are remote at best. A good dose of double digit inflation for about 5-7 years would work wonders on reducing the debt:
US inflation of 6% for four years would reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio by 20%, a scenario similar to what happened following WWII.
What no administration or congress has the balls to tackle is the fearsome-foursome; Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and Defense. The real core of the problem. I really can't blame the politicos as they are only doing what the voters want. Any politico that even uttered a large cut back on these welfare programs would be tarred and feathered. Voters, almost who are always older, vote themselves these entitlements, and would rather see the Country default on it's external obligations than to fix the primary problem.
This is why the office of management and budget had to force the spending bar in the graph so high, and try to make up all of the other numbers to support it. That represents the transfer of wealth from the young to the old and to the military industrial complex.
Going foreword, excluding the fools gold of the stock market, I think there will be continued growth at a snails pace (sub 2%/Yr) average, unemployment of 9% [U3] basically until Fannie/Freddie really wind down. My bet (hope?) is 80's-like inflation. |
|
 SnakeoilIgnore Button. The coward's feature.Premium
join:2000-08-05
Mentor, OH
kudos:1 | So instead of cutting spending, they are going to spend more?
And spend more then what they make?
I wish I could run a business like that, and survive.
--
To All Real Dads. For All Real Moms Every Real
Service. |
|
dogmaXYZPremium
join:2002-08-15
Boulder City, NV
kudos:1 | ...well, they are cutting the rate of spending. This politico double talk is targeted at a populace with a 5th grade comprehension capacity.
Government isn't a business (although it looks like one). Thus the analogies to business really aren't appropriate. I would say the main reason for this is that businesses can not forcibly increase prices to their consumers, they cannot declare wars of physical aggression on their competitors and they can not valuate currency.
Of course this doesn't mean that a government can't fail. But generally this doesn't happen until it's citizens go hungry.
Perhaps someone can find a similar graph from the government from 8 years ago that forecast gdp/tax revenue/government spending? |
|
Zoder
join:2002-04-16
Miami, FL | not exactly the same graph, but I found this. |
|
| reply to dogma
I hate to say it but the problem in Washington is that MOST Americans don't pay enough taxes. If you pay little or no federal income tax, you don't think that the politicians are spending too much and you don't care what they do. |
|
 r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·AT&T DSL Service
 ·row44
| said by Waterbug:I hate to say it but the problem in Washington is that MOST Americans don't pay enough taxes. If you pay little or no federal income tax, you don't think that the politicians are spending too much and you don't care what they do.
I completely agree with that.
If we had a constitutional amendment that forced balanced budgets and automatically tied in the tax rates to how much they spend, I guarantee they would cut spending as that would be the only way to lower taxes.
Too bad they would never do this as no one really wants to cut spending.
Every state but Vermont has a requirement to have a balanced budget. Why not the federal government?
--
Your behavior is inconsistent with your desire to be treated like everyone else. |
|
davePremium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:7 Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to dogma
said by dogma: Voters, almost who are always older, vote themselves these entitlements, and would rather see the Country default on it's external obligations than to fix the primary problem. Speaking as one who's approaching the designation of 'older', I'm offended by the use of the word 'entitlements' as it is used nowadays, which is a code word for 'people expecting something for nothing'. These systems were basically sold on the premise of pay now, collect later. I've been paying: I think I want to collect later. So, from a dictionary point of view, yes I think I'm entitled, but it's not money for nothing.
I view any attempt to unilaterally declare no-more-payouts as one side defaulting on an (implied) contract.
Now, let me say that I'm not entirely opposed to a little sacrifice for the good of the country. It's simply that the sacrifice appears to be one sided. As long as I suspect there are people earning orders of magnitude more than me who pay less tax than I do, I will not be receptive to the idea of cutting back on my 'entitlements'.
After you've closed all tax loopholes, come back to me and talk about social security reform. |
|
|
|
davePremium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:7 Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
·Verizon Online DSL
1 edit | reply to dogma
said by dogma: Thus the analogies to business really aren't appropriate. And, as I said elsewhere, unlike a business, we can't simply get rid of unprofitable divisions. |
|
horsemouthPlease Clarify My CSPPremium
join:2002-03-13
canada | reply to dave
I was under the impression that "social security" Was a pay as you go thing. Unlike the Canadian thing were we invest planet wide and hope for the best. |
|
 lolwhatYou're getting warmerPremium
join:2001-06-11
PonziWorld
 ·Callcentric
| reply to dave
said by dave:
I view any attempt to unilaterally declare no-more-payouts as one side defaulting on an (implied) contract.
Dave, what you apparently don't realize is that the courts established decades ago that Social Security is legally a tax. Thus, under current law, you are entitled to sweet-fuck-all if you attempt to collect. Oh, and the "lock box" doesn't exist; our wonderful gummint spent all that SS money - and then some (witness the deficit).
--
Tutto nelle banche, niente al di fuori delle banche, nulla contro le banche |
|
davePremium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:7 Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
·Verizon Online DSL
| OK, in that case we should remove the existence of 'SS tax' as a separate line-item on individual tax bills, and instead increase the federal tax rate by the appropriate amount.
This has two benefits:
1) Honesty in advertising, by avoiding the telco-style approach of charging every little fee separately and hoping you can't add up.
2) Removing the contribution ceiling and thus increasing revenue. |
|
horsemouthPlease Clarify My CSPPremium
join:2002-03-13
canada | said by dave:OK, in that case we should remove the existence of 'SS tax' as a separate line-item on individual tax bills, and instead increase the federal tax rate by the appropriate amount.
I have a comedy club in Canada.That is your best chance of making money off that idea.HONEST |
|
dogmaXYZPremium
join:2002-08-15
Boulder City, NV
kudos:1 | reply to dave
said by dave:Speaking as one who's approaching the designation of 'older', I'm offended by the use of the word 'entitlements' as it is used nowadays, ...As long as I suspect there are people earning orders of magnitude more than me who pay less tax than I do, I will not be receptive to the idea of cutting back on my 'entitlements'.
After you've closed all tax loopholes, come back to me and talk about social security reform.
And thus lies the problem. It's not an implied contract, it's an inferred contract. Like lolwhat  points out, it's not even a legal contract at all. (I don't recall ever signing some document that was counter-signed by the U.S. government denoting payments to me at some future date in return for my payments to the government now)
"Entitlements" is used in the pejorative now because no one wants their tax money used to pay someone else. You and I and almost every other taxpayer have paid into a government run ponzi. That's the hard, cold reality of the situation. Plus we have all also paid into a fund known as national defense, which itself is based primarily on irrational fear.
We all go into this collective denial that somehow the piper never needs to be paid, at least not by us. So we continue to elect representatives that tell us what we want to hear, and play hot potato/kick the can down the road.
If a friend invested his hard earned money in some MLM pyramid scam, then wound up holding the empty bag at the end of the day, we would just shake our heads and tell him that this was a hard lesson learned. Pick up the pieces, get over it, and move on.
But we don't want to hear that when it happens to us. |
|
| reply to Waterbug
said by Waterbug:I hate to say it but the problem in Washington is that MOST Americans don't pay enough taxes. If you pay little or no federal income tax, you don't think that the politicians are spending too much and you don't care what they do.
Vehemently DISAGREE! The problem is we have TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT.
Reduce government to it's 3 moral purposes:
Protect individual rights
Protect the borders/national defense
Provide courts
All other use of government is cronyism and outright wealth redistribution. |
|
| said by disconnected :said by Waterbug:I hate to say it but the problem in Washington is that MOST Americans don't pay enough taxes. If you pay little or no federal income tax, you don't think that the politicians are spending too much and you don't care what they do.
Vehemently DISAGREE! The problem is we have TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT. Reduce government to it's 3 moral purposes: Protect individual rights Protect the borders/national defense Provide courts All other use of government is cronyism and outright wealth redistribution. We have TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT because people who pay little or no income tax are getting something for nothing. If YOU are getting something for nothing, you love the system. You're right, it is wealth redistribution and the voters on the receiving end want to maintain the status-quo.
I think that we are both saying the same thing, but expressing it from a different point of view. |
|
davePremium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:7 Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to disconnected
said by disconnected :All other use of government is cronyism and outright wealth redistribution.
I'm quite fond of roads, the fire department, clean water, and the relative absence of adulterants in food, to name but four. |
|
 KommiePremium
join:2003-05-13
united state
kudos:2 | reply to dogma
Cut Defense Spending by 75%. It will solve all the budget problems. The Social Security Trust fund was robbed by Defense Spending. |
|
KommiePremium
join:2003-05-13
united state
kudos:2 Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| reply to dogma
From my other Post:
»useconomy.about.com/od/usfederal···nary.htm
Discretionary spending in FY 2010 was $1.39 trillion, or 38% of total spending. More than half ($844 billion) was security spending, which includes the Department of Defense, overseas contingency programs and Homeland Security.
Non-security spending was $553 billion. The largest departments were: Health and Human Services ($84 billion), Transportation ($76 billion), Education ($46.8 billion), Housing and Urban Development ($43.6 billion) and Agriculture ($25 billion). (Source: OMB, Table S-11) |
|
KommiePremium
join:2003-05-13
united state
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
| reply to disconnected
I also vehemently disagree. Government should be responsible for the welfare of its citizens. We have a right to pursue happiness and thats what the founders wanted. Our Government was based on the ideals of the enlightenment.
We should stop being an Empire and maybe model ourselves after Scandinavia. |
|
 GomezExile in waitingPremium,Ex-Mod 06-11
join:2001-02-21
Atlanta, GA | We digress here, but it's worthwhile.
There is nothing in the constitution granting rights. The wording is very specific to limit what the government can not do, not what the people can do.
The people are empowered to the pursuit of happiness, by the nature of the document. It wasn't established to create an entitlement state, but rather to prevent tyranny.
It's a common misconception that 'We the people' are granted rights. We have the rights, the document is to protect them.
--
It's a fact : Chicks dig Mafia players.
'Wanna help buy a goat?' - »www.kiva.org
|
|
