We Ain't Serious about Cutting Spending

[Waitone]

Nothing has changed enough to get serious about stopping insane spending.  The Pew poll shows definite trends but the absolute figures are still not there.

Word of caution.  I don't consider Pew to be a credible polling outfit.  It was the one who tanked for the elite powers and provided polling data showing strong public support for campaign finance control legislation which gave us McCain Feingold and expanded 527's and Soros' ownership of the democrat party.  Problem was no one else saw the support.  Anyway, so much for history.  I want to see a few more polls which haven't been released.  They may explain why the republican power structure hasn't been as aggressive as they professed during the election.  Proof positive Joe and Martha Sixpack have got to keep the heat on congress.

Wrong link.  Here is the correct link.
http://people-press.org/report/702/

[longeyes]

It's time for a "Scared Straight" moment.

The GOP needs to buy some prime time and find a tough, charismatic speaker to convey some hard truths about where we stand.  The party also needs to lay out the social ramifications of the austerity program it counsels; we need to do some preparation for what's coming and what's necessary.  This is the only way to wake up the public and sell what needs to be sold.  The GOP also needs to swear a "suicide pact" that put statesmanship--truth and honor--above re-election: that means pledging to be a one-time only Congressperson.  If you want real credibility delivering unpleasant truths this is what you're going to have to do.

People have reason to be afraid about what lies ahead.  They certainly won't welcome Leatherface coming at 'em with a chain-saw.  This is about a lot more than just cutting a budget; it is about changing a culture, and that's not something that can hinted at in soundbites or talked around in polspeak.

[TommyGunn]

I think we either CUT spending or the whole "house of cards" is going to come tumbling down.  Better we do it deliberatly albeit harshly than it collapse, 'cause then it's gonna clobber everyone more harshly than human beings can imagine.
Just my two cents.  Make that one cent.  

[longeyes]

If you want to get a consensus you have to talk survival, ours, our nation's, our children and grandchildren's.  In graphic terms.  Nothing less is going to break the addiction habit.

[Northwoods]

When Rand Paul's suggestion of a $500bil per year cut in spending is met with derision for going "too far" you know we're up a creek with the Reps as well as the Dems.  That $500bil is still only 1/3 of the cuts we'd need just to balance the budget.  To get onto a plan that pays down a large portion of our national debt in a reasonable time frame we'd have to cut still more.

[Boomhauer]

I think we either CUT spending or the whole "house of cards" is going to come tumbling down.  Better we do it deliberatly albeit harshly than it collapse, 'cause then it's gonna clobber everyone more harshly than human beings can imagine.
Just my two cents.  Make that one cent. 

I completely agree with you. Something's got to give sooner or later (and it doesn't look too distant in the future, either), and it looks like the politicians are doing everything they can to avoid doing what is necessary...

[longeyes]

Today Obama presented us with a beautifully wrapped turd he calls a budget.  It's an insult to our intelligence.  The reality is that when you are dealing with people who are as patently obsessive, ideologically and pathologically, as this crew in D.C., only one word comes to mind: intervention.

[AZRedhawk44]

The State will flex.

People tend to want to compare our up-coming crash to that of Argentina.

The flaw with this argument is that Argentina merely suffered a loss of money.  America is the most powerful Nation in the world.  America has power and influence undreamed of even by the King of the British Empire in its heyday. 

We won't crash from monetary collapse.  Oh, no.  We'll crash bloody.  When the money runs out and the printing presses no longer sate the inflation demon, our own government will use the Force monopoly.  In a mercenary manner, outside the boundaries of our country.  Look at Obama's "appeasement" policies towards the middle east and his abandoning of Israel recently.  The back-handed manner he's treated Great Britain in the last two years.  France is facing a socialist/islamofascist revolution and he's called them our greatest ally.  We'll tailor our foreign policy force projection to suit the whims of our debtors.  For a while, that will be as we abstain from action.  Then we will start to look like we're on the wrong side.  Watch for this if we get involved in Egypt, at all.

As our military is engaged in either do-nothing or do-wrong from a foreign policy perspective, watch for domestic surveillance state prerogatives to increase.  DHS becomes more visible.  VIPR teams start showing up at metro transit areas and interstates.  Eminent Domain takings start to increase as the budgets of Fed and State departments are squeezed and "need" drives this property acquisition, which will turn out to be a secondary way to offset our mounting national debt by levying disastrous taxation on a select few.

More "Patriot Acts" will be passed.  More Tea Parties will happen, but to no avail.  The weight of the debt will have swept past the turning point in perhaps 6-8 years if not reversed this term of Congress.  Once the interest on the existing debt is a greater line item than even Social Security.... we're doomed.  Even if we don't borrow another penny past that.

We won't go down merely poor.

We'll go down bloody, and probably heavily dishonored by our Government's actions.  Aside from fiscal responsibility.

The last thing we have to sell as a Nation, is our Honor.  We have a lot of it, and it's one of our few remaining sources of credit.

And I see it getting tapped already.

[coppertales]

First, quit giving money to every turd world dictator/country in the world.  Example, what does the billions we give mehico do for us?  Second, get our army out of the middle east. No invading army in the history of the world has ever won in Afganistan.   Bring them home and use them to seal the borders.  Third, kick out all the illegals.  Make people on welfare work for their money, like the jobs the illegals we kicked out did.......and.....establish term limits on politicians........chris3

[Buzzcook]

Once the tax cut for the wealthy was extended, it became obvious that no one was serious about deficit reduction.

I had hoped the Democrats would stand up to Obama, but they lack a spine.

Calls to cut spending are just political posturing. The big Republican proposal cuts a big $100 billion when we have a deficit of 1.7 trillion. Their other big deal ending Obama care actually increases the deficit.

Obama announces a wage and spending freeze, besides slowing the economy, are pocket change.

The biggest discretionary items aren't even on the budget. That would be Bush and Obama's two vanity wars. Ending those loosers would free funds that could be used to slow deficit growth. Though once again not as much as ending the tax cuts for Paris Hilton and her ilk.

[MechAg94]

First, quit giving money to every turd world dictator/country in the world.  Example, what does the billions we give mehico do for us?  Second, get our army out of the middle east. No invading army in the history of the world has ever won in Afganistan.   Bring them home and use them to seal the borders.  Third, kick out all the illegals.  Make people on welfare work for their money, like the jobs the illegals we kicked out did.......and.....establish term limits on politicians........chris3

While those are certainly decent goals, none of them will help with the budget problem.  The foreign aid we give is a very small.  It is still worth reducing or cutting, but it won't be what gets you there. 

[TommyGunn]

Once the tax cut for the wealthy was extended, it became obvious that no one was serious about deficit reduction.

I had hoped the Democrats would stand up to Obama, but they lack a spine.

Calls to cut spending are just political posturing. The big Republican proposal cuts a big $100 billion when we have a deficit of 1.7 trillion. Their other big deal ending Obama care actually increases the deficit.

Obama announces a wage and spending freeze, besides slowing the economy, are pocket change.

The biggest discretionary items aren't even on the budget. That would be Bush and Obama's two vanity wars. Ending those loosers would free funds that could be used to slow deficit growth. Though once again not as much as ending the tax cuts for Paris Hilton and her ilk.

Allowing the tax cuts to expire in the midst of a recession would have hurt the recovery.  A lot of the people who would be hurt are employers.  By making them pay more taxes monies they could use to expand business would be funneled off into the government. 
Wage and spending freezes on govt. employess would hardly slow the economy.  The private sector is much better at producing wealth and generally the govt. only drains it.  Besides, that is not the business of government in America.
As for "vanity wars" that's just dumb.  A'stan harbored Al Qaeda and they attacked us, thus proving how dangerous they were to the free world.  Taking them and the Taliban down is a "vanity war???"
Good grief!
The problem, is as always, with spending; the government is  SPENDING TOO MUCH!!

It isn't so hard to understand; if you made $50,000 dollars a year and spent $85,000 a year you would be in the same predicument.
The government has addicted itself to spending, driven by a psychotic need of those in power to service the needs of their constituents no matter what the costs and supported by the equally selfish desires of many sheeple to believe the government needs to be everything to everyone and may God help anyone who touches their social security, or other "entitlements."
It's a sick development and it needs to be terminated.
Unfortunatly it seems no one is really up to the task.
Oh well.  IT will all collapse naturally, on its own, in any event, sooner or later.  All I need do is wait.

[Buzzcook]

Allowing the tax cuts to expire in the midst of a recession would have hurt the recovery.

That's what republicans said about the tax act of 1993. The swore up and down that it would ruin the economy, which was also in recession at the time.

Well it didn't, the economy took off because put more money into the hands of working people. The American entrepreneur had more money to invest. The nineties was a decade of great economic growth.

The first decade of this century, by contrast, had the greatest transfer of wealth from the working class to the idle class via the Bush tax cuts. The economy was stagnant and in 2008 imploded.

A lot of the people who would be hurt are employers.  By making them pay more taxes monies they could use to expand business would be funneled off into the government. 

Those employers have had those tax cuts for 10 years and they haven't started hiring yet. What makes you think a two year extension will change that? 
Besides why should they hire more people if no one is buying? Charity may be nice and all, but it is bad business practice.

Wage and spending freezes on govt. employess would hardly slow the economy.

Money from a government pay check spends just as well as money from a private pay check. Spending stimulates the economy. Curtailing spending slows the economy.

The private sector is much better at producing wealth and generally the govt. only drains it.

That sounds like an article of faith not an argument.
The interstate highway system is a government expenditure. It has also created a great deal of waste.
Beta max was a private expenditure and while it created wealth it didn't create near as much as Rural Electrification or Farm to Market roads.

I shouldn't have to add that derivative trading created a lot of wealth. It also had a large part in creating the mess we are in.

A'stan harbored Al Qaeda and they attacked us, thus proving how dangerous they were to the free world.  Taking them and the Taliban down is a "vanity war???"

Yes. It wasn't Afghanistan that attacked and it wasn't the Taliban. We were attacked by criminals that are called Al Qaeda. They are led by a fellow called Usama Bin Laden.
Starting the Afghan war hasn't didn't do a lot to stop them. The Iranian invasion actually helped make Al Qaeda stronger.

The problem, is as always, with spending; the government is  SPENDING TOO MUCH!!

Yeah yeah, it makes a nice sound bite but it doesn't pay the bills. That is what it's about paying the bills. The drunken spending spree the republicans started in 1981 has to be paid for.

It isn't so hard to understand; if you made $50,000 dollars a year and spent $85,000 a year you would be in the same predicument.

Individuals are not government. But if we use your metaphor, it would be foolish to start our austerity program by leaning $100,000 to our improvident cousin.
Over the last 30 years we've borrowed money and then transferred it to trust fund kiddies. I say it's long past due to call that loan in.

supported by the equally selfish desires of many sheeple to believe the government needs to be everything to everyone

Yes those selfish people who want their social security and medicare. I hate those guys

[Ben]

The first decade of this century, by contrast, had the greatest transfer of wealth from the working class to the idle class via the Bush tax cuts.


Over the last 30 years we've borrowed money and then transferred it to trust fund kiddies. I say it's long past due to call that loan in.

You seem to be under the assumption that "the rich" are all inheritors of wealth that sit around the pools at their mansions sipping cognac all day. Perhaps you'd be surprised at how many "working class" people are actually "rich" by IRS definition, and don't want all the money they sweated to earn taken away from them via taxes.

[dm1333]

Beta max was a private expenditure and while it created wealth it didn't create near as much as Rural Electrification or Farm to Market roads.

Yeah, good argument.  Except we all know that VHS created a heck of a lot more wealth.  Odd that you would pick the loser of that battle and compare it to something like Rural Electrification.  What exactly was your point?

The drunken spending spree the republicans started in 1981 has to be paid for.

Too funny! 

The first decade of this century, by contrast, had the greatest transfer of wealth from the working class to the idle class via the Bush tax cuts.

Who exactly is the idle class? 

The Iranian invasion actually helped make Al Qaeda stronger.

??

Individuals are not government. But if we use your metaphor, it would be foolish to start our austerity program

Individuals aren't government but the principle is still the same.  Why is it foolish to start an austerity program?  Why is reducing the amount of spending a poor way to address our fiscal problems?   

Once the tax cut for the wealthy was extended, it became obvious that no one was serious about deficit reduction.

Obama wants to end that tax cut in 2012.  So by your definition he is serious about deficit reduction?  We are talking about the guy who, with the help of a Democratic Congress, increased spending in the middle of a huge recession.  Seems like somebody decided to really ramp up that Republican spending spree.  Those dang Republicans!  And Paris Hilton too! 

[BMacklem]

Today Obama presented us with a beautifully wrapped turd he calls a budget.  It's an insult to our intelligence.  The reality is that when you are dealing with people who are as patently obsessive, ideologically and pathologically, as this crew in D.C., only one word comes to mind: intervention revolution.

Fixed that for you

[Balog]

Paddy, is that you?

[MechAg94]

Those employers have had those tax cuts for 10 years and they haven't started hiring yet. What makes you think a two year extension will change that?
Besides why should they hire more people if no one is buying? Charity may be nice and all, but it is bad business practice.

Wow, you have a short memory.  The Bush tax cuts were in response to the recession around 9/11.  It worked.  The economy ran great for a while and businesses HIRED people and jobs were created.  
Also, charity is not charity when it is someone else's money.  On the other hand, charity is good business as it a tax deduction.

Money from a government pay check spends just as well as money from a private pay check. Spending stimulates the economy. Curtailing spending slows the economy.

Maybe in your selfish individual little world, but when the govt takes $100 from one person, cuts out 50% in waste, bureaucracy, great govt worker productivity and pays someone else $50, it is most certainly NOT the same.  
 

Yeah yeah, it makes a nice sound bite but it doesn't pay the bills. That is what it's about paying the bills. The drunken spending spree the republicans started in 1981 has to be paid for.

Wow, do you even know who controlled Congress in 1981?  Who had majority in the House and controlled the budget bills?  Hint:  It wasn't the Republicans.  I was a little kid at that time and I know that.

[Monkeyleg]

Don't try to teach singing.

[Scout26]

Paddy, is that you?

Yep, that was my first thought. 

And I thought I was bad when I hit the Red Stag's and Coke a little hard....

Until the Mods get here....

[TommyGunn]

That's what republicans said about the tax act of 1993. The swore up and down that it would ruin the economy, which was also in recession at the time.

A later Harvard School of Economics study Clinton's tax hike did in fact hurt the economy.  The study concluded that if Clinton had not raised taxes, the economy would have improved at a rate 30% greater than it actually did.

Well it didn't, the economy took off because put more money into the hands of working people. The American entrepreneur had more money to invest. The nineties was a decade of great economic growth.

The economy of the 90s improved mainly from the R&D research boom of the 1980s.  Many of these projects reached fruition.
Tax hikes do not "put more money into the hands of working people," they take money away from them.  That is what a tax HIKE is.

The first decade of this century, by contrast, had the greatest transfer of wealth from the working class to the idle class via the Bush tax cuts. The economy was stagnant and in 2008 imploded.

The "idle class" I never heard of that. There is only wealth transfer from the wealthy to the poor, through social programs.
We have reached a point where about the lower half of the income earners don't pay taxes at all. The greatest burden of taxes has always been on the rich.  
If they were "idle" they wouldn't be "rich."  

 

Those employers have had those tax cuts for 10 years and they haven't started hiring yet. What makes you think a two year extension will change that?  
Besides why should they hire more people if no one is buying? Charity may be nice and all, but it is bad business practice.

Currently, employers are not hiring because (A.) they have learned to become efficient & profitable with the number of workers they have now, and (B.) they are nervous about the effects of Obama's programs on the economy.  They don't want to hire people only to have to let them go again if the economy does a "double dip."  No one can really ascertain the real effects of "Obamacare" on corporate finances and this is throwing a monkey wrench into the works as well.

Money from a government pay check spends just as well as money from a private pay check. Spending stimulates the economy. Curtailing spending slows the economy.

Yes, but $$ from a government paycheck must be taken from a taxpayer, and it is NOT the government's job to be a jobs program for America.
 

It wasn't Afghanistan that attacked and it wasn't the Taliban. We were attacked by criminals that are called Al Qaeda. They are led by a fellow called Usama Bin Laden.
Starting the Afghan war hasn't didn't do a lot to stop them. The Iranian invasion actually helped make Al Qaeda stronger.

A'stan was being controlled by the Taliban and they were deliberatly harboring Al-Qaeda.  THAT is the point of going into A'stan.  And Al-Qaeda aren't "criminals" they are a Islamic terrorist organization.

Yeah yeah, it makes a nice sound bite but it doesn't pay the bills. That is what it's about paying the bills. The drunken spending spree the republicans started in 1981 has to be paid for.

What "drunken spending spree the repubs started in 1981??"  If you go back and look at government spending it started going up in the 1960s (um, JFK?  LBJ???) and has been going up since then.  Reagan tried to slow it down, but remember he had a DEMOCRAT congress to work with and that hardly helped him.

Individuals are not government. But if we use your metaphor, it would be foolish to start our austerity program by leaning $100,000 to our improvident cousin.
Over the last 30 years we've borrowed money and then transferred it to trust fund kiddies. I say it's long past due to call that loan in.

Yes those selfish people who want their social security and medicare. I hate those guys

Individuals AREN'T government but that avoids the point I was making.  It's sheer pettifoggery.  It is STILL about spending more than what is being taken in, and if you can't get that simple principle into your head then you simply have no comprehension of the simple economics of life.  I also don't see how anyone can believe the idiot liberal garbage about "transfering borrowed money to trust fund kiddies."  That sounds like the kind of class warfare one might find among the adherents of "moveon.com"
The idea that the private sector produces wealth better than the government is hardly "an article of faith," it a very well established fact, but only so, I guess, if you understand what is meant by "creating wealth," which it seems you do not.  

[longeyes]

The best thing the Republicans could do would be to do nothing.  Step back and forget all the nickle-and-dime stuff.  Don't allow your party to be used by the Dems.  Graciously let Obama own his insane budget.  And see how that budget plays on Election Day 2012.