Does he not understand that we can HEAR the feedback from the reverb?

[makattak]

We don't even need to cut that much.  
For GFY 2011, the federal govt received $2.17T, and spent $3.82T.

2012 revenues are estimated at ~$2.5T.  If we reduced spending to 2008 levels, minus the GWoT funds, the spending would be (roughly) $2.75T (vs the $3.82T we spent in 2011).  

Now, does anyone think we spent "too little" in 2008?!  Probably not, but even going back to 2008 funding levels would be an immediate cut of >$1 TRILLION in a SINGLE FISCAL YEAR (considering all the arguments about them trying to cut that over 10).

  The dems are screaming about "drastic cuts" (when they are talking $100B a year cut) on the current debate, and think $1T a year cut is "impossible"...when all it takes to get a trillion a year cut is to simply go back less than three years! (in fact, I believe 2008 was the last budget the senate passed)...have things really gone that bad that the amount we spent three years ago would throw granny off a cliff, deprive college students of loans, etc?  No.

Not only that, if you then help spending to grow with inflation (let's say 3%), and had an economic growth rate of 5-6% (totally reasonable if Barack wasn't screwing it up)...t
Returning to a 2008 baseline for 2012 would result in a balanced budget inside of 3 years with ZERO revenue changes (we even get to keep the payroll tax cut)

I'm not sure it's that simple.

I don't have time to check the specific numbers, but the leading edge of the baby boomers retired in 2010/2011. That's a massive demographic shift (that will only get worse) for Medicare/Social Security.

We can't just "go back to 2008" levels since the major drivers of our spending are Medicare and Social Security.

What needs to happen is a restructuring of those two entitlements AND a cutting of "discretionary" spending back to levels below 2008.

Yes, my preference is to end Medicare and Social Security, but ending them immediately is not only politically infeasible, it is also harmful. Changes should be made slowly so that people have time to plan for them.

However, those changes must come because the money is running out. If we keep ignoring the warning signs, we WILL have a sudden collapse that screws over those seniors most. (Seniors have the most savings that would be wiped out, rely on Medicare and Social Security that would be either ineffectual or gone, and the least capacity to change employment and/or move back into the workforce.) THIS is what the Republicans should be saying- we will be screwing over the most vulnerable if we don't start cutting back.

The solutions aren't simple.

The solutions aren't balanced either. Our taxes are already too high. (Highest corporate tax rate in the world, baby! YEAH!) Our regulations are already far too onerous.

We can't have a "balanced" solution because everything is so far out of balance.

[birdman]

The first of the boomers aren't eligible for Medicare and SS (65 1/2) until just about now (end of FY11)

Medicare and SS only grew by $154B from fy08-10

Medicaid and welfare/unemployment grew by $328B (and that's not old people!)

2010-2011 was an even more distorted increase, but still, considering the total federal budget only grew by ~$650B between 08 and 10, and HALF of that increase was for Medicaid, welfare, and unemployment, we haven't seen the effect of the boomers yet, only the effect of liberal redistribution

Discretionary spending over the same period increased by $250B (and defense plus VA plus GWoT funding stayed about the same so you can't blame defense) HUD DofEd, EPA, State, etc made up the bulk of the increase, again favorite liberal piggy banks.

My point is, the 2006 and 2008 democrat takeover in the house (starting in FY2007) and Obama have created the bulk of the massive rise...even during the first 5 W years, spending rose from $2.0-2.73 trillion (roughly 6% per year), while 2007-2010 it rose by ~8%, and 2011 looks to be a nearly 10% increase.

This is pure unadulterated redistributive spending, not the effect of boomers.  Spending vs GDP has only really spiked in the past few years.

[makattak]

The first of the boomers aren't eligible for Medicare and SS (65 1/2) until just about now (end of FY11)

Medicare and SS only grew by $154B from fy08-10

Medicaid and welfare/unemployment grew by $328B (and that's not old people!)

2010-2011 was an even more distorted increase, but still, considering the total federal budget only grew by ~$650B between 08 and 10, and HALF of that increase was for Medicaid, welfare, and unemployment, we haven't seen the effect of the boomers yet, only the effect of liberal redistribution

Discretionary spending over the same period increased by $250B (and defense plus VA plus GWoT funding stayed about the same so you can't blame defense) HUD DofEd, EPA, State, etc made up the bulk of the increase, again favorite liberal piggy banks.

My point is, the 2006 and 2008 democrat takeover in the house (starting in FY2007) and Obama have created the bulk of the massive rise...even during the first 5 W years, spending rose from $2.0-2.73 trillion (roughly 6% per year), while 2007-2010 it rose by ~8%, and 2011 looks to be a nearly 10% increase.

This is pure unadulterated redistributive spending, not the effect of boomers.  Spending vs GDP has only really spiked in the past few years.

Ok. Then the Medicare/SS-BabyBoomer problem starts this year. The problem is still there, though.

And of course "discretionary" spending needs to be cut. I'm just saying it's likely to be more than just back to 2008 levels, though that would be a start. (And, of course, neither of our ideas will be implemented. At least for a year and a half and probably never. )

[KD5NRH]

[Hutch]

I am schizophrenic about this.  Good/brave Hutch listens to Dave Ramsey and watches his debt subside as the 401k staggers around.  Evil/scared Hutch believes the fiscal aircraft of this country has lost both wings and the propeller, and is plotting his Masada strategy.

You're just jealous of me because the little voices don't talk to you!

[birdman]

I am schizophrenic about this.  Good/brave Hutch listens to Dave Ramsey and watches his debt subside as the 401k staggers around.  Evil/scared Hutch believes the fiscal aircraft of this country has lost both wings and the propeller, and is plotting his Masada strategy.

You're just jealous of me because the little voices don't talk to you!

Don't worry, birdman has three voices...the 401k investment voice, the "guess I'll have to work forever" voice, and the "glad I have a truck, because if it doesn't fit in that when I have to G.O.O.D., I don't really own it" voice....hope for the best, plan for the worst.

[Hutch]

Get an enclosed trailer.

[lee n. field]

Hey stickerman!  Bogie!  I'll take some of these.

[lee n. field]

Don't worry, birdman has three voices...the 401k investment voice, the "guess I'll have to work forever" voice, and the "glad I have a truck, because if it doesn't fit in that when I have to G.O.O.D., I don't really own it" voice....hope for the best, plan for the worst.

Was over to a buddy's today (to see his new Uzi , zehr cool).  He's pretty financially savvy, and normally upbeat.  I asked him "So, how long will the depression last?".  He got a sour look, and started talking about how his dad (also describable as "pretty financially savvy, and normally upbeat") was buying gold coins and didn't think he'd live to see the market come back.

[stevelyn]

I can't stand the sight of him. So I don't subject myself to listening to anything he has to say.

[birdman]

Get an enclosed trailer.

I have one, it's just not nearly as off-road capable as my raptor.

[Fitz]

I'm in the "have a friend with means who needs some hired muscle in the collapse" retirement plan.


I fully expect to lose my retirement nest egg when the collapse happens. I hope I don't, but I think I will.

At that point, i'll survive and keep my family alive through ingenuity and living away from everyone else. LOL

[AmbulanceDriver]

I'm *really* glad I have in-laws who live about an hour out in the country with a couple of acres.  I imagine if when this economy tanks, we'll be turning their back acre into one big family garden........


ETA:  I'm also really glad the Mrs. and I have a lot that's a quarter acre.  We've got a wood fireplace, a couple of *BIG* trees we can fell, and space to plant our own garden if necessary. 

[wmenorr67]

I'm in the "have a friend with means who needs some hired muscle in the collapse" retirement plan.


I fully expect to lose my retirement nest egg when the collapse happens. I hope I don't, but I think I will.

At that point, i'll survive and keep my family alive through ingenuity and living away from everyone else. LOL

Hey you see where they are talking about doing away with retirement for the military at 20yrs and go towards a 401(k) type plan where even someone who puts in just 5-6 years can walk away with some money.  But even then they will have to wait until after 60+.