What's Causing The Deficit

[heckofajobbrownie]

[heckofajobbrownie]

Now, those are the actual numbers from the CBO. And yet, how often to do you hear it blamed on Obama's "out of control spending", both in here and out there - which is why you hear it parroted in here?

 

Where's the out of control spending?

[heckofajobbrownie]

Here's another thing you hear out there and in here: Obama is growing the size of government!

 

Well...

 

[MLD Woody]

These numbers don't fit my concept of reality, so I reject them

[Westside Steve]

These numbers don't fit my concept of reality, so I reject them

So in your own words, Woody, what is your concept of reality?

WSS

[Chicopee John]

>>Here's another thing you hear out there and in here: Obama is growing the size of government! Well...>>

 

I've always said Bush spent way, way too much money but I don't believe Tax Cuts - letting people keep more of their their own money - should be considered spending. Maybe you aren't making that claim. I don't know.

 

I've also also always believed that, "When you have a Revenue Problem, you really have a Spending Problem. I reject the notion bandied around that economic tightness is currently being caused by a Revenue Problem, not a Spending Problem.

 

Any way, I don't necessarily equate the size of government by the number of employees. Rather, I look at it from the viewpoint of the influence of government over our daily lives, workplaces, etc.

 

Cutting the number of heads employed by the Federal Government is a good thing, IMHO. I wish they'd continue those actions with staff members, etc. However, it is the PROGRAMS that most concern me and - IMHO - have the long term potential for social and economic upheaval.

[Mr. T]

I noticed the 5 Trillion dollars that Obama Reed and Pelosi spent on the so called stimulus has nothing to do with it?

 

What a biased propagated chart you found.

 

Did anyone see the news about how government employees are getting bonuses up to$ 60 k each?

[heckofajobbrownie]

Look at the chart, T. The stimulus is in there. And your $5 trillion figure comes out of your ass, not reality.

 

These are the numbers from the CBO in graph form. As Woody notes, I know they don't conform to the reality you imagine. I'm just saying that's not actual reality. As if you haven't made that clear over and over again.

[heckofajobbrownie]

I've always said Bush spent way, way too much money but I don't believe Tax Cuts - letting people keep more of their their own money - should be considered spending. Maybe you aren't making that claim. I don't know.

 

...No one is making that claim. They're just acknowledging the reality that they lowered revenue and caused the deficits highlighted above.

 

I've also also always believed that, "When you have a Revenue Problem, you really have a Spending Problem. I reject the notion bandied around that economic tightness is currently being caused by a Revenue Problem, not a Spending Problem.

 

...Why would you look at it either way? Just look at it this way: we don't raise nearly enough revenue to cover our spending. You can raise revenue, you can cut spending, or do some combination of both. And who is blaming the economy on revenue problems or spending problems? They blame budget deficits on revenue and spending imbalances.

 

Any way, I don't necessarily equate the size of government by the number of employees. Rather, I look at it from the viewpoint of the influence of government over our daily lives, workplaces, etc.

 

Cutting the number of heads employed by the Federal Government is a good thing, IMHO. I wish they'd continue those actions with staff members, etc. However, it is the PROGRAMS that most concern me and - IMHO - have the long term potential for social and economic upheaval.

 

These are primarily state and local jobs being cut by states that are strapped for cash, not the federal government. Teachers, administrators, cops, firefighters, bureaucrats, etc.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Here's my shot at what this reality is, Steve.

 

Other than entitlements, the main drivers of our deficit and our debt are 1) the Bush tax cuts, 2) the effects of the recession, and 3) the wars. It's not "out of control spending." It's not "the stimulus." It's not bailing out the banks.

 

The second chart shows that the size of government has decreased under Obama, not increased like it did under Bush.

 

Do you have any quibbles with this reality?

[heckofajobbrownie]

John, Steve, anyone else:

 

We know the costs of our aging population are going to go up: in Medicare costs, additional health care costs, Social Security payments, etc. That's just demographics. We know that the current level of revenue is insufficient to pay the bills for all of those costs. We also know that cutting those programs to meet our current level of revenue is so next to impossible that it's not even being proposed by anyone.

 

It's an uncomfortable truth: the nation needs more revenue, lest we fall deeper into debt as the Baby Boomers begin to retire. This isn't really up for much dispute. It's practically a reality. If you want to close the gap you need to find more revenue. We can't go on spending and not paying for it.

 

Where would you get the increased revenue from? What would be your first choice, your second, etc?

[MLD Woody]

Bunker, the y-axis isn't even labeled on that graph...

[ballpeen]

 

 

 

That's ignorant Heck. The Bush tax cuts??

 

 

LOL

 

 

 

Earth to heck, if the Bush tax cuts are going to be posted as the problem, another chart needs to be made saying excessive spending is a big problem.

 

 

You guys don't want to see that spending is a major problem.

 

 

 

Tell you what, let's split the difference. Fair, no??

 

We take the deficit and cut it in half tomorrow.....one half will be cured by increased taxes and the other half will come from decreased spending.

 

 

Problem fixed.

 

 

I am a good American and have made a good living in my lifetime. I don't mind seeing my taxes go up as long as I see spending go down.

 

 

That is my platform. Half comes from taxation, half comes from spending cuts.

[Chicopee John]

>>Where would you get the increased revenue from? What would be your first choice, your second, etc?>>

 

I'm off to the salt mines, Heck, so cant give this as much thought as I'd like.

 

One idea that NOBODY likes to acknowledge, the magic retirement age of 65 has to be increased. Perhaps this is a small step but government AND companies/government that provide pensions cannot continue to fund them until people die so late in life.

 

Those are a combination of demographic and life-expectancy considerations.

 

The good news / bad news is that people - generally - don't die in their 60's or early 70's any more. They are living well into their 80's.

 

Clearly, this puts enormous pressure on local and state governments whose generous pension and health care packages simply cannot be sustained.

 

Any way, although the SS ages are creeping up a bit, I believe they should be moved to 70 as a start - probably through a phase in.

 

Off to make sure the watches keep on tickin'

[Chicopee John]

Oh yea, you have to get the politics out of the Military.

 

By this, I mean we need to continue to - even accelerarate - reduction in the Military.

 

CT is a perfect example. We are among the most'Blue' states but - if you really want to see Senators and Reps come to action - talk about cutting a nuclear submarine the Navy says it no longer needs or talk about discontinuing an airplane the Pentagon says it no longer needs - and the politicians talk submarines and airplanes to nowhere, to coin a phrase.

 

By this I mean they want JOBS. They don't care whether or not we are producing something that has demand. They don't talk about transition training, etc.

 

 

I do like the current movement toward creating a 21st Century Military, BTW. Over the years, we've become the equivalent of the British Red Coats.

[heckofajobbrownie]

>>Where would you get the increased revenue from? What would be your first choice, your second, etc?>>

 

I'm off to the salt mines, Heck, so cant give this as much thought as I'd like.

 

One idea that NOBODY likes to acknowledge, the magic retirement age of 65 has to be increased. Perhaps this is a small step but government AND companies/government that provide pensions cannot continue to fund them until people die so late in life.

 

Those are a combination of demographic and life-expectancy considerations.

 

The good news / bad news is that people - generally - don't die in their 60's or early 70's any more. They are living well into their 80's.

 

Clearly, this puts enormous pressure on local and state governments whose generous pension and health care packages simply cannot be sustained.

 

Any way, although the SS ages are creeping up a bit, I believe they should be moved to 70 as a start - probably through a phase in.

 

Off to make sure the watches keep on tickin'

 

Raising the retirement age may make some sense, and it's already set to change to 67, but it doesn't do a whole lot to shore up Social Security financially. I think your point about state pensions is more valid. Plus, raising the retirement age for Social Security doesn't really help working class people. It helps well-to-do white collar workers. The life expectancy of working class people hasn't really gone up all that much. It's gone up for higher earners. The person who works in the field or in the coal mine or in the nursing home still dies at pretty much the same age.

 

So raising the retirement age doesn't really come close to getting you there. Plus, Social Security is the least of our problems. That fix is somewhat easy.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Here are the different approaches for dealing with Social Security measured by how effective they are. You'll notice that raising the retirement age doesn't get you very far.

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

And here's life expectancy:

 

[MLD Woody]

All the Baby Boomers are retiring right? Wouldn't that account for why the workforce dropped as much as it did?

[Chicopee John]

>>It helps well-to-do white collar workers. The life expectancy of working class people hasn't really gone up all that much. It's gone up for higher earners. The person who works in the field or in the coal mine or in the nursing home still dies at pretty much the same age.>>

 

I am not disputing this, Heck, but I'd LOVE to see the report/numbers. Any idea how I can get my hands on this. Breakdown by 'segments' would be incredibly interesting (to me, anyway, a former and still-quasi research type).

[heckofajobbrownie]

Here you go, my brother.

[Chicopee John]

Here you go, my brother.

 

Thanks!

[heckofajobbrownie]

That's ignorant Heck. The Bush tax cuts??

 

 

LOL

 

 

 

Earth to heck, if the Bush tax cuts are going to be posted as the problem, another chart needs to be made saying excessive spending is a big problem.

 

 

You guys don't want to see that spending is a major problem.

 

 

 

Tell you what, let's split the difference. Fair, no??

 

We take the deficit and cut it in half tomorrow.....one half will be cured by increased taxes and the other half will come from decreased spending.

 

 

Problem fixed.

 

 

I am a good American and have made a good living in my lifetime. I don't mind seeing my taxes go up as long as I see spending go down.

 

 

That is my platform. Half comes from taxation, half comes from spending cuts.

 

I'm posting you numbers from the CBO. I'm not sure what you think is ignorant about it. Look at where the line is for "deficit without these factors." All the spending you imagine is "too much" falls under that line. These are a list of the major policies changes since the Clinton surpluses that contribute to our current deficits.

 

Also, your solution, while a nice compromise, is way to the left of President Obama and even further left of Mitt Romney the Republican Party. Remember, all the Republican candidates were asked if they'd accept a deal that was 10-to-1 spending cuts to revenue increases, and they all said they wouldn't. They all said they were against raising any revenue at all. Which is a strange argument to make - the tax code is a huge, giant mess that needs to be scrapped entirely and simplified ...and don't touch the tax code because it's perfect the way it is.

[DieHardBrownsFan]

All I have to say is they had best leave Social Security alone. You can phase in gradual age increases, but for current workers over, say the age of 45-50, leave the system in place.

[MLD Woody]

I have an actual job now...

 

I wish I didn't have to pay social security

 

real life sucks

 

lol

[heckofajobbrownie]

and has the CBO ever lied? you bet yur britches they have lied multiple times.

We were lied to again!!!CBO: Obama understates deficits by $2.3 trillion

 

You're just clueless, my man. Just lost. The CBO didn't make the original prediction. The White House did. The CBO updated the White House's budget projections using a lower growth figure, basically saying that they think the economy is going to grow at slower rate than the White House is projecting, so you need to figure in lower tax collections, and bigger deficits.

 

This is not an example of the CBO lying. It's an example of the CBO doing their jobs.

 

It'd be nice if some people in here knew something about anything before they ran their mouth off.

[heckofajobbrownie]

I have an actual job now...

 

I wish I didn't have to pay social security

 

real life sucks

 

lol

 

Think of it as money paid now to make sure your in-laws don't live in your basement later.

[ballpeen]

I have an actual job now...

 

I wish I didn't have to pay social security

 

real life sucks

 

lol

 

 

 

Real life doesn't suck....it's been great for me, but I do agree on SS. I never liked it and was attached to SS for 30 years.

 

 

It was a loser program from the get go set up by a loser socialist, FDR.

 

 

 

But, now we have it, and somehow we have to ween away from it, but one of those ways isn't to just say it doesn't exist and stop paying the people who were forced in to it for the last 40-50 years.

 

 

I agree, for a kid like you, there has to be a way to pay off the obligations and keep you out of it and placed in to a better system,....a forced 401K of sorts.

 

 

Everybody should be forced to save for retirement....be it called SS or something else, but it has to be run privately. Somewhere along the line...early, the money collected wasn't put in to a big pot, the goofball FDR used it to fund some of his other New Deal programs. If run privately, the money you contribute never hits the hands of the bloodsucking socialists in the federal government, but hey, they aren't going to give that up, especially when there are people like yourself sticking up for them.

 

Just telling you like it is.....shrug

 

 

 

I agree, there needs to be government oversight....keep the money in 10-20 banks, investment firms, whatever. Allow a committee in congress to watch over that, but under no circumstances should congress be allowed to touch the money. At most, if they find problems with one of the investment vehicles, allow them to transfer it to another. That would encourage these firms to play by the rules and do it right. No firm or bank wants to have several billions of dollars lifted from their books.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Real life doesn't suck....it's been great for me, but I do agree on SS. I never liked it and was attached to SS for 30 years.

 

 

It was a loser program from the get go set up by a loser socialist, FDR.

 

 

 

But, now we have it, and somehow we have to ween away from it, but one of those ways isn't to just say it doesn't exist and stop paying the people who were forced in to it for the last 40-50 years.

 

 

I agree, for a kid like you, there has to be a way to pay off the obligations and keep you out of it and placed in to a better system,....a forced 401K of sorts.

 

 

Everybody should be forced to save for retirement....be it called SS or something else, but it has to be run privately. Somewhere along the line...early, the money collected wasn't put in to a big pot, the goofball FDR used it to fund some of his other New Deal programs. If run privately, the money you contribute never hits the hands of the bloodsucking socialists in the federal government, but hey, they aren't going to give that up, especially when there are people like yourself sticking up for them.

 

Just telling you like it is.....shrug

 

 

 

I agree, there needs to be government oversight....keep the money in 10-20 banks, investment firms, whatever. Allow a committee in congress to watch over that, but under no circumstances should congress be allowed to touch the money. At most, if they find problems with one of the investment vehicles, allow them to transfer it to another. That would encourage these firms to play by the rules and do it right. No firm or bank wants to have several billions of dollars lifted from their books.

 

Hey, ballpeen, do you think Obama's health care bill is unconstitutional?

[Westside Steve]

Hey, ballpeen, do you think Obama's health care bill is unconstitutional?

Whether he thinks so or not either 4 or 5 of our top constitutional minds will think it is.

And Obama ain't of them.

WSS