I thought this was interesting

[BigRob]

When we lose our bond rating (not if) it becomes not only viable but the only way to avoid defaulting. We are at the brink here Rob. Did you ever believe that you would hear Moody's ever warning the USA on it bond rating much less repeatedly ?

No doubt credit defaults would be massive game changer... that said, Moody's has been making that statement for over a year and the votes in Congress to make real changes still don't exist.

Even when cuts are essential, the political battle over what and how much to cut is going to be intense.

 

[dogtowner]

Yes, but he is standing on the shoulders of giants.

he stands alone in this regard.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Yes, but he is standing on the shoulders of giants.

its amazing how the debt has nothing to do with still paying for 2 wars ( that where never paid for) while trying to repair a econ that had the bottom fall out...Before he took office....

And more amazing...8 years of debt silence from the same that cry about it now on the right.

 

[GenSeneca]

Would you simply cut every federal program by 10% across the board?

Yes.

Not... pragmatic.

True or False: Cutting the budget by 80% over 8 years would put revenue ahead of expenses.

 

[PLC1]

Yes.

True or False: Cutting the budget by 80% over 8 years would put revenue ahead of expenses.

Cutting the budget by 10% per year for 8 years would not cut the federal budget by 80%, but it would undoubtedly put revenue ahead of expenses. Such a cut is not politically possible, nor is it pragmatic to do so.

For example, Ttere is a bill in the house right now to end funding for abortions.

Perhaps you would support a bill to cut back such funding by 10% per year instead of eliminating it altogether.

Here is a pie chart of federal expenditures. Much of it consists of non discretionary spending, such as the interest on the national debt. Cutting that by 10% could only be accomplished by cutting the debt by 10%, which could only be accomplished by cutting spending somewhere else and/or raising taxes. Some of the expenditures need to be cut 100%, others can't be or shouldn't be cut at all.

Simplistic solutions to complex problems don't work. The debate needs to center around what can and should be cut.

 

[GenSeneca]

it would undoubtedly put revenue ahead of expenses.

You claimed "pragmatic" is "what works" and slashing spending would work, but you don't think it's pragmatic....

So what is "pragmatic"? Prattling on with vague platitudes and attacking the ideas of others as not being pragmatic? And you're still trying to claim that raising taxes increases revenue... It would be nice if you offered at least some empirical data as proof of your "voodoo" economic theory.

 

[PLC1]

You claimed "pragmatic" is "what works" and slashing spending would work, but you don't think it's pragmatic....

So what is "pragmatic"? Prattling on with vague platitudes and attacking the ideas of others as not being pragmatic? And you're still trying to claim that raising taxes increases revenue... It would be nice if you offered at least some empirical data as proof of your "voodoo" economic theory.

I did post definitive proof that your assertion that raising and lowering taxes simply results in the same percentage of GDP being available for federal revenue is simply wrong.

But, of course, you ignored that.

It was one of our most effective Republican presidents who dubbed "trickle down" economics as "voodoo economics." I can't claim credit for that one.

While it's attractive to think that raising taxes will have no effect, the figures say otherwise. Wishful thinking isn't going to provide any pragmatic answers. Neither will wishing on a star.

Now, the other part of the painful equation, which is cutting spending. Yes, cutting spending is necessary and pragmatic. Simply slashing the budget by 10% is overly simplistic and not pragmatic at all. The real work is in deciding what gets cut and by how much.

Which I've already said, of course.

 

[GenSeneca]

I did post definitive proof that your assertion that raising and lowering taxes simply results in the same percentage of GDP being available for federal revenue is simply wrong.

Ahhh... Definitive proof that a statement I never made is wrong... Well, thank you Mr. Strawman for making an appearence.

My original statement was: "...revenue to the federal government has remained steady around 18% of total GDP."

I didn't say, "exactly 18%", or "precisely 18%", or "18% without any variation whatsoever", but AROUND 18%, as in, within 2 points of the high and low.

That's enough of my chewing on your red herring attacks to make me defend myself... What you STILL have not posted is PROOF that your own voodoo "trickle up" economic theory of higher taxes = greater revenue has any validity. Will we ever see it?

While it's attractive to think that raising taxes will have no effect, the figures say otherwise.

Where do the figures say that Higher Taxes = Greater Revenue? Where do the figures say that Lower Taxes = Less Revenue? Where do the figures say anything to corroborate your wacky "trickle up" theory of voodoo economics?

'68-'69 - Taxes went UP revenue went UP.
'69-'70 - Taxes went DOWN revenue went UP.
'71-'80 - Taxes remained UNCHANGED revenue went UP every single year.

I could show the same thing in all 40 years with the data in 2001 as the only exception. That is the only year where revenue actually dropped from the year before... but because taxes went down by 0.5% (that is one half a percent) are you seriously trying to cherry pick that in order to claim it as your proof that lowering taxes = less revenue and therefore higher taxes = greater revenue?

If there is any lesson to be learned it's that revenue going UP is the rule and revenue going DOWN is the exception to that rule and that tax rates are not the CAUSE of revenue moving in either direction.

The real work is in deciding what gets cut and by how much.

Well, any "solution" that is "politically viable" will not actually solve the problem and any solution that will actually solve the problem will not be "politically viable", so which is "pragmatic"? The one that is "politically viable" or the one that actually solves the problem? If you're going to claim there is a solution that does both, then lets hear it.

 

[GenSeneca]

Would you simply cut every federal program by 10% across the board?

My answer was YES... Your reply...

Here is a pie chart of federal expenditures. Much of it consists of non discretionary spending, such as the interest on the national debt. Cutting that by 10% could only be accomplished by cutting the debt by 10%...

Just FYI, interest on the debt is not a federal program.

 

[PLC1]

My answer was YES... Your reply...

Since we both know that a 10% across the board cut of every federal program isn't going to happen, what is plan B?

Don't you think that there are some federal programs that should be cut 100%, while others shouldn't be cut at all?

Just FYI, interest on the debt is not a federal program.

But it is a federal expenditure.

 

[GenSeneca]

Since we both know that a 10% across the board cut of every federal program isn't going to happen, what is plan B?

Watch as government continues to print and borrow it's way to insolvency.

Don't you think that there are some federal programs that should be cut 100%, while others shouldn't be cut at all?

Yes and no. There are some government programs that I would like to see eliminated but there isn't a single one that should not be cut. If the politicians can agree to get rid of say the Dept. of Education, then that would reduce the cuts necessary in other programs and departments to reach the goal of a 10% reduction in the federal budget.

But it is a federal expenditure.

But not a program, and you asked about programs not expenditures.

 

[dogtowner]

Don't you think that there are some federal programs that should be cut 100%, while others shouldn't be cut at all?

100% ? Yes, many.

Some not at all ? No. There is no doubt in my mind that there is sufficient fat in every single program. Align benefits with the private sector for starters and you may not need to do anything else.

 

[PLC1]

Watch as government continues to print and borrow it's way to insolvency.

That's the most likely course of action.

Yes and no. There are some government programs that I would like to see eliminated but there isn't a single one that should not be cut. If the politicians can agree to get rid of say the Dept. of Education, then that would reduce the cuts necessary in other programs and departments to reach the goal of a 10% reduction in the federal budget.

The Department of Education isn't big enough to bring spending under control, even if it were eliminated. We need to start dismantling the welfare state, then cut back the military until it really is big enough for defense only.

But not a program, and you asked about programs not expenditures.

Hair splitting noted. A good shampoo will take care of those split ends.

 

[dogtowner]

The Department of Education isn't big enough to bring spending under control, even if it were eliminated. We need to start dismantling the welfare state, then cut back the military until it really is big enough for defense only.

D of Ed isn't but so much as noted or D of Energy EPA etc. And DofD could certainly spend less (they've been trying to reduce for decades but Congress says no). You could really help the DoD by altering procurement policy. Do you think there would be $600 hammers if private industry were ordering things ? Congresscritters make a lot of money for themselves and their contributors off the military industrial complex as its the mother of all cash cows. NASA is no better as evidenced by the privatespace program.

 

[BigRob]

D of Ed isn't but so much as noted or D of Energy EPA etc. And DofD could certainly spend less (they've been trying to reduce for decades but Congress says no). You could really help the DoD by altering procurement policy. Do you think there would be $600 hammers if private industry were ordering things ? Congresscritters make a lot of money for themselves and their contributors off the military industrial complex as its the mother of all cash cows. NASA is no better as evidenced by the privatespace program.

In terms of a "$600 dollar hammer", I think it needs to be pointed out that in terms of a government contract like that, the contractor agrees to provide X for X amount of money, and is required to account for every single item.

The contractor will say rent and electricity, heat etc for the facility they will use to produce items are included in the X amount of dollars for the contract. To make the accounting scenario easier for all parties involved, (because how do you account really for the amount of AC it took to make each item etc) the contractor is allowed to just divide the cost equally among every item, thus making a hammer appear to cost $600, when in reality it did not.