Senator Offers Bill to End Earmarks, Balance Budget

[DC Tom]

And now you get to do it without commenting.

 

Credit where due, though: for all the bitching about how the moderators are fascist or communist, claiming to be a victim of Zionist moderator oppression is at least novel.

 

Congratulations on being the first ever Zionist Nazi.

[Alaska Darin]

Credit where due, though: for all the bitching about how the moderators are fascist or communist, claiming to be a victim of Zionist moderator oppression is at least novel.

 

Congratulations on being the first ever Zionist Nazi.

Does this mean I'm back in Tenny's good graces?

[BadDad]

South Carolina Senator Offers Real "Change".

 

The President campaigned on ending earmarks, then promptly signed a bill with over 9000 of them.

 

I wonder how may co-sponsors this bill will end up with. I don't wonder if it will pass because the "fiscally conscious" legislators in both the Republican and Democratic parties would NEVER allow it.

 

If the U.S. Congress could, (would), ever vote to end the earmarks, it would only amount to 2 % of the deficit. Where do we get the other 98% to balance the budget? As I understand it the major expenses are Social Security, Medicaire, and Defense. Where do we cut otherwise, or which of these do we cut, (and by how much), in order to balance the budget?

 

I'm not baiting you, I just want to know where realistically, we can cut the budget enough to balance it.

[Alaska Darin]

If the U.S. Congress could, (would), ever vote to end the earmarks, it would only amount to 2 % of the deficit. Where do we get the other 98% to balance the budget? As I understand it the major expenses are Social Security, Medicaire, and Defense. Where do we cut otherwise, or which of these do we cut, (and by how much), in order to balance the budget?

 

I'm not baiting you, I just want to know where realistically, we can cut the budget enough to balance it.

Defense (which could likely be cut in half without any real loss of capability, though you'd never hear that from a politician because too many jobs now depend on it), then Medicare (which is fraught with waste), then start real Social Security reform (which will end with its eventual elimination over about a 50 year period).

 

It's truly the only course of action.

 

And I know you're not baiting me.

[Simon]

Congratulations on being the first ever Zionist Nazi.

I'll second that

Although I'm curious as to how long he'll be vacationing. He was on the verge of teaching me about the Zionist White Army and how the Romanovs were secretly Jewish.

[BadDad]

Defense (which could likely be cut in half without any real loss of capability, though you'd never hear that from a politician because too many jobs now depend on it), then Medicare (which is fraught with waste), then start real Social Security reform (which will end with its eventual elimination over about a 50 year period).

 

It's truly the only course of action.

 

And I know you're not baiting me.

 

So how do we balance it? Do we cut defense and let the huns run in? Do we cut soc. sec. and put millions of elderly back in poverty? Or do we abolish Medicare and cast our parents to the winds of economic fancy?

 

I, as you know, am a committed "liberal, lefty, progressive, etc." but I am truly concerned for my childrens future and their childrens future (all of whom will be Bills fans or be disowned) and I'm scared. I cannot see a way out of this debacle without a significant influx of capital to stimulate business, prop up lending institutions, give tax breaks to small businesses, tax breaks to individuals (regardless of income levels), and prop-up our infrastructure.

 

Who has the capacity to infuse the capital necessary to accomplish this? Will big business and industry really do it on their own? Or do we expect the small businessman to carry the weight of our recovery of an instutional breakdown on their shoulders by themselves? To paraphrase Martin Luther King how can you expect a small businessman to pull himself up by his boot straps if he doesn't have any boots?

[Magox]

So how do we balance it? Do we cut defense and let the huns run in? Do we cut soc. sec. and put millions of elderly back in poverty? Or do we abolish Medicare and cast our parents to the winds of economic fancy?

 

I, as you know, am a committed "liberal, lefty, progressive, etc." but I am truly concerned for my childrens future and their childrens future (all of whom will be Bills fans or be disowned) and I'm scared. I cannot see a way out of this debacle without a significant influx of capital to stimulate business, prop up lending institutions, give tax breaks to small businesses, tax breaks to individuals (regardless of income levels), and prop-up our infrastructure.

 

Who has the capacity to infuse the capital necessary to accomplish this? Will big business and industry really do it on their own? Or do we expect the small businessman to carry the weight of our recovery of an instutional breakdown on their shoulders by themselves? To paraphrase Martin Luther King how can you expect a small businessman to pull himself up by his boot straps if he doesn't have any boots?

Entitlement spending and Defense are the two main areas that need to be addressed and soon enough the interest on our debt will become a burden that will be virtually impossible to deal with. That is why S.S and Medicare reform need to be addressed now. It's amazing that these goofballs in charge want to add a whole new entitlement program to an already overburdened budget, but hopefully that piece of legislation dies so we don't have to deal with it, not in that manner anyway.

 

Paul Ryan recently layed out a plan to tackle the deficit, according to the CBO it will not only reduce the annual deficit but would actually produce budget surpluses. Basically in a nutshell it includes privatizing S.S and replacing medicare with vouchers.

 

To read more on it, here is the CBO scoring. It's quite long, 50 pages.

 

I don't know if politicians have the will to make decisions this unpopular, unfortunately I believe another fiscal crisis will have to come about to make people realize that this is a problem that we need to address.

 

Here is an easier read from liberal blogger Ezra Klein. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klei...g_budget_p.html

[BadDad]

Entitlement spending and Defense are the two main areas that need to be addressed and soon enough the interest on our debt will become a burden that will be virtually impossible to deal with. That is why S.S and Medicare reform need to be addressed now. It's amazing that these goofballs in charge want to add a whole new entitlement program to an already overburdened budget, but hopefully that piece of legislation dies so we don't have to deal with it, not in that manner anyway.

 

Paul Ryan recently layed out a plan to tackle the deficit, according to the CBO it will not only reduce the annual deficit but would actually produce budget surpluses. Basically in a nutshell it includes privatizing S.S and replacing medicare with vouchers.

 

To read more on it, here is the CBO scoring. It's quite long, 50 pages.

 

I don't know if politicians have the will to make decisions this unpopular, unfortunately I believe another fiscal crisis will have to come about to make people realize that this is a problem that we need to address.

 

Here is an easier read from liberal blogger Ezra Klein. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klei...g_budget_p.html

Thanks much, I'll check them out and respond.

[Alaska Darin]

So how do we balance it? Do we cut defense and let the huns run in? Do we cut soc. sec. and put millions of elderly back in poverty? Or do we abolish Medicare and cast our parents to the winds of economic fancy?

Cutting defense wouldn't "let the Huns run in". That's a fallacy of epic proportions. The United States currently spends 41.5% of the WORLD'S military budget. For every $100 the world spends on armies, the US spends $41.50 of it. That's absolutely ridiculous.

 

Medicare has artificially increased health care costs for the rest of us. Medicare has led to significant administrative liabilities that has led to further legislation that has penalized everyone where it matters most - in their pocket books. That doesn't even take into account the ridiculous lobby that has resulted in a bunch of cobbled together "plans", each of which is fraught with mismanagement, lack of foresight, and cost overruns.

 

Social Security is forever broken. The solutions to "fixing it" are the dirty ones no one likes to talk about (cutting benefits, raising taxes, increasing the retirement age, etc). There's simply no way around it in the short term. In the long term, it's easy enough to give people both incentive and benefit to save for themselves. There are no shortage of ways to do it, except if we work towards that, the Federal government won't be able to use Social Security money as their own private stash, where they burn through the surplus and leave meaningless IOUs behind (one of the "real reasons" there was a "surplus" during the Clinton administration).

I, as you know, am a committed "liberal, lefty, progressive, etc." but I am truly concerned for my childrens future and their childrens future (all of whom will be Bills fans or be disowned) and I'm scared. I cannot see a way out of this debacle without a significant influx of capital to stimulate business, prop up lending institutions, give tax breaks to small businesses, tax breaks to individuals (regardless of income levels), and prop-up our infrastructure.

There are plenty of ways that don't involve spending a bunch of money we don't have - most of which have to do with taking power away from Washington D.C. and giving it back to the people. I know that's considered anti-progressive but are people really still believing the BS economy of the 1990s when virtually everything I've been harping about (housing, stock market, cheap money, stealing social security, cheap energy, etc) is hitting you in the face everyday?

Who has the capacity to infuse the capital necessary to accomplish this? Will big business and industry really do it on their own? Or do we expect the small businessman to carry the weight of our recovery of an instutional breakdown on their shoulders by themselves? To paraphrase Martin Luther King how can you expect a small businessman to pull himself up by his boot straps if he doesn't have any boots?

Perhaps it's time to point the finger of blame where it belongs: at the two party system that has sold us out in favor of big government and panacea. That thumb you've been sucking on isn't for your security, it's actually apathy.

[BadDad]

Cutting defense wouldn't "let the Huns run in". That's a fallacy of epic proportions. The United States currently spends 41.5% of the WORLD'S military budget. For every $100 the world spends on armies, the US spends $41.50 of it. That's absolutely ridiculous.

 

Medicare has artificially increased health care costs for the rest of us. Medicare has led to significant administrative liabilities that has led to further legislation that has penalized everyone where it matters most - in their pocket books. That doesn't even take into account the ridiculous lobby that has resulted in a bunch of cobbled together "plans", each of which is fraught with mismanagement, lack of foresight, and cost overruns.

 

Social Security is forever broken. The solutions to "fixing it" are the dirty ones no one likes to talk about (cutting benefits, raising taxes, increasing the retirement age, etc). There's simply no way around it in the short term. In the long term, it's easy enough to give people both incentive and benefit to save for themselves. There are no shortage of ways to do it, except if we work towards that, the Federal government won't be able to use Social Security money as their own private stash, where they burn through the surplus and leave meaningless IOUs behind (one of the "real reasons" there was a "surplus" during the Clinton administration).

 

There are plenty of ways that don't involve spending a bunch of money we don't have - most of which have to do with taking power away from Washington D.C. and giving it back to the people. I know that's considered anti-progressive but are people really still believing the BS economy of the 1990s when virtually everything I've been harping about (housing, stock market, cheap money, stealing social security, cheap energy, etc) is hitting you in the face everyday?

 

Perhaps it's time to point the finger of blame where it belongs: at the two party system that has sold us out in favor of big government and panacea. That thumb you've been sucking on isn't for your security, it's actually apathy.

 

Mean Mom is here, I'll respond tomorrow thanks.

[DC Tom]

I'll second that

Although I'm curious as to how long he'll be vacationing. He was on the verge of teaching me about the Zionist White Army and how the Romanovs were secretly Jewish.

 

But I thought the Bolsheviks were Jewish? Nazis, Romanovs, Bolsheviks...is there's anyone who's not a Zionist?

[IDBillzFan]

Social Security is forever broken. The solutions to "fixing it" are the dirty ones no one likes to talk about (cutting benefits, raising taxes, increasing the retirement age, etc). There's simply no way around it in the short term. In the long term, it's easy enough to give people both incentive and benefit to save for themselves. There are no shortage of ways to do it, except if we work towards that, the Federal government won't be able to use Social Security money as their own private stash, where they burn through the surplus and leave meaningless IOUs behind (one of the "real reasons" there was a "surplus" during the Clinton administration).

Recognizing that I'm talking out my ass right now, I want to believe one way to fix Social Security is to give everyone the ability to opt out now. I've been putting into SS for almost 30 years. Give me the chance to call it even. They can keep what I've put in, not be responsible for reimbursement when I retire, but let me keep my 8+% now and forever moving forward. I think people would jump on that ship in a NY minute, leaving the government obligated only to pay off the balance of the people who didn't opt out (when they retire), but you also now force the government to deal with that remaining balance, which is do-able, and put an end to SS forever.

 

The problem, of course, is SS is a massive government cash cow, and they'd never give it up. But I never even hear people suggesting this as an idea, which either means it's a great idea, or a really, really bad one.

[Magox]

Recognizing that I'm talking out my ass right now, I want to believe one way to fix Social Security is to give everyone the ability to opt out now. I've been putting into SS for almost 30 years. Give me the chance to call it even. They can keep what I've put in, not be responsible for reimbursement when I retire, but let me keep my 8+% now and forever moving forward. I think people would jump on that ship in a NY minute, leaving the government obligated only to pay off the balance of the people who didn't opt out (when they retire), but you also now force the government to deal with that remaining balance, which is do-able, and put an end to SS forever.

 

The problem, of course, is SS is a massive government cash cow, and they'd never give it up. But I never even hear people suggesting this as an idea, which either means it's a great idea, or a really, really bad one.

It would never pass their moral litmus test.

[billsfan89]

I think a lot of people are completely missing out on the big issue with the budget here. And that's social security. Right now Social Security brings in about 891 billion dollars in revenue each year while it only pays out about 678 Billion dollars which means that it actually runs at a surplus of 260 plus billion dollars which goes to fund other program payouts. Now with each passing year more and more baby boomers are retiring that surplus number is trending down.

 

Well if we were to completely factor out our TARP, Interest, Other Discretionary spending, and Other Mandatory spending Which is basically everything not including our Defense budget, Social Security, and Medicare/Medicate we would still have a deficit between 30-100 Billion dollars. Now a deficit of 30-100 Billion doesn't sound too bad compared to what we have now right BUT imagine cutting spending on everything but social security, Medicare/Medicate, and Defense just to have a 300-500 Billion dollar deficit once the social security issue takes shape.

 

Once social security stops running at a surplus and starts running at a deficit we are going to be in a world of hurt. Odds are we are going to have to cut Medicare/Medicate severely or cut the defense budget or raise taxes to compensate for the increase of benefits.

 

So we need to cut out the crap BUT lets not think that this is merely an issue of cutting the fat. We have an intrinsic debt problem that goes beyond wasteful spending taxes are going to have to be raised or we are going to have to cut popular useful programs.

 

Also I have read some posts about a possible opt out of social security or completely getting rid of it. Well I just don't think the American public would ever go for that seeing how Social Security is a very popular program and that once we get over the generational gap between the Baby Boomers and Gen X/Y the program will function again as it was intended. But over the next 20-40 years we are in for a world of hurt unless reform is done.

[Magox]

I think a lot of people are completely missing out on the big issue with the budget here. And that's social security.

 

Right now Social Security brings in about 891 billion dollars in revenue each year while it only pays out about 678 Billion dollars which means that it actually runs at a surplus of 260 plus billion dollars which goes to fund other program payouts

We have been talking about Social Security, didn't you see?

 

Also, your facts are fuzzy

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...tirements_N.htm

 

Social Security's annual surplus nearly evaporated in 2009 for the first time in 25 years as the recession led hundreds of thousands of workers to retire or claim disability.

The impact of the recession is likely to hit the giant retirement system even harder this year and next. The Congressional Budget Office had projected it would operate in the red in 2010 and 2011, but a deeper economic slump could make those losses larger than anticipated.

 

"Things are a little bit worse than had been expected," says Stephen Goss, chief actuary for the Social Security Administration. "Clearly, we're going to be negative for a year or two."

 

Since 1984, Social Security has raked in more in payroll taxes than it has paid in benefits, accumulating a $2.5 trillion trust fund. But because the government uses the trust fund to pay for other programs, tax increases, spending cuts or new borrowing will be required to make up the difference between taxes collected and benefits owed.

 

Experts say the trend points to a more basic problem for Social Security: looming retirements by Baby Boomers will create annual losses beginning in 2016 or 2017.

[billsfan89]

We have been talking about Social Security, didn't you see?

 

Also, your facts are fuzzy

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...tirements_N.htm

 

I was going off of 2007-2008 numbers and I was talking more in a general sense instead of people missing out on social security being a real deficit driver rather then those on this board. In fact from reading this thread I have been very surprised how much it and the defense budget has been talked about.

[Magox]

Thanks much, I'll check them out and respond.

More on Ryans plan:

-- Social Security: For those 55 or older today, the program would remain unchanged. For those younger, benefits would be reduced -- with no cuts for the poorest workers. Workers 55 or younger in 2011 could establish individual investment accounts that would be funded with part of their payroll taxes. Government would guarantee a return equal to inflation.

 

-- Medicare: Current recipients and those enrolling in the next decade would continue under today's program, though wealthier recipients would pay somewhat higher premiums. In 2021, Medicare would become a voucher program for new recipients (those today 54 or younger). With vouchers, recipients would buy Medicare-certified private insurance. In today's dollars, the vouchers would ultimately grow to $11,000. Eligibility ages for Medicare and Social Security would slowly increase toward 69 and 70, respectively.

 

-- Spending Freeze: From 2010 to 2019, "non-defense discretionary spending" -- about a sixth of the federal budget, including everything from housing to parks to education -- would be frozen at 2009 levels.

 

-- Simpler Taxes: Taxpayers could choose between today's system or a streamlined replacement with no deductions and virtually no special tax breaks. Above a tax-free amount ($39,000 for a family of four), taxpayers would pay only two rates: 10 percent up to $100,000 for joint filers and 25 percent on income more than that.

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/..._challenge.html