Stagflation Nation

[Teatownclown]

I don't care what Norquist thinks, he's a demagogue and he doesn't have accountability to voters.  He considers ending ethanol subsidies as a tax increase, need I say more?

In addition to tax revenue increases, there needs to be an incentive for every department head within the government to look for ways to become more efficient and cut waste.  Instead, when budget cuts are mentioned every single one says: "We can't function on less."  The paradigm needs to shift to every supervisor and every employee figuring out how they can get by on less.  That's precisely what's kept a lot of private enterprises afloat the last few years.  That's also partially behind the persistent 9% unemployment, small business has thrived on sacrifice.

I think even some of the most astute conservatives are realizing there's no way out of this mess without raising taxes.  Problem is, most of them are afraid of not having a job come Jan. 2013 if they agree to tax increases.  The message needs to change.  The message needs to be everyone sacrifices.  Everyone pays in a little more and every department and entitlement gives up a little.

You must have had a sobering 4th....Everyone sacrifices....except those that need a hand up. You're getting there. Our congressman says a deal is coming and they will get something accomplished soon. We will wait and see...

[we vs us]

I don't care what Norquist thinks, he's a demagogue and he doesn't have accountability to voters.  He considers ending ethanol subsidies as a tax increase, need I say more?

The reason I brought him up is because you've pretty strongly advocated for his approach to taxation and government, which is to forcibly reduce government by depriving it of funding.  Starving the beast.  That's what I'm gathering from your posts so far.  That regardless of the Bush tax cuts, government was and is far too big and so we should essentially keep those cuts permanent because government should only be using that much in revenue anyway.

Did I get that right? 

[Hoss]

I don't care what Norquist thinks, he's a demagogue and he doesn't have accountability to voters.  He considers ending ethanol subsidies as a tax increase, need I say more?

In addition to tax revenue increases, there needs to be an incentive for every department head within the government to look for ways to become more efficient and cut waste.  Instead, when budget cuts are mentioned every single one says: "We can't function on less."  The paradigm needs to shift to every supervisor and every employee figuring out how they can get by on less.  That's precisely what's kept a lot of private enterprises afloat the last few years.  That's also partially behind the persistent 9% unemployment, small business has thrived on sacrifice.

I think even some of the most astute conservatives are realizing there's no way out of this mess without raising taxes.  Problem is, most of them are afraid of not having a job come Jan. 2013 if they agree to tax increases.  The message needs to change.  The message needs to be everyone sacrifices.  Everyone pays in a little more and every department and entitlement gives up a little.

In my eyes, you have the elder Bush to thank a little for that conservative mindset...anyone remember 'read my lips'?  That became the conservative mantra..until he raised taxes.

Look, I'm all for tax cuts when warranted.  This sure isn't the time.  Sure, we need to cut discretionary spending.  But that's not going to have the same impact as also rolling back the the tax code to pre 2001, where they were with Clinton.  And modify some of the 'loopholes'.

[Hoss]

The reason I brought him up is because you've pretty strongly advocated for his approach to taxation and government, which is to forcibly reduce government by depriving it of funding.  Starving the beast.  That's what I'm gathering from your posts so far.  That regardless of the Bush tax cuts, government was and is far too big and so we should essentially keep those cuts permanent because government should only be using that much in revenue anyway.

Did I get that right? 

We need to cut spending for sure.  Start with the 900 lb gorilla in the room.  Defense.  Then work on his little brother, Social Security.

[Gaspar]

We need to cut spending for sure.  Start with the 900 lb gorilla in the room.  Defense.  Then work on his little brother, Social Security.

Sounds good.  Send a letter to the president.  Here are the actual breakdowns in spending according to current numbers (in billions) according to the Debt Clock.

Medicare/aid     $820   
Social Sec             $714   
Defense               $701   
Income Security     $423   
Fed Pensions     $210
Interest               $211

Within these general categories it should be relatively easy to find 1.3 trillion dollars to cut.  First step would be to freeze spending at current levels for all categories until the budget is in balance.  Is that agreeable?  We are being eaten by interest.  Currently our mandatory spending is below our revenue (I am including defense as discretionary).  Within the next 20 years our mandatory spending will exceed our revenue (much sooner if Obamacare survives).  By around 2040, the interest we owe will be more than any other government spending (except perhaps Obamacare if it survives).


Second, would be to identify spending that provides no reasonable or lasting benefit, and eliminate it.  This will be painful for some, as that it will affect secondary social programs.  Even though cuts to non-social spending, may be far greater, a single fraction of a percent in reduction to social programs will produce a thousand times more powerful demagogic reaction from liberals than a massive cut to defense.

I am of the opinion that we could cut as much at 20% of defense spending by eliminating additional theaters of war, responsibly withdrawing from existing conflicts, and scaling back our roll as world police.  That comes out to about $140billion. 

That's my percentage, now we only need to find 10 times more!

[Conan71]

The reason I brought him up is because you've pretty strongly advocated for his approach to taxation and government, which is to forcibly reduce government by depriving it of funding.  Starving the beast.  That's what I'm gathering from your posts so far.  That regardless of the Bush tax cuts, government was and is far too big and so we should essentially keep those cuts permanent because government should only be using that much in revenue anyway.

Did I get that right? 

Actually you didn't.  I advocate raising taxes by a like percentage on everyone.  That takes away any arguments for favored treatment for any one class.  I also advocate an equal percentage cut to every single government budget.  That takes out the sacred cows.  Everyone sacrifices and eventually we return to fiscal sanity.

It's pretty easy to manage when you say: "You are going to pay 3% more income tax.  Those of you who wind up paying nothing will get 3% less back.  Every single department and entitlement takes an equal percent cut in funding.  Figure out how to manage on less."

I'd also invest more money in fraud prevention in entitlement programs.

For a senior drawing $2000 a month in Social Security benefits, a 3% cut would equal $5.00 a month.  Not a huge sacrifice.  We've bantered about the 3% increase with a corresponding 3% decrease in spending on here before.  I don't recall the magic numbers but it would stanch deficit spending fairly quick as well as reduce the debt.

When the military comes along and says they don't need as much money because they want to shut down an expensive program then a few key Congresspeople weigh in on behalf of some of their heavy hitter donors er constituents to keep building armament our own military says it no longer needs, you know something is eerily wrong with the system.

Straight cuts and simplifying the tax code will remove most of the usual politics.  Not to say that gaining support for such an idea wouldn't be political in and of itself, but it takes away all favoritism and drives home the point every American needs to take part in expecting a little less and giving a little more.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I don't remember the unemployment numbers as I was employed by the US Navy for a few years and then went back to school until 79.  I found a job in 79 which I kept until 1992.

However, that was a generation ago.  Are you certain nothing has changed in OK?  In the USA?

Not at all.  I suspect much has changed.  Just not sure that so much of it is human nature changing, though...

Even today with all the kids (18 to 24) I meet in the workplace, and the things they are interested in, it looks like they are about the same.  And all the teeny-bops I have met at Union this last year are also the same kind of goofballs I remember being at that same age.  Except they seem to get more sex than I could EVER have dreamed of.

I used to hear that old hack about how "the more things change, the more they stay the same"... didn't really believe that very much until the last 15 years or so.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Conan,
3% of 2k is $60 per month.

Also, who gets $2,000 per month from Social Security so far??  I only have two contemporaries, one an engineer, one laborer who have started this last year at full age.  The laborer is closer to $900 per month.  The engineer, who for decades (since at least 1983) made the amount where the maximum contribution is required, does not get 2k - is under $1,700.


I found this - but who made the maximum for 46 years??  The notes I get from SS - well, I would love to get close to that $2,300 this place talks about....

http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/5/~/maximum-social-security-retirement-benefit

[Hoss]

Conan,
3% of 2k is $60 per month.

Also, who gets $2,000 per month from Social Security so far??  I only have two contemporaries, one an engineer, one laborer who have started this last year at full age.  The laborer is closer to $900 per month.  The engineer, who for decades (since at least 1983) made the amount where the maximum contribution is required, does not get 2k - is under $1,700.


I found this - but who made the maximum for 46 years??  The notes I get from SS - well, I would love to get close to that $2,300 this place talks about....

http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/5/~/maximum-social-security-retirement-benefit

My mother barely gets $600.  Used to be $700 before the medicare supplemental deduction.  Not a lot, considering she was a stay at home mom until her accident, then unable to work, it is some.  Her prescriptions meds also only cost her $1 for each of them for a month, so that's not too bad either.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Hoss,
Has she looked into filing under your father (or her husband??).  Might be more, depending on lots of factors...

[Conan71]

Conan,
3% of 2k is $60 per month.

Also, who gets $2,000 per month from Social Security so far??  I only have two contemporaries, one an engineer, one laborer who have started this last year at full age.  The laborer is closer to $900 per month.  The engineer, who for decades (since at least 1983) made the amount where the maximum contribution is required, does not get 2k - is under $1,700.


I found this - but who made the maximum for 46 years??  The notes I get from SS - well, I would love to get close to that $2,300 this place talks about....

http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/5/~/maximum-social-security-retirement-benefit

Ooops, derp, silly math. Not sure why I divided that result by 12 my bad Basically $30 a month for someone receiving $1000 in cash benefits.  Never mind what they are getting in the way of health benefits.

[Hoss]

Hoss,
Has she looked into filing under your father (or her husband??).  Might be more, depending on lots of factors...

That's what she's getting it from now..she didn't work enough to be able to claim SS, although she's disabled so before she was 65 (she just turned that in April) she was drawing SSI.  Much to the chagrin of those chastising about 'sucking at the gubmint teat', I was glad she was able to because I wouldn't have been able to help as much as I'd like.

[nathanm]

Conan, we've been cutting much of government for the last 30 years while increasing expense in Medicare and Social Security and increasing the size of the defense budget for the last 10. If you want even more regulatory failures, please, let's cut government spending more.

[guido911]

Know what's freakin hilarious? Joking about how the automaker bailouts were done for the unions.

Investigators for the House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform are asking the White House official who oversaw the government bailouts of General Motors and Chrysler whether he told the truth in recent testimony before the committee.  Ron Bloom, Assistant to the President for Manufacturing Policy, is quoted in a 2009 newspaper account and a 2010 book saying of the auto bailouts that he "did this all for the unions."  But when Bloom appeared before the committee on June 22, he flatly denied ever saying those words.  Other White House officials have reportedly defended Bloom by suggesting that he did indeed say those words but was joking.  And that has led committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa to ask what is going on.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/07/house-asks-did-obamas-auto-bailout-chief-say-i-did-all-unions#ixzz1ReGze3ES

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/07/house-asks-did-obamas-auto-bailout-chief-say-i-did-all-unions

[heironymouspasparagus]

Know what's even MORE freakin hilarious?

Joking about how the automaker bailouts were done by Obama!

When they actually occurred in Sept/Oct 2008.  A month or two before the election even occurred.

Hilarious!!  But right in line with RWRE twisting of history.