$1.47 Trillion Budget Deficit In FY 2010

[Friend Of Tubby]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100723/ap_on_bi_ge/us_budget_deficit_2 Even with the Summer Of Recovery.

[diehard]

Yeah, that summer of recovery is pretty entertaining. In reality we have entered the American Lost Decade, or two, or three. Luckily, we have seen this coming (it had to come just as an alcoholic has to hit rock bottom) for over two years and are relativity prepared for the long term storm.

The road ahead (especially for those dependent on the government) will get plenty rough. The austerity measures we will have go through will build character but little else. The ambitious and persistent will hurt, but much less than the others.

Perhaps we will return to the principles of faith, hope, and charity. If you go to church you may want to see what can be done to get day care and a private elementary school rolling. We are going to have to lean on each other like we have successfully done so many times before. If you don't go to church, you may want to check some out. A friend or family member may be able to make a good recommendation as to where to start. Don't give up hope if you personally hit rock bottom. Don't give up hope.

[MrGopher]

nm

[diehard]

If you are addressing me you didn't see Obama named in that post. Furthermore, if you have been paying attention I frequently let Bush have it when talking about the imploding economy. You have a point if you are addressing a number of others that post. (Actually there are few here that give Bush a pass for his role in deficit spending.)

[bga1]

http://www.economics21.org/commentary/mid-year-update

[Iceland12]

http://www.esquire.com/features/impossible/balance-the-budget-0810

[diehard]

The Esquire feature will be interesting as it unfolds. Personally I would not have selected any of their 5 panel members, but they are prominent names from days of yore. I would be interested in what they recommend as they begin to meet, so if 12 or another Esquire reader would track this (separate thread) it would be interesting. Outside of raising current taxes (bad idea, see Bernacke), adding a VAT (bad idea, see Europe), and cutting military spending (good idea, get us out of AFPAK, what needs to be finished can be at a low cost through covert activities.) I am curious what they come up with. We have to increase total tax revenue (without increasing tax rates), and make huge budget cuts (entitlements have to be in the mix and cut way back).

The solution would begin with:

1. Huge budget cuts including entitlements and military without eliminating necessary safety nets. A lot of reform needed here.

2. Pass balanced budget amendment.

3. Implement the Fair Tax.

4. Real fix for our school system.

It will likely take a combination of ideas to make a large enough impact to start pulling us out of this mess. The question remains, once we make progress, like under Clinton post Hillarycare debacle, where do we find the discipline to not repeat the Bush mistakes that Obama has exponentially multiplied.

My choice for a Chairman would be (drum roll)... Ron Paul. I would add President Clinton and Newt Gingrich to the panel also.

[Gopher4Life]

>>1. Huge budget cuts including entitlements and military without eliminating necessary safety nets. A lot of reform needed here.<<

It all starts with fiscal restraint (ie responsible, systematic cuts in spending via reduction in bureaucracy, waste, and dependence upon Big Brother). The alternative is to allow spending to continue to increase and then constantly scramble to pay those bills and manage the debt. That alternative is inevitably a fatal disease.

The latest example of the fatal trend is the passage of extended unemployment benefits by piling on additional debt rather than by tapping unused stimulus dollars.

[bga1]

>>1. Huge budget cuts including entitlements and military without eliminating necessary safety nets. A lot of reform needed here.<<

It all starts with fiscal restraint (ie responsible, systematic cuts in spending via reduction in bureaucracy, waste, and dependence upon Big Brother). The alternative is to allow spending to continue to increase and then constantly scramble to pay those bills and manage the debt. That alternative is inevitably a fatal disease.

The latest example of the fatal trend is the passage of extended unemployment benefits by piling on additional debt rather than by tapping unused stimulus dollars.

DH and G4L-

Sorry guys but if you don't start with the entitlement programs you get nowhere. I good idea would be to start by running all budget items back to 2006 level pre- Dem Congress when we had a mere 250 billion deficit (still way too high). In 2006 these items total 58% of the federal budget of 2.7 trillion:

Medicare 13.26%
Medicaid 10.3%
Unemployment and welfare 13.79%
Social security 20.9%

So in 2006 this total was 1.56 trillion for these 4 categories.

In 1996 it was 870 billion for those same 4 categories.

What happened? Bush did stupidly add the prescription drug beenfit but that's not much of the increase. Most of the rest of the increase comes from the fact that we have an older population.

If you don't solve these four categories you lose. Obama has since piled on to every one of these and plans far more. Wait until the real Obamacare numbers start to hit.

[UpnorthGo4]

DH and G4L-

Sorry guys but if you don't start with the entitlement programs you get nowhere. I good idea would be to start by running all budget items back to 2006 level pre- Dem Congress when we had a mere 250 billion deficit (still way too high). In 2006 these items total 58% of the federal budget of 2.7 trillion:

Medicare 13.26%
Medicaid 10.3%
Unemployment and welfare 13.79%
Social security 20.9%

So in 2006 this total was 1.56 trillion for these 4 categories.

In 1996 it was 870 billion for those same 4 categories.

What happened? Bush did stupidly add the prescription drug beenfit but that's not much of the increase. Most of the rest of the increase comes from the fact that we have an older population.

If you don't solve these four categories you lose. Obama has since piled on to every one of these and plans far more. Wait until the real Obamacare numbers start to hit.


You guys are going to find out sooner or later that my proposal is the only viable solution for the time bomb of medicare/medicaid costs for retirees. Once a retiree reaches the age of 80 they need to take on an increasingly larger share of their medical costs. By the time they are 90 years old Medicare/Medicaid should only pick up the cost of routine medical care. Thereafter, the cost for procedures to extend the life of the retiree should be totally paid by the retiree. Those who can't afford it need to start getting their affairs in order. This is a Republican value if I have ever seen one.

Social Security is a much easier problem to address. Increase the retirement age and include the benefits as ordinary income on the tax return (after retirees recover their contribution).

Like it or not, Unemployment and Welfare benefits are always going to be with us because Americans like to take care of the less fortunate among us. I know this is not a Republican value, but it is a Christian value. We all know that it is never going to be enough to leave it up to the kindness of strangers.

[diehard]

So now cutting medical care for the oldest and most fragile has become a Christian value in Upper's church? How about the young and heallthy faring for themselves? You know, like your granddaughter that needs the government to survive.

[Section2]

Like it or not, Unemployment and Welfare benefits are always going to be with us because Americans like to take care of the less fortunate among us. I know this is not a Republican value, but it is a Christian value. We all know that it is never going to be enough to leave it up to the kindness of strangers.

Which is it? Americans like to take care of the less fortunate among us, or we can't leave it up to the kindness of Americans? And if we like taking care of each other, why would we choose a system where a large entity forcefully takes your money and then doles it out how it sees fit? Wouldn't you want to choose the neediest for your charity and to make sure it's used properly? Isn't having someone else do it depriving you of feeling good from helping someone directly, and feeling more connected to your community? We can't leave it up to the kindness of strangers?

[bga1]

Which is it? Americans like to take care of the less fortunate among us, or we can't leave it up to the kindness of Americans? And if we like taking care of each other, why would we choose a system where a large entity forcefully takes your money and then doles it out how it sees fit? Wouldn't you want to choose the neediest for your charity and to make sure it's used properly? Isn't having someone else do it depriving you of feeling good from helping someone directly, and feeling more connected to your community? We can't leave it up to the kindness of strangers?

Well said. If I may add- when the money or the help in whatever form comes from one small hand to another it is appreciated and seen as a "hand up". When such aid consistently coems from the large anonymous entity is soon becomes a "hand out" that slowly becomes expected and not appreciated. This entitlement mentality begins bit by bit to rob people of their self worth and ability to contribute to a better society. You can't train a society to be great in that way.

UpNorth- please read this:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/07/026865.php

[Costa Rican Gopher]

We can break this down by sex for further intrigue. Men, on average will not be effected by cutting benefits at 80 years old. Women though, who by age 50 have not had cancer or heart problems will live to be 94 on average. So, unintentionally (I'd like to think?) you're in favor of cutting off health care to old ladies, but you support giving it to young people who COULD work and to illegal immigrants? What you're saying is unintentionally (I'd like to think?) ridiculous.

[UpnorthGo4]

Here is a flash for you fiscally conservative humanitarians out there. Medicare is a great program for retirees and it is absolutely needed. But the dollars don't add up if we are going to pay for heart transplants for 98 year olds.

I would ask you guys for your plan to cut entitlements but I already know that you don't have one. The only reason the Republican Party exists is to be against whatever Democrats try to do to solve problems for the American people.

[Section2]

Here is a flash for you fiscally conservative humanitarians out there. Medicare is a great program for retirees and it is absolutely needed. But the dollars don't add up if we are going to pay for heart transplants for 98 year olds.

I would ask you guys for your plan to cut entitlements but I already know that you don't have one. The only reason the Republican Party exists is to be against whatever Democrats try to do to solve problems for the American people.

But the fact that the dollars don't add up (and not just for 98 yr old heart transplants) is exactly our point. At some point some tough decisions need to be made. And government CAN'T make them because it is unfair. That's why they shouldn't be involved. I have lots of plans to cut entitlements (not a republican though). Raise retirement age to the life expectancy age for SS (gradually). Undo Obamacare and start over. Get rid of welfare. I have millions of ideas.

[hyaluronic]

I have millions of ideas.

Let's hear 1% of them. ;)

[bga1]

Here is a flash for you fiscally conservative humanitarians out there. Medicare is a great program for retirees and it is absolutely needed. But the dollars don't add up if we are going to pay for heart transplants for 98 year olds.

I would ask you guys for your plan to cut entitlements but I already know that you don't have one. The only reason the Republican Party exists is to be against whatever Democrats try to do to solve problems for the American people.

Here's a good starting point to read how Republicans might cut entitlements including Social Security. And remember welfare and unemployment are entitlements and almost every Republican would like to see cutbucks in those areas.

http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/

[Section2]

Let's hear 1% of them. ;)

Fire 5,000 employees at the dept of education and get rid of it, and save 60 billion.
Ok, that's 5000 ideas.

And then we can get rid of the Dept of Labor or roll it into commerce. This dept spends 13 billion officially, but has 17,500 employees! Huge long term costs. And for what?
"The Department of Labor fosters and promotes the welfare of the job seekers, wage earners, and retirees of the United States by improving their working conditions, advancing their opportunities for profitable employment, protecting their retirement and health care benefits, helping employers find workers, strengthening free collective bargaining, and tracking changes in employment, prices, and other national economic measurements. In carrying out this mission, the Department administers a variety of Federal labor laws including those that guarantee workers’ rights to safe and healthful working conditions; a minimum hourly wage and overtime pay; freedom from employment discrimination; unemployment insurance; and other income support."

17,500 employees for that, think about it. Have you ever had any dealing with the US dept of labor? What a waste.

[UpnorthGo4]

Here's a good starting point to read how Republicans might cut entitlements including Social Security. And remember welfare and unemployment are entitlements and almost every Republican would like to see cutbucks in those areas.

http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/


Beeg, I just read Ryan's proposals. I predict that he will never get the Republican nomination for president and sooner or later he will have to become a Democrat because his ideas will be considered too progressive for the GOP. It should be noted that 38 Republicans voted against his plan when he introduced it last years. I will happily welcome him to the Democratic Party. I don't have a significant issue with any of his ideas about reforming entitlements.

[bga1]

Beeg, I just read Ryan's proposals. I predict that he will never get the Republican nomination for president and sooner or later he will have to become a Democrat because his ideas will be considered too liberal for the GOP. I will happily welcome him to the Democratic Party. I don't have a significant issue with any of his proposals.

His proposal is for lower taxes, get rid of ObamaCare, throw in a privatization element to social security, balance the budget, spend less, reduce all entitlements, etc. Welcome aboard to these Republican ideas.

[UpnorthGo4]

"Welcome aboard to the ideas of ONE Republican. (Fixed)

I note that 38 Republicans voted against Ryan's legislation when he introduced it last year. And Ryan didn't get rid of ObamaCare - he just improved it. The whole idea behind ObamaCare (at least in my view) is that every single American be given the opportunity to obtain immediate access to necessary medical care when they need it. As far as I can tell, Ryans improvements to ObamaCare do just that.

[bga1]

"Welcome aboard to the ideas of ONE Republican. (Fixed)

I note that 38 Republicans voted against Ryan's legislation when he introduced it last year. And Ryan didn't get rid of ObamaCare - he just improved it. The whole idea behind ObamaCare (at least in my view) is that every single American be given the opportunity to obtain immediate access to necessary medical care when they need it. As far as I can tell, Ryans improvements to ObamaCare do just that.

Can you please cite the vote date on this? I have never heard of this. Thanks in advance.

[UpnorthGo4]

Can you please cite the vote date on this? I have never heard of this. Thanks in advance.

Beeg, I pulled that information out of Ryan's Wikipedia article:

On May 21, 2008 Ryan introduced H.R. 6110, titled "Roadmap for America's Future Act of 2008".[6] This proposed legislation outlined a plan to deal with entitlement issues. Its stated objectives were to ensure universal access to health insurance; strengthen Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security; lift the debt from future generations; and promote economic growth and job creation in America.[7] The act would have abolished the State Children's Health Insurance Program in 2010.[8] It did not move past committee.[9]

On April 1, 2009, Ryan introduced the GOP Alternative to the 2010 United States federal budget. This proposed alternative would have eliminated the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, lowered the top tax rate to 25%, introduced an 8.5% value-added consumption tax, and imposed a five-year spending freeze on all discretionary spending.[10] It would also have replaced the Medicare system.[11] Instead, it proposed that starting in 2021, the federal government would pay part of the cost of private medical insurance for individuals turning 65.[11] Ryan's proposed budget would also have allowed taxpayers to opt out of the federal income taxation system with itemized deductions, and instead pay a flat 10 percent of adjusted gross income up to $100,000 and 25 percent on any remaining income.[12] Ryan's proposed budget was heavily criticized by opponents for the lack of concrete numbers[13]. It was ultimately rejected in the house by a vote of 293-137, with 38 Republicans in opposition.[14]

In late January 2010, Ryan released a new version of his "Roadmap."[15] It would give across the board tax cuts by reducing income tax rates; eliminating income taxes on capital gains, dividends, and interest; and abolishing the corporate income tax, the estate tax, and the alternative minimum tax. The plan would privatize a portion of Social Security,[16][17] eliminate the tax exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance,[17] end traditional Medicare and most of Medicaid,[16][17] and terminate the Children’s Health Insurance Program. The plan would replace these health programs with a system of vouchers whose value would decrease over time.[17]

[bga1]

<"On April 1, 2009, Ryan introduced the GOP Alternative to the 2010 United States federal budget. This proposed alternative would have eliminated the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, lowered the top tax rate to 25%, introduced an 8.5% value-added consumption tax, and imposed a five-year spending freeze on all discretionary spending.[10] It would also have replaced the Medicare system.[11] Instead, it proposed that starting in 2021, the federal government would pay part of the cost of private medical insurance for individuals turning 65.[11] Ryan's proposed budget would also have allowed taxpayers to opt out of the federal income taxation system with itemized deductions, and instead pay a flat 10 percent of adjusted gross income up to $100,000 and 25 percent on any remaining income.[12] Ryan's proposed budget was heavily criticized by opponents for the lack of concrete numbers[13]. It was ultimately rejected in the house by a vote of 293-137, with 38 Republicans in opposition.[14]">

Thank you. Now we are getting somewhere. First please understand that the fact that 38 Republicans voted against it means that nearly 5 times that many vote FOR it. That means R's generally supported Ryan!! Almost no Democrat,if there was even one, was with him!

Furthermore please understand that the proposal we see on his web site now is the rewritten version with further specifics (per the previous complaint) and it has NEVER been voted on and most likely never will be unless there is a new Republican congress.

[UpnorthGo4]

You missed my point again, Beeg. If Ryan introduces his new legislation next week he will not get anywhere near the number of Republican votes that he got 15 months ago. The Republican Party's continuing and unending drift to the Right is making people like Ryan look like Socialists to the Conservative Extremists who are gaining a stranglehold on the party.

Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann are all but running the Republican Party right now and will never go along with Ryan and his proposals. They smell blood in the water and the are going to try to turn back the clock on every piece of liberal legislation that has occurred in the last 75 years. They are going to want it all and Ryan is going to have to leave the Republican Party if he wants a fair hearing for his extremely moderate ideas for reforming entitlements. There is no longer any room in the Republican Party for a politician as thoughtful and reasonable as Ryan

[bga1]

You missed my point again, Beeg. If Ryan introduces his new legislation next week he will not get anywhere near the number of Republican votes that he got 15 months ago. The Republican Party's continuing and unending drift to the Right is making people like Ryan look like Socialists to the Conservative Extremists who are gaining a stranglehold on the party.

Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann are all but running the Republican Party right now and will never go along with Ryan and his proposals. They smell blood in the water and the are going to try to turn back the clock on every piece of liberal legislation that has occurred in the last 75 years. They are going to want it all and Ryan is going to have to leave the Republican Party if he wants a fair hearing for his extremely moderate ideas for reforming entitlements. There is no longer any room in the Republican Party for a politician as thoughtful and reasonable as Ryan


I really like his platform. Am I now a moderate?

[diehard]

beeg is a moderate and Upper and I are far right nut jobs. We must be in the end times.

[UpnorthGo4]

I really like his platform. Am I now a moderate?

No, Beeg. You are still a Right Wing Extremist who occasionally has enough sense to take moderate and reasonable positions on the issues of the day. However, similar to what I predict for Paul Ryan, I think that you might wake up some day and discover that the Republican Party has left you behind in their headlong rush to reverse the course of human history and return us to the 1950's when white males ruled America, and America ruled the world.

[UpnorthGo4]

beeg is a moderate and Upper and I are far right nut jobs. We must be in the end times.

Dipper, I don't necessarily object to being labeled a far right nut job because, unlike the Right Wing Extremists that have hijacked the Republican Party, I actually take positions on issues that are not in lockstep with my party. You and Beeg would be shocked at some of my conservative views, and many liberals would think I am a far right nut job for having them.

[diehard]

Supporting Cap and Trade wasn't exactly a common sense conservative position. That Brew_!!! What a clown!