budget deficit (for US based suchers)

i'd like to start a thread where we don't snipe and aren't snide towards each others' political views, and honestly discuss what we'd each like to do to address the budget deficit. what public services are you willing to give up, what programs would you like to see cut and what changes to tax policy are you willing to countenance?

post away.

Are you only talking about cuts at the Federal level?

yes.

Start with Social Security Reform. Disability is one of the most abused entitlements.

no more SS Tax. freeze and pay those who paid into it. Or, be honest and call it a National Pension Scheme - which is what it is.

reform disability - true disability. Physical and mental pain cannot be measured and hence, need tightening for these factors.

there was an article by larry summers in the post some days ago where he was citing a study that minimizing or eliminating fraud in social programs, and no doubt they occur, will not even make a dent to the deficit. it's important to do that from a moralistic standpoint, but does nothing to the deficit. i'll post a link later if i find it.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i'd like to start a thread where we don't snipe and aren't snide towards each others' political views, and honestly discuss what we'd each like to do to address the budget deficit. what public services are you willing to give up, what programs would you like to see cut and what changes to tax policy are you willing to countenance?

post away.

Seriously, NONE.

I do pay more than my share of taxes, and am willing to pay (really sacrifice) more, if I have to support the current or expand public services for myself and others.

*If I have the choice and asked where my taxes/money should go..I would specifically pick SS, Health Care-Medicare, Medicaid, Disability Programs.

If I am asked where my taxes/money should not go/be decreased:

Defense Budget

State Dept and International Relations/Aid

Reduce Education budget- No matching federal grants for Public School Education (if the parents make more than $40,000- must pay for their children)

NASA

Other Discretionary Budget allocations.




I am going to respect your request and not comment further.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:no more SS Tax. freeze and pay those who paid into it.

using what funds? ss benefits are paid through ss taxes. there is no "lock box". money in, money out.

The purpose of govt is to provide security fromexternal and internal threats. Defen
ce is part of such set up. Every sector needs to sacrifice to reduce deficit. So does defence. But it cannot be targeted for unequalshare of budget cuts.

Social programs that take out more than they bring in suchas SS and medicare must be tightened to incominglevels. Otherwise budget can never balance.

Aid to other nations is a neglible part of budget and it is animportant part US foriegn policy.

The purpose of govt is to provide security fromexternal and internal threats. Defen
ce is part of such set up. Every sector needs to sacrifice to reduce deficit. So does defence. But it cannot be targeted for unequalshare of budget cuts.

Social programs that take out more than they bring in suchas SS and medicare must be tightened to incominglevels. Otherwise budget can never balance.

Aid to other nations is a neglible part of budget and it is animportant part US foriegn policy.

TBT,

Since this is Max's thread- will abide by the request and not get into an ideological-political debate..will simply say that everyone (every tax payer) is entitled to his/her views (and not say who is right or wrong- when it comes to "Govt's role").

If I stay in this thread- it is tempting to debate! So, moving on.. no more comments from me:)

i am not against reforming social programs but as the graph i posted a few days ago shows, the bush era tax cuts are a much large cause for the deficits than any social program. if balancing the budget in a reasonably short period (10 - 15 years) is important, then shouldn't we target something that will produce more immediate and larger results first?

second question -- cutting social programs disproportionately affects poor people but letting all taxes go back to clinton era levels disproportionately affects the richest segments of american society. why this focus on one, but not the other? letting poor folks out to dry also destroys upward mobility which is a big driver of future GDP growth.

ideological debate is fine. it's the label affixing, and i am guilty of it too, that kills debate.

let me post this handy link here again:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html

and here is that article by summers:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lawrence-summers-the-reality-of-trying-to-shrink-government/2012/08/19/0e786b40-ea00-11e1-a80b-9f898562d010_story.html

i was wrong. he doesn't cite any study. just his opinion that eliminating fraud will only have a negligible effect on the deficit.

One word for you, Il Professore:

Greece

I do understand all the realities..internal and external..

As I see it..with or without labels..it's all about ideology (where to cut more and where to fund)..what makes sense to one person..may not make any sense to another based on ideological perspectives+ party affliation (in realistic terms) to vote for any bill- appropriation.

Just a few examples..

*To me going and bombing countries wasting so much of the Defense budget..and rebuilding other nations..when everything here is falling apart (for the middle and lower classes) makes no sense...and we have to sit and wonder how to cut what little many, many US citizens who are "most vulnerable"..the elderly, sick, disabled here..in a few years..I may be one of them..people I care about can be among them (if it comes down) to using "vochers and coupons"..it is frightening to think this has to be cut back..I really don't trust any Private Corp to run any system..I believe that the Govt..MUST be involved when it comes to the weak for what little protection there is now..
Just look at the preps for Hurricane Isaac..the role of Govt..for many people who are sick, elderly and diabled..it's like being caught in hurricanes/storms of life..they just can't survive - or have some dignity without assistance..

*Double standards- Public Health Care (so called socialized Medicine) is bad...but Public Education for all is not seen as "Governmentizing"..etc.

Paraphrasing a quote I read recently.."The systems in the US are not really broken to be fixed, they have been "bought" by special interest groups- the contractors, lobbyists, politicians from both parties who take their campaign donations"..it's choosing between lesser of two evils- based on our ideological leanings..

With that rather discouraged tone..will bow out..you'all continue!

Hellsangel wrote:One word for you, Il Professore:

Greece

not really. greece is fundamentally different. for one it doesn't have the same innovation driven economy that we have. second, tax compliance is REALLY terrible; basically nobody pays taxes. thirdly thankfully we are not part of the single currency mess (what a lousy idea that turned out to be). and above it all, i agree that fixing the deficit is an important goal, but we can debate the time frame. as a share of the economy we ran larger deficits in the period 90-94. govt spending spurred growth which did much to erase the deficit during the wwII era. so this single minded focus on erasing the deficit while not aspiring for growth is perplexing. the news in the immediate aftermath of austerity measures from the UK is not very encouraging.

Maria
Ideally i would like to support health care for allnin all situations. In my e tended family i dia i have seen lifes lost because the family reached it limits to support. Others supported but but in some cases expenses are beyond ordinary people. It is heart breaking to see people you know lose the fight.
Resources are limited. So they must be used in judicious way. If we tie ourselves in preserving every life and spend 33% of medicare dollars on last two years of life we may deprive a young person a surgery that will help him become more productive. We cannot be anti old people but create a policy that spends first dollars on future and the rest on others. The current policy driven by highly vocal regular voting elderly is not open to sharing available money with other sections of society.
Real issues and resonable discussion. No politics. No name calling.

Max
Good or bad most of the new ideas in political economy in the last 20 years came from repub and the right. Some of them were at the behest of selfish groups of tax lowering rich people. But some repub ideas of welfare reform, entitlement reform, reduction of govt size, and tax reductio are all founded on strong economic reasoning. The only major policy of dems in past 20 years is to pass health care reform in the middle of a great recession.

If repubs get over their religious wingnuts and come forward with a sensible economic proposal, they will sound more credible than dems.

TBT: it is difficult to deal with fuzzy claims. i am not even sure what you are saying. to clarify, are you saying that there has been more robust economic growth under republican administrations (and/or congress)? i don't know the data completely, but that should be easy enough to verify or disprove (if that is your claim).

some completely unverified charts from here (http://www.angrybearblog.com/2010/06/economic-growth-rates-presidents-party.html)

growth of real gdp per capita by president:



democratic president only (along with party in control of congress):



republican president only (along with party in control of congress):



if you find the plot legends hard to read, go to the original article and click on the charts to get bigger and more readable charts.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:no more SS Tax. freeze and pay those who paid into it.

using what funds? ss benefits are paid through ss taxes. there is no "lock box". money in, money out.

Not really, the treasury borrows the SS money and counts it as its income and spends it as Govt "entitlement". That is how even Clinton "balanced" the budget, which a few republicans pointed out.

Anyway, that is for the govt to figure out how to pay the SS for the ex-youngsters - tax the rich, cut defense, borrow, ...

There is no other way EVERYTHING can be saved in its entirety and without harming anything.

The alternative is a Greecian solution thrust on the Govt and the people - but it will take some time.

As I said earlier the total 14 Trillion US Debt consists of 5+ trillion to Social Security, 2+ trillion to banks, etc..etc...(forgot the exact breakdown). only around 7 trillion is owed to Foreigners.

what i meant was that there are no reserves in the ss account. all the money that comes in through payroll deductions goes right out the door in benefits payments.

that's for the govt to figure it out? who is the govt? who makes these choices?

truthbetold wrote:Maria
Ideally i would like to support health care for allnin all situations. In my e tended family i dia i have seen lifes lost because the family reached it limits to support. Others supported but but in some cases expenses are beyond ordinary people. It is heart breaking to see people you know lose the fight.
Resources are limited. So they must be used in judicious way. If we tie ourselves in preserving every life and spend 33% of medicare dollars on last two years of life we may deprive a young person a surgery that will help him become more productive. We cannot be anti old people but create a policy that spends first dollars on future and the rest on others. The current policy driven by highly vocal regular voting elderly is not open to sharing available money with other sections of society.
Real issues and resonable discussion. No politics. No name calling.

TBT,

I am quite passionate about Health Care for ALL Americans..and can say *I am quite knowledgeable about the issues, resources, challenges involved.

*Even with the "current" status of Medicare..look at what is happening to "Health Care", esp. Medicaid..we may differ about how we feel about we see Medicare money is being spent..but, for a moment let me take your example about saving "a young person's life"..here is a real story I found in a few mins (I know lots and lots of similar stories about how young people who are being affected now)..

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/29/medicaid-health-care_n_1835101.html

*All this load of lies being told about how health care for the young will be cut back- because Medicare "is taking the money the money from the young"..I know is false and fear-mongering..I am very concerned about the "truth" that if Medicare is reorganized it will not only be far worse than now for the elderly- but it will be bad for the entire Health Care System for ALL people covered by Medicare, Medicaid, Private Insurance Plans..and for those who have/will have NO Medical Insurance..

Unless..

Well, I was watching Mrs. Ann Romney's speech..she was good, dazzling at times..and I love- love stories! Aww..*BUT- Please...while it was moving to listen to her story about struggling with being diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis and Breast Cancer..people like her have the "Best Medical Insurance-ALL the resources MONEY can buy"..and it was glaring to me see all the advantages/the enormous difference between her and millions of people (under 60)..who are diagnosed with all kinds of Chronic illnesses and Cancer..who don't have money- adequate medical coverage...can't even BUY medical insurance if they have the money because of "Pre-existing conditions"...*Thanks to Pres. Obama, Ex-Speaker Ms. Pelosi, Justice Roberts.. and historic
passage of "Affordable Care Act"...in 2013 NO ONE can be denied coverage - because of a "pre-existing" condition (just one among many benefits)..If this is reversed..the horrors of no coverage..would continue..

To stand on a podium and say "I survived" (obviously, because of good Medical Coverage-Care) while trying to deny that to millions of Americans who are struggling without that..was insensitive to say the least and not really honest, imo.

Yes, love, family support, God's grace..all that is well and good..but, we need access to "good" Health Care for All..young or old.

*Kindly also see- how much the Budget deficit ballooned under Pres. George W. Bush. Whether one is a Democrat or Republican..these are facts.

One has to also recognize the changes in the Global Economy (how it affects the US- like never before) and to take that into consideration (not entirely blame the Prez- D or R).

Can the Democrats do better? Most certainly..I am not too happy with them either..just lesser of two evils at this time, imo.

The changes I want are:

1. Raise effective tax rates for the super-rich. Those making millions a year should not be paying 13%.

2. Reduce defense spending by changing America's world police posture. Spending $400 to get a gallon of gas to Afghanistan is not the best way to spend taxpayer money.

3. Fix the corporate tax code so companies are not incentivized to do the wrong thing for the US economy.

4. Increase the retirement age for the Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program -- colloquially known as Social Security. (I cite the formal name because positioning it as an "entitlement" is a partisan distortion of what the program really is: insurance.)

5. Raise the cap on payroll taxes, so all salary income is subject to payroll tax.