Proposed budget via NY times

[AeWingnut]

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html.../index.html?hp

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by AeWingnut

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html.../index.html?hp

what's funny is Obama is able to cut money by freezing budgets. I know he can't make a bed but surely he knows the difference between a knife and a freezer. No?

For Riot: Kind of like Michele O'B coming home with a new Benz and trying the "but I was going to buy a Bentley next year and every year after but for the next nine will settle for a benz so I saved you money"

[dellinger63]

Oh this is good. He's cutting energy assistance (I take it gas and electricity) but increasing funding for training math and science teachers, while cutting Pell grants?

This guy is no longer just 'way over his skis' he needs to be saved.

God Bless America we have a GOP congress! Never thought Obama would give me the sense of HOPE but he has.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by AeWingnut

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html.../index.html?hp

The most useful thing about that chart, for people who don't understand much about government spending, is that it makes it visually clear that our largest areas of spending are Medicare/Medicaid, Defense, interest on the national debt and Social Security.

Social Security is required by law to be fully funded; it's illegal for it to borrow money, so it doesn't contribute to the deficit or debt and never has. The surplus it has run and invested in Treasury Bonds will keep it solvent for several more decades (regardless of what the media would like you to believe; Social Security is fine).

We don't have any choice about interest on the national debt.

Medicare and Medicaid are non-discretionary items.

What this means, is that all of these cuts in discretionary spending don't amount to a hill of beans. Any alleged budget hawk who talks a big game about cutting the deficit and does not discuss cutting the defense budget is not actually serious about cutting spending.

If you really want to slash the deficit, you need to slash defense.

[Nascar1966]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

The most useful thing about that chart, for people who don't understand much about government spending, is that it makes it visually clear that our largest areas of spending are Medicare/Medicaid, Defense, interest on the national debt and Social Security.

Social Security is required by law to be fully funded; it's illegal for it to borrow money, so it doesn't contribute to the deficit or debt and never has. The surplus it has run and invested in Treasury Bonds will keep it solvent for several more decades (regardless of what the media would like you to believe; Social Security is fine).

We don't have any choice about interest on the national debt.

Medicare and Medicaid are non-discretionary items.

What this means, is that all of these cuts in discretionary spending don't amount to a hill of beans. Any alleged budget hawk who talks a big game about cutting the deficit and does not discuss cutting the defense budget is not actually serious about cutting spending.

If you really want to slash the deficit, you need to slash defense.

Wouldn't getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan be a good start to defense cuts. We have no business there but this country is still there.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

The most useful thing about that chart, for people who don't understand much about government spending, is that it makes it visually clear that our largest areas of spending are Medicare/Medicaid, Defense, interest on the national debt and Social Security.

Social Security is required by law to be fully funded; it's illegal for it to borrow money, so it doesn't contribute to the deficit or debt and never has. The surplus it has run and invested in Treasury Bonds will keep it solvent for several more decades (regardless of what the media would like you to believe; Social Security is fine).

We don't have any choice about interest on the national debt.

Medicare and Medicaid are non-discretionary items.

What this means, is that all of these cuts in discretionary spending don't amount to a hill of beans. Any alleged budget hawk who talks a big game about cutting the deficit and does not discuss cutting the defense budget is not actually serious about cutting spending.

If you really want to slash the deficit, you need to slash defense.

How does keeping SS Solvent for 2.5 more decades make it "fine".

IMO that makes it terrible.

seriously, 2037 is right around the damn corner. Unless you are old and only care about yourself and not the future, nobody has a reason to think it is fine.

[Princess Doreen]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

How does keeping SS Solvent for 2.5 more decades make it "fine".

IMO that makes it terrible.

seriously, 2037 is right around the damn corner. Unless you are old and only care about yourself and not the future, nobody has a reason to think it is fine.

According to "some" people, the government can just tweak it and make it alright. Tweak meaning raise the % rate or the amount on which people have to pay, increase the retirement age to 75 or 80. Yup, you younger generation has absolutely nothing to worry about. Just keep paying into the Ponzi scheme.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Princess Doreen

According to "some" people, the government can just tweak it and make it alright. Tweak meaning raise the % rate or the amount on which people have to pay, increase the retirement age to 75 or 80. Yup, you younger generation has absolutely nothing to worry about. Just keep paying into the Ponzi scheme.

None of that has to be done. No retirement age raises, no change in benefits.

If the cap is simply raised from the current $106,800 to about $200,000, SS is flush and readily funded for about 70 more years. If the cap is simply eliminated, SS has a surplus.

The Senate Democratic plan is to simply raise the cap. The Senate Republican plan is to take away benefits and raise the retirement age, as they don't want rich people paying more, so they will take from those least able to afford it (those making less than $106,800 per year)

"Out there" plans include means testing (so the rich don't get social security or as much, in spite of paying in) or privatizing it so Wall Street has control of your retirement fund.

Which should the country choose?

A good article on what doing different tweeks to SS will do in the long run:

While all proposals put a dent in the shortfall, completely eliminating the cap without increasing benefits actually creates a long-term surplus, and eliminating the cap while increasing benefits comes close. The nature of Social Security as a social insurance, rather than welfare, program suggests that the latter proposal may be more palatable, as it retains the connection between what wage-earners pay into Social Security and what they get out of it.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...s_could_r.html

[Nascar1966]

Originally Posted by Riot

None of that has to be done. No retirement age raises, no change in benefits.

If the cap is simply raised from the current $106,800 to about $200,000, SS is flush and readily funded for about 70 more years. If the cap is simply eliminated, SS has a surplus.

The Senate Democratic plan is to simply raise the cap. The Senate Republican plan is to take away benefits and raise the retirement age, as they don't want rich people paying more, so they will take from those least able to afford it (those making less than $106,800 per year)

"Out there" plans include means testing (so the rich don't get social security or as much, in spite of paying in) or privatizing it so Wall Street has control of your retirement fund.

Which should the country choose?

A good article on what doing different tweeks to SS will do in the long run:

Just curious what are your feeling about a proposal to raise the health insurance premiums on working class Retirees. Yet the Retirees wont get any type of raise and yet thier health premium might be going up. Im confident you are all for it and many others are for it.

Some is some reading reading for you:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT

[Princess Doreen]

Originally Posted by Riot

None of that has to be done. No retirement age raises, no change in benefits.

If the cap is simply raised from the current $106,800 to about $200,000, SS is flush and readily funded for about 70 more years. If the cap is simply eliminated, SS has a surplus.

And you really think that just raising the cap to $200K will solve the problem?

Look at how the full retirement age has risen 2 years and % amounts of SS paid out prior to 67 have diminished -

http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/retirechart.htm

You really think that in 30 or 40 years, the full SS benefit retirement age will not have risen to 70, 72, maybe even 75 years of age? It's the only way SS will survive - gotta make sure some of those old timers die off before they can collect.

One of the most unfair benefits in the SS program is allowing a spouse who never worked a day in her life to collect 50% of her husband's social security when both he and she reach maximum retirement age. I have a friend whose husband was a bank executive making a huge salary. She is collecting half of his SS and it amounts to more than what I collect - my having worked 40 years putting into the system. That's one of the entitlements in the SS program that can be done away with or drastically reduced.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

The most useful thing about that chart, for people who don't understand much about government spending, is that it makes it visually clear that our largest areas of spending are Medicare/Medicaid, Defense, interest on the national debt and Social Security.

Social Security is required by law to be fully funded; it's illegal for it to borrow money, so it doesn't contribute to the deficit or debt and never has. The surplus it has run and invested in Treasury Bonds will keep it solvent for several more decades (regardless of what the media would like you to believe; Social Security is fine).

We don't have any choice about interest on the national debt.

Medicare and Medicaid are non-discretionary items.

What this means, is that all of these cuts in discretionary spending don't amount to a hill of beans. Any alleged budget hawk who talks a big game about cutting the deficit and does not discuss cutting the defense budget is not actually serious about cutting spending.

If you really want to slash the deficit, you need to slash defense.

you're right that any serious effort to reduce deficits includes cutting defense spending but dealing with entitlements and raising revenues (taxes) also has to happen.

the really illustrative point about any of the budget discussions here is how everyone is in favor of the general idea of cutting spending but when you get down to specifics they're againt those. energy assistance and pell grants? no way!

everyone wants to blame the president and congress for the deficit but the truth is we just don't want to pay for what we get. it's a dysfunctional process that neither party really wants to deal with because they know they'll get voted out the minute they try.

the deficit commission put forth a serious plan that would begin to address the structural deficit. No ones going to touch it because the democrats will torch any republican effort to address entitlements and republicans will burn any democratic effort to cut defense or raise taxes.

The obvious answer to compromise and do some of each just isn't possible in a poisoned partisan atmosphere. So we'll cut good programs in the 13% of the federal budget that's discretionary and ignore the 87% where the real problems lie.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

you're right that any serious effort to reduce deficits includes cutting defense spending but dealing with entitlements and raising revenues (taxes) also has to happen.

the really illustrative point about any of the budget discussions here is how everyone is in favor of the general idea of cutting spending but when you get down to specifics they're againt those. energy assistance and pell grants? no way!

everyone wants to blame the president and congress for the deficit but the truth is we just don't want to pay for what we get. it's a dysfunctional process that neither party really wants to deal with because they know they'll get voted out the minute they try.

the deficit commission put forth a serious plan that would begin to address the structural deficit. No ones going to touch it because the democrats will torch any republican effort to address entitlements and republicans will burn any democratic effort to cut defense or raise taxes.

The obvious answer to compromise and do some of each just isn't possible in a poisoned partisan atmosphere. So we'll cut good programs in the 13% of the federal budget that's discretionary and ignore the 87% where the real problems lie.

You nailed it. This board is a microcosm of the problem. Everyone is fine with cutting anything that doesn't directly affect them and blame the other party for the hole we are in.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by jms62

You nailed it. This board is a microcosm of the problem. Everyone is fine with cutting anything that doesn't directly affect them and blame the other party for the hole we are in.

Hey I think there should be fairly across the board cuts of 20%. Including defense.

Other than the roads I drive on, and the national parks I visit, and of course the military's protection, there isnt really anything I get back from the government (I'm already out of high school and paid my own college).. so I'm not worried... CUT the spending across the board!

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

you're right that any serious effort to reduce deficits includes cutting defense spending but dealing with entitlements and raising revenues (taxes) also has to happen.

The obvious answer to compromise and do some of each just isn't possible in a poisoned partisan atmosphere. So we'll cut good programs in the 13% of the federal budget that's discretionary and ignore the 87% where the real problems lie.

The one component of the budget that could be saved w/o cutting any programs is the interest on the debt $474.15 Billion for this year. If somehow Dems and Reps could come to agreement that this is where we can save and Reps agree to raise taxes (with the understanding all new Revenue pays down the debt) at the same time Dems agree to cut spending by an equal amount (and again use that money to pay down the debt) we are capable of saving almost $5 Trillion over the next decade. With Medicare/Medicade fraud rates estimated to be 10% there's another $110 Billion or $1.1 Trillion over 10 years saved if its rooted out. One thing that is very evident looking at the budget chart is we don't need a big Obamacare square to try and squeeze in.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

you're right that any serious effort to reduce deficits includes cutting defense spending but dealing with entitlements and raising revenues (taxes) also has to happen.

the really illustrative point about any of the budget discussions here is how everyone is in favor of the general idea of cutting spending but when you get down to specifics they're againt those. energy assistance and pell grants? no way!

everyone wants to blame the president and congress for the deficit but the truth is we just don't want to pay for what we get. it's a dysfunctional process that neither party really wants to deal with because they know they'll get voted out the minute they try.

the deficit commission put forth a serious plan that would begin to address the structural deficit. No ones going to touch it because the democrats will torch any republican effort to address entitlements and republicans will burn any democratic effort to cut defense or raise taxes.

The obvious answer to compromise and do some of each just isn't possible in a poisoned partisan atmosphere. So we'll cut good programs in the 13% of the federal budget that's discretionary and ignore the 87% where the real problems lie.

and that's to jms as well. everyone is in favor of cuts til the scalpel comes out.