Debt Limitapalooza 2023!

[FelixDeCat]

Here is the biggest problem with government spending, or rather their budgeting:. It's the "if you don't use it, you lose it" mantality. So rather than letting the money roll over to the next year, and budgeting the difference. Many government agencies waste it on stupid shit to ensure they get their full budgeted amount. For example of a city has a light winter, instead of saving the chemicals and deicer for the next winter, they go around deicing dry roads to use all the product so they get their full budgeted amount. Because they won't get their full funding, and end up being short when they actually need it because if the use or lose it mantality.

If the use it or lose it mantality went away, and roll over was utilized, we wouldn't have a budget debt issue at all, and cuts wouldn't be needed.

I think the word you are looking for is "mentality". Anyway, yes, that is another part of wasteful government spending habit.

 

[FelixDeCat]

Public policy is basically an attempt to improve the standard of living of citizens. How would your plan do this?

Please be as specific as possible.

Public policy will have to make do with less as we can no longer afford whimsical spending levels beyond our means to pay for it. Once the public adjusts to this reality, we will be better off.

 

[IronWing]

Here is the biggest problem with government spending, or rather their budgeting:. It's the "if you don't use it, you lose it" mantality. So rather than letting the money roll over to the next year, and budgeting the difference. Many government agencies waste it on stupid shit to ensure they get their full budgeted amount. For example of a city has a light winter, instead of saving the chemicals and deicer for the next winter, they go around deicing dry roads to use all the product so they get their full budgeted amount. Because they won't get their full funding, and end up being short when they actually need it because if the use or lose it mantality.

If the use it or lose it mantality went away, and roll over was utilized, we wouldn't have a budget debt issue at all, and cuts wouldn't be needed.

Federal agencies are required to spend appropriations as directed by Congress; it isn’t optional for them. If agencies were free to choose to leave money on the table, that would amount to a line item veto.

 

[Paratus]

Public policy will have to make do with less as we can no longer afford whimsical spending levels beyond our means to pay for it. Once the public adjusts to this reality, we will be better off.

But deficit spending is fabulous because money moves and moving money is fabulous. We can’t afford to have money not moving so debt hawks will just have to deal with the fabulous moving money of deficit spending.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Public policy will have to make do with less as we can no longer afford whimsical spending levels beyond our means to pay for it. Once the public adjusts to this reality, we will be better off.

Very specific. Bravo. /S

 

[NWRMidnight]

Federal agencies are required to spend appropriations as directed by Congress; it isn’t optional for them. If agencies were free to choose to leave money on the table, that would amount to a line item veto.

Not factual. There is mandatory spending and discretionary spending. Most federal agencies spend more at the end of the budget year because of the use it or lose it policy, which is where the majority of wasteful spending is done. They are not allowed to have it roll over. If they don't use it, it goes back into the general fund, which is exactly where the problem is. I has nothing to do with not using the money congress has appropriated as directed by congress, and such a claim isn't even in the realm of what I was talking about.

 

[hal2kilo]

I'm not picking at individual line items in the DoD budget. But, as someone that has spent their entire career over multiple decades in ONLY defense related programs, there is absolutely a ton of dead weight that can be cut and we'd still maintain our strategic dominance.

You could trim the Virginia class sub line by 10% and save something like $20B. That's one program.

How about the cost over runs on the F35. No significant oversite by congress on that giant boondoggle.

 

[hal2kilo]

I’d be happy with cuts to contractors and bringing more things in house.

In fact, since the military is the largest example of socialism on the planet (as far as I can tell), I see no reason to continue doing what we are doing and instead think we should be directly manufacturing and developing whatever we need. Unless there is a benefit to privatizing the support structure of the military I’m not sure why we are subsidizing private companies at all.

Who' going to actually fix things for them then. You'd be amazed at the amount of contractors that regularly go to see on an aircraft carrier. They don't want competently trained people because they were getting out as soon as possible to take a contractors job, so now they give them minimal training, and are really reliant on contractors to fill the gap and most importantly provide continuity of expertise.

 

[ivwshane]

Who' going to actually fix things for them then. You'd be amazed at the amount of contractors that regularly go to see on an aircraft carrier. They don't want competently trained people because they were getting out as soon as possible to take a contractors job, so now they give them minimal training, and are really reliant on contractors to fill the gap and most importantly provide continuity of expertise.

Sounds like we just need to start training better. Seems like a National security concern if we have to rely on third parties to keep our crap running, doesn’t it?

 

[Pens1566]

How about the cost over runs on the F35. No significant oversite by congress on that giant boondoggle.

One could argue that next gen fighters are always going to be necessary, where an entirely new sub class doesn't really fit with the way conflicts have been evolving. Not justifying the overruns, just pointing out that some programs would possibly be more useful than others.

 

[JD50]

Sounds like we just need to start training better. Seems like a National security concern if we have to rely on third parties to keep our crap running, doesn’t it?

Government contractors are vetted and cleared the same as government employees, and in some cases more so than service members.

 

[ivwshane]

Government contractors are vetted and cleared the same as government employees, and in some cases more so than service members.

So hiring them directly shouldn’t be an issue then, right?

 

[uclaLabrat]

So hiring them directly shouldn’t be an issue then, right?

Youd have to revoke some rules/legislation on government pay grades since government (like most companies) will pay contractors triple what they would pay FTEs for the same level, because "cost savings".

 

[ivwshane]

Youd have to revoke some rules/legislation on government pay grades since government (like most companies) will pay contractors triple what they would pay FTEs for the same level, because "cost savings".

Sounds doable to me.

 

[JD50]

So hiring them directly shouldn’t be an issue then, right?

Yes, it's a big issue. Government pay sucks among many other things that makes contracting more desirable for highly technical people. My point is, hiring contractors isn't a national security concern.

 

[ivwshane]

Yes, it's a big issue. Government pay sucks among many other things that makes contracting more desirable for highly technical people. My point is, hiring contractors isn't a national security concern.

And my point is that these concerns about pay, security, quality, etc, are all addressable and not a reason to keep the status quo.

 

[fskimospy]

Public policy will have to make do with less as we can no longer afford whimsical spending levels beyond our means to pay for it. Once the public adjusts to this reality, we will be better off.

So in other words you are unable to describe how your policy will make anyone better off.

Sounds like game, set, and match on why not to do it.

 

[FelixDeCat]

1

So in other words you are unable to describe how your policy will make anyone better off.

Sounds like game, set, and match on why not to do it.

If your goal post for making people "better off" is continuing the same spending levels, then like I said previously, we will not see eye to eye as that level of spending is no longer sustainable.

America is a debt addict. Its time to cure that addiction. They will be better off in that regard.

 

[brycejones]

, we will not see eye to eye as that level of spending is no longer sustainable.

Evidence? You've yet to provide evidence.

 

[Fenixgoon]

1


If your goal post for making people "better off" is continuing the same spending levels, then like I said previously, we will not see eye to eye as that level of spending is no longer sustainable.

America is a debt addict. Its time to cure that addiction. They will be better off in that regard.

During every major economic crisis the government incurred huge amounts of debt...and you know what happened? Things got better!

If you want to fuck an economy, austerity is the way of doing that. As we see in the UK where GDP shrank for the first time in a long time

 

[Paratus]

1


If your goal post for making people "better off" is continuing the same spending levels, then like I said previously, we will not see eye to eye as that level of spending is no longer sustainable.

America is a debt addict. Its time to cure that addiction. They will be better off in that regard.

Right. Our spending needs to increase. Too many are addicted to conservative economical dogma. It’s time to cure that addiction. You will be better off in that regard.

 

[fskimospy]

If your goal post for making people "better off" is continuing the same spending levels, then like I said previously, we will not see eye to eye as that level of spending is no longer sustainable.

America is a debt addict. Its time to cure that addiction. They will be better off in that regard.

No, my goal post is improving their lives in some measurable way. You’ve never been able to offer a single way your idea does this.

That should be a sign to you it’s a bad idea.

 

[MrSquished]

No, my goal post is improving their lives in some measurable way. You’ve never been able to offer a single way your idea does this.

That should be a sign to you it’s a bad idea.

You have forgotten one key thing, which is fundamental to understanding our current situation in this country - most conservatives don't give a shit to make things better for most peoples lives, unless it is specifically their own, and only if they can still hate entire groups of people for one or another shitty reason, and this is more important than voting for their own economic self-interests, if that happens to be the case. If you are conservative and have resources, most likely they could give two shits about anybody else's life but their own, and usually for successful straight white men.

You need to understand what people we are dealing with her. You are talking to dead ends and banging your head against the wall. While there are a few that can listen to reason, that is a small number, and by the time you could get that done, we'd already have become fascist for ages. Time to realize who the enemy is and how they operate and be prepared, not try to talk to the shittiest of the shitty.

 

[FelixDeCat]

During every major economic crisis the government incurred huge amounts of debt...and you know what happened? Things got better!

If you want to fuck an economy, austerity is the way of doing that. As we see in the UK where GDP shrank for the first time in a long time

Yes, pumping more money into an economy that needs a shot in the arm is useful in bringing back growth, HOWEVER, not removing that accommodation during good times is bad policy.

Times are so good now in fact that we have runaway inflation - homes, cars, food, etc are all up mightily over the past several years. They only way to fix this is high interest rates which hampers consumer borrowing and also cut back on government spending to relieve pressure on prices.

Right. Our spending needs to increase. Too many are addicted to conservative economical dogma. It’s time to cure that addiction. You will be better off in that regard.

Why does our spending need to increase? We spend too much already.

No, my goal post is improving their lives in some measurable way. You’ve never been able to offer a single way your idea does this.

That should be a sign to you it’s a bad idea.

So you are trying to tell me that the trillions and trillions of dollars that we already spent made no measurable difference? Then spending less must also make no difference. Therefore, it is time to be effective with our spending.

Just like the lobster that gets boiled in water thats cool at first, we will gradually cut spending on an annual basis and return to levels our income can sustain.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, pumping more money into an economy that needs a shot in the arm is useful in bringing back growth, HOWEVER, not removing that accommodation during good times is bad policy.

Times are so good now in fact that we have runaway inflation - homes, cars, food, etc are all up mightily over the past several years. They only way to fix this is high interest rates which hampers consumer borrowing and also cut back on government spending to relieve pressure on prices.



Why does our spending need to increase? We spend too much already.



So you are trying to tell me that the trillions and trillions of dollars that we already spent made no measurable difference? Then spending less must also make no difference. Therefore, it is time to be effective with our spending.

Just like the lobster that gets boiled in water thats cool at first, we will gradually cut spending on an annual basis and return to levels our income can sustain.

I didn’t say that at all.

So again, how will your plan make people’s lives better, specifically? Why is this so difficult for you to answer?