Deficit seen at $500 billion next year

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Insane3D
charrison-

I understand what you are trying to say, and I admit, you are very knowledgeable when it comes to issues of fiscal budgets and such...much more so than I. However, it seems a bit strange to me that you could find fault with the democrativ minority in congress beause they haven't tried to stop the spending the republican majority and administration is currently doing. To me, it seems the problem is entirely a result of the republican majority. They have control of everything, but it's the dems fault because they aren't trying to stop them?

I am speaking strictly about the current administration and congress, not the past. I don't think the dems have always been blameless, but it seems to me that with the republicans controlling everything, the blame lays squarely at their feet right now. It is sort of like saying a robbery is the fault of the police since they didn't stop it, rather than the criminal that commited it.

That's just how I see it anyway..and I don't consider myself a member of either party.

They only reason I make mention of the senate filibuster and the budget is that the party that is complaing the loudest about the current deficits did nothing to stop them. It seems quite hypocritcal to complain about the defecits, when in fact they did nothing to stop them when they do had the power to do so. I yes I will agree that the republicans get a larger share of the blame this cycle because they do largely control legislative branch, but they do not have total control. Total control would require keeping the current majority in congress and adding about 10 seats in the senate.

Fair enough. I do think you have a valid point about the dems being able to use the filabuster, but it seems to me there also might be politcal ramifications if they did so. I doubt it's a simple matter. For instance, if they used that power to try to cut spending at our new "Homeland Security" juggernaut, they would instantly be labeled as putting the American people in danger or something. I think it would be better if the heavy heavy partisan politcs could truely be put aside and both sides could work together, but I doubt that will happen in my lifetime..

Just a note - they are using the "threat" of a fillibuster for the judicial nominees. Why would they use such means on the seemingly "less important" things but not use it for the very thing they are screaming the loudest about? I'll tell you why Votes - they know we can't have a federal work stoppage like we did a few years back and the voters won't stand for that. IMO of course

CkG

So instead of blaming the GOP House, Senate, and President for passing and signing the laws that have balooned this Deficit, you are blaming the Democrats for not filibustering it. This is really the intellectual "triumph" of Bush apologists. Of course if they have filibustered any of these bills, you would be blaming the Democrats for blocking Bush's wonderful ideas. Which is why they haven't filibustered them, so that teh GOP has noone left to blame for their failed economic policies. Again, the economic policies that resulted in this deficit were passed by GOP house and senate, and signed into law by Dubya. It's their work, and their deficit.

No - I'm not blaming them for anything - I'm just saying that they aren't blameless -There is a difference. And like charrison said - they are whining about it now, but weren't then...why?.
Have any ideas on how to fix the budget gap? Bush's tax cut will get you ~$100Billion, so you only have 400 to go

CkG

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Insane3D
charrison-

I understand what you are trying to say, and I admit, you are very knowledgeable when it comes to issues of fiscal budgets and such...much more so than I. However, it seems a bit strange to me that you could find fault with the democrativ minority in congress beause they haven't tried to stop the spending the republican majority and administration is currently doing. To me, it seems the problem is entirely a result of the republican majority. They have control of everything, but it's the dems fault because they aren't trying to stop them?

I am speaking strictly about the current administration and congress, not the past. I don't think the dems have always been blameless, but it seems to me that with the republicans controlling everything, the blame lays squarely at their feet right now. It is sort of like saying a robbery is the fault of the police since they didn't stop it, rather than the criminal that commited it.

That's just how I see it anyway..and I don't consider myself a member of either party.

They only reason I make mention of the senate filibuster and the budget is that the party that is complaing the loudest about the current deficits did nothing to stop them. It seems quite hypocritcal to complain about the defecits, when in fact they did nothing to stop them when they do had the power to do so. I yes I will agree that the republicans get a larger share of the blame this cycle because they do largely control legislative branch, but they do not have total control. Total control would require keeping the current majority in congress and adding about 10 seats in the senate.

Fair enough. I do think you have a valid point about the dems being able to use the filabuster, but it seems to me there also might be politcal ramifications if they did so. I doubt it's a simple matter. For instance, if they used that power to try to cut spending at our new "Homeland Security" juggernaut, they would instantly be labeled as putting the American people in danger or something. I think it would be better if the heavy heavy partisan politcs could truely be put aside and both sides could work together, but I doubt that will happen in my lifetime..

Just a note - they are using the "threat" of a fillibuster for the judicial nominees. Why would they use such means on the seemingly "less important" things but not use it for the very thing they are screaming the loudest about? I'll tell you why Votes - they know we can't have a federal work stoppage like we did a few years back and the voters won't stand for that. IMO of course

CkG

So instead of blaming the GOP House, Senate, and President for passing and signing the laws that have balooned this Deficit, you are blaming the Democrats for not filibustering it. This is really the intellectual "triumph" of Bush apologists. Of course if they have filibustered any of these bills, you would be blaming the Democrats for blocking Bush's wonderful ideas. Which is why they haven't filibustered them, so that teh GOP has noone left to blame for their failed economic policies. Again, the economic policies that resulted in this deficit were passed by GOP house and senate, and signed into law by Dubya. It's their work, and their deficit.

No - I'm not blaming them for anything - I'm just saying that they aren't blameless -There is a difference. And like charrison said - they are whining about it now, but weren't then...why?.
Have any ideas on how to fix the budget gap? Bush's tax cut will get you ~$100Billion, so you only have 400 to go

CkG

Get rid of the tax cut AND undo the spending hikes since Clinton. Let the neocons at DOD pick what wars they want to fight with a FIXED budget. Not fund every little adventure they go on. And whatever is still left, raise taxes. The cost of the government needs to be passed on to the people, otherwise there is no incentive to control it.

 

[LunarRay]

SuperTool said:
Get rid of the tax cut AND undo the spending hikes since Clinton. Let the neocons at DOD pick what wars they want to fight with a FIXED budget. Not fund every little adventure they go on. And whatever is still left, raise taxes. The cost of the government needs to be passed on to the people, otherwise there is no incentive to control it.

*******

How about a war surcharge like Nixon had in '72, I think. Give them the means if they dare..

I think Nixon.. it was 10% of tax owed..

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Insane3D
charrison-

I understand what you are trying to say, and I admit, you are very knowledgeable when it comes to issues of fiscal budgets and such...much more so than I. However, it seems a bit strange to me that you could find fault with the democrativ minority in congress beause they haven't tried to stop the spending the republican majority and administration is currently doing. To me, it seems the problem is entirely a result of the republican majority. They have control of everything, but it's the dems fault because they aren't trying to stop them?

I am speaking strictly about the current administration and congress, not the past. I don't think the dems have always been blameless, but it seems to me that with the republicans controlling everything, the blame lays squarely at their feet right now. It is sort of like saying a robbery is the fault of the police since they didn't stop it, rather than the criminal that commited it.

That's just how I see it anyway..and I don't consider myself a member of either party.

They only reason I make mention of the senate filibuster and the budget is that the party that is complaing the loudest about the current deficits did nothing to stop them. It seems quite hypocritcal to complain about the defecits, when in fact they did nothing to stop them when they do had the power to do so. I yes I will agree that the republicans get a larger share of the blame this cycle because they do largely control legislative branch, but they do not have total control. Total control would require keeping the current majority in congress and adding about 10 seats in the senate.

Fair enough. I do think you have a valid point about the dems being able to use the filabuster, but it seems to me there also might be politcal ramifications if they did so. I doubt it's a simple matter. For instance, if they used that power to try to cut spending at our new "Homeland Security" juggernaut, they would instantly be labeled as putting the American people in danger or something. I think it would be better if the heavy heavy partisan politcs could truely be put aside and both sides could work together, but I doubt that will happen in my lifetime..

Just a note - they are using the "threat" of a fillibuster for the judicial nominees. Why would they use such means on the seemingly "less important" things but not use it for the very thing they are screaming the loudest about? I'll tell you why Votes - they know we can't have a federal work stoppage like we did a few years back and the voters won't stand for that. IMO of course

CkG

So instead of blaming the GOP House, Senate, and President for passing and signing the laws that have balooned this Deficit, you are blaming the Democrats for not filibustering it. This is really the intellectual "triumph" of Bush apologists. Of course if they have filibustered any of these bills, you would be blaming the Democrats for blocking Bush's wonderful ideas. Which is why they haven't filibustered them, so that teh GOP has noone left to blame for their failed economic policies. Again, the economic policies that resulted in this deficit were passed by GOP house and senate, and signed into law by Dubya. It's their work, and their deficit.

No - I'm not blaming them for anything - I'm just saying that they aren't blameless -There is a difference. And like charrison said - they are whining about it now, but weren't then...why?.
Have any ideas on how to fix the budget gap? Bush's tax cut will get you ~$100Billion, so you only have 400 to go

CkG

Get rid of the tax cut AND undo the spending hikes since Clinton. Let the neocons at DOD pick what wars they want to fight with a FIXED budget. Not fund every little adventure they go on. And whatever is still left, raise taxes. The cost of the government needs to be passed on to the people, otherwise there is no incentive to control it.

OK, you only have ~200 billion to go

You see SuperTool - it isn't as easy as you seem to think it is. There are many factors that have led to this deficit. I'd hate to hear the whining about Bush "not doing anything to stimulate the economy" -it'd be tons worse since it seems that it has had a positive effect(to the extent anything a President can do) so far. The problem is spending and it needs to be put back in check - this we will agree on. Raising taxes is where we part paths though. If you take away Bush's tax cut(which is raising taxes), and still have to raise taxes another 200Billion you'll take away any progress/momentum we have started to regain since the recession of 2001. I won't support any tax-cuts until ALL of our elected officials get serious about spending and start making progress towards that end. And actually we wouldn't need tax increases if they'd spend the money they do get wisely and not on frivolous "feel good" projects or other waste.

CkG

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Insane3D
charrison-

I understand what you are trying to say, and I admit, you are very knowledgeable when it comes to issues of fiscal budgets and such...much more so than I. However, it seems a bit strange to me that you could find fault with the democrativ minority in congress beause they haven't tried to stop the spending the republican majority and administration is currently doing. To me, it seems the problem is entirely a result of the republican majority. They have control of everything, but it's the dems fault because they aren't trying to stop them?

I am speaking strictly about the current administration and congress, not the past. I don't think the dems have always been blameless, but it seems to me that with the republicans controlling everything, the blame lays squarely at their feet right now. It is sort of like saying a robbery is the fault of the police since they didn't stop it, rather than the criminal that commited it.

That's just how I see it anyway..and I don't consider myself a member of either party.

They only reason I make mention of the senate filibuster and the budget is that the party that is complaing the loudest about the current deficits did nothing to stop them. It seems quite hypocritcal to complain about the defecits, when in fact they did nothing to stop them when they do had the power to do so. I yes I will agree that the republicans get a larger share of the blame this cycle because they do largely control legislative branch, but they do not have total control. Total control would require keeping the current majority in congress and adding about 10 seats in the senate.

Fair enough. I do think you have a valid point about the dems being able to use the filabuster, but it seems to me there also might be politcal ramifications if they did so. I doubt it's a simple matter. For instance, if they used that power to try to cut spending at our new "Homeland Security" juggernaut, they would instantly be labeled as putting the American people in danger or something. I think it would be better if the heavy heavy partisan politcs could truely be put aside and both sides could work together, but I doubt that will happen in my lifetime..

Just a note - they are using the "threat" of a fillibuster for the judicial nominees. Why would they use such means on the seemingly "less important" things but not use it for the very thing they are screaming the loudest about? I'll tell you why Votes - they know we can't have a federal work stoppage like we did a few years back and the voters won't stand for that. IMO of course

CkG

So instead of blaming the GOP House, Senate, and President for passing and signing the laws that have balooned this Deficit, you are blaming the Democrats for not filibustering it. This is really the intellectual "triumph" of Bush apologists. Of course if they have filibustered any of these bills, you would be blaming the Democrats for blocking Bush's wonderful ideas. Which is why they haven't filibustered them, so that teh GOP has noone left to blame for their failed economic policies. Again, the economic policies that resulted in this deficit were passed by GOP house and senate, and signed into law by Dubya. It's their work, and their deficit.

No - I'm not blaming them for anything - I'm just saying that they aren't blameless -There is a difference. And like charrison said - they are whining about it now, but weren't then...why?.
Have any ideas on how to fix the budget gap? Bush's tax cut will get you ~$100Billion, so you only have 400 to go

CkG

Get rid of the tax cut AND undo the spending hikes since Clinton. Let the neocons at DOD pick what wars they want to fight with a FIXED budget. Not fund every little adventure they go on. And whatever is still left, raise taxes. The cost of the government needs to be passed on to the people, otherwise there is no incentive to control it.

OK, you only have ~200 billion to go

You see SuperTool - it isn't as easy as you seem to think it is. There are many factors that have led to this deficit. I'd hate to hear the whining about Bush "not doing anything to stimulate the economy" -it'd be tons worse since it seems that it has had a positive effect(to the extent anything a President can do) so far. The problem is spending and it needs to be put back in check - this we will agree on. Raising taxes is where we part paths though. If you take away Bush's tax cut(which is raising taxes), and still have to raise taxes another 200Billion you'll take away any progress/momentum we have started to regain since the recession of 2001. I won't support any tax-cuts until ALL of our elected officials get serious about spending and start making progress towards that end. And actually we wouldn't need tax increases if they'd spend the money they do get wisely and not on frivolous "feel good" projects or other waste.

CkG

The only way you are going to get spending cuts is if you pass the cost of that spending to the taxpayers. The only way elected officials will get serious about spending is when every time they pass a spending measure, they have to go to their voters and raise taxes to pay for that spending. If politicians can have the positive publicity of bringing pork to their district without having to bring tax hikes to their districts, they will do it. If there is no negative feedback to the system, and only positive feedback, things get out of control. This borrow and spend scheme is a copout, and what enables out of control spending.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Insane3D
charrison-

I understand what you are trying to say, and I admit, you are very knowledgeable when it comes to issues of fiscal budgets and such...much more so than I. However, it seems a bit strange to me that you could find fault with the democrativ minority in congress beause they haven't tried to stop the spending the republican majority and administration is currently doing. To me, it seems the problem is entirely a result of the republican majority. They have control of everything, but it's the dems fault because they aren't trying to stop them?

I am speaking strictly about the current administration and congress, not the past. I don't think the dems have always been blameless, but it seems to me that with the republicans controlling everything, the blame lays squarely at their feet right now. It is sort of like saying a robbery is the fault of the police since they didn't stop it, rather than the criminal that commited it.

That's just how I see it anyway..and I don't consider myself a member of either party.

They only reason I make mention of the senate filibuster and the budget is that the party that is complaing the loudest about the current deficits did nothing to stop them. It seems quite hypocritcal to complain about the defecits, when in fact they did nothing to stop them when they do had the power to do so. I yes I will agree that the republicans get a larger share of the blame this cycle because they do largely control legislative branch, but they do not have total control. Total control would require keeping the current majority in congress and adding about 10 seats in the senate.

Fair enough. I do think you have a valid point about the dems being able to use the filabuster, but it seems to me there also might be politcal ramifications if they did so. I doubt it's a simple matter. For instance, if they used that power to try to cut spending at our new "Homeland Security" juggernaut, they would instantly be labeled as putting the American people in danger or something. I think it would be better if the heavy heavy partisan politcs could truely be put aside and both sides could work together, but I doubt that will happen in my lifetime..

Just a note - they are using the "threat" of a fillibuster for the judicial nominees. Why would they use such means on the seemingly "less important" things but not use it for the very thing they are screaming the loudest about? I'll tell you why Votes - they know we can't have a federal work stoppage like we did a few years back and the voters won't stand for that. IMO of course

CkG

So instead of blaming the GOP House, Senate, and President for passing and signing the laws that have balooned this Deficit, you are blaming the Democrats for not filibustering it. This is really the intellectual "triumph" of Bush apologists. Of course if they have filibustered any of these bills, you would be blaming the Democrats for blocking Bush's wonderful ideas. Which is why they haven't filibustered them, so that teh GOP has noone left to blame for their failed economic policies. Again, the economic policies that resulted in this deficit were passed by GOP house and senate, and signed into law by Dubya. It's their work, and their deficit.

No - I'm not blaming them for anything - I'm just saying that they aren't blameless -There is a difference. And like charrison said - they are whining about it now, but weren't then...why?.
Have any ideas on how to fix the budget gap? Bush's tax cut will get you ~$100Billion, so you only have 400 to go

CkG

Get rid of the tax cut AND undo the spending hikes since Clinton. Let the neocons at DOD pick what wars they want to fight with a FIXED budget. Not fund every little adventure they go on. And whatever is still left, raise taxes. The cost of the government needs to be passed on to the people, otherwise there is no incentive to control it.

OK, you only have ~200 billion to go

You see SuperTool - it isn't as easy as you seem to think it is. There are many factors that have led to this deficit. I'd hate to hear the whining about Bush "not doing anything to stimulate the economy" -it'd be tons worse since it seems that it has had a positive effect(to the extent anything a President can do) so far. The problem is spending and it needs to be put back in check - this we will agree on. Raising taxes is where we part paths though. If you take away Bush's tax cut(which is raising taxes), and still have to raise taxes another 200Billion you'll take away any progress/momentum we have started to regain since the recession of 2001. I won't support any tax-cuts until ALL of our elected officials get serious about spending and start making progress towards that end. And actually we wouldn't need tax increases if they'd spend the money they do get wisely and not on frivolous "feel good" projects or other waste.

CkG

The only way you are going to get spending cuts is if you pass the cost of that spending to the taxpayers. The only way elected officials will get serious about spending is when every time they pass a spending measure, they have to go to their voters and raise taxes to pay for that spending. If politicians can have the positive publicity of bringing pork to their district without having to bring tax hikes to their districts, they will do it. If there is no negative feedback to the system, and only positive feedback, things get out of control. This borrow and spend scheme is a copout, and what enables out of control spending.

IF spending wasn't out of control to begin with, the raise taxes to fund new stuff would work. The next issue is the way almost everything gets pooled in the "general fund" and gets distributed as Congress sees fit which allows for the "we'll pay for it out of the general fund" type of spending increases. Borrow and spend obviously isn't a good way to run things year after year, but neither is tax and spend since your taxes would ALWAYS go up. You can't just give the existing spending a free pass - we need to fix existing expenditures as well as be more restrictive on how new spending measures can be enacted.

If it were up to me - none of those dirty bastages would get a paycheck until they brought spending back down to a reasonable level which would balance the budget. But then again - it isn't up to me I only get one vote and there are too many "I'm entitled to X from the gov't because I'm..." type of voters here who cancel out my voice.

Out of control spending has existed forever - democrat - republican - whatever - they all spend spend spend - which needs to stop.

CkG

 

[Insane3D]

May I make a polite request for you gentleman to just quote the relevant info you are responding to? The re-re-re-re quoting get's messy.

Thank you..

 

[gsaldivar]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Insane3D
charrison-

I understand what you are trying to say, and I admit, you are very knowledgeable when it comes to issues of fiscal budgets and such...much more so than I. However, it seems a bit strange to me that you could find fault with the democrativ minority in congress beause they haven't tried to stop the spending the republican majority and administration is currently doing. To me, it seems the problem is entirely a result of the republican majority. They have control of everything, but it's the dems fault because they aren't trying to stop them?

I am speaking strictly about the current administration and congress, not the past. I don't think the dems have always been blameless, but it seems to me that with the republicans controlling everything, the blame lays squarely at their feet right now. It is sort of like saying a robbery is the fault of the police since they didn't stop it, rather than the criminal that commited it.

That's just how I see it anyway..and I don't consider myself a member of either party.

They only reason I make mention of the senate filibuster and the budget is that the party that is complaing the loudest about the current deficits did nothing to stop them. It seems quite hypocritcal to complain about the defecits, when in fact they did nothing to stop them when they do had the power to do so. I yes I will agree that the republicans get a larger share of the blame this cycle because they do largely control legislative branch, but they do not have total control. Total control would require keeping the current majority in congress and adding about 10 seats in the senate.

Fair enough. I do think you have a valid point about the dems being able to use the filabuster, but it seems to me there also might be politcal ramifications if they did so. I doubt it's a simple matter. For instance, if they used that power to try to cut spending at our new "Homeland Security" juggernaut, they would instantly be labeled as putting the American people in danger or something. I think it would be better if the heavy heavy partisan politcs could truely be put aside and both sides could work together, but I doubt that will happen in my lifetime..

Just a note - they are using the "threat" of a fillibuster for the judicial nominees. Why would they use such means on the seemingly "less important" things but not use it for the very thing they are screaming the loudest about? I'll tell you why Votes - they know we can't have a federal work stoppage like we did a few years back and the voters won't stand for that. IMO of course

CkG

So instead of blaming the GOP House, Senate, and President for passing and signing the laws that have balooned this Deficit, you are blaming the Democrats for not filibustering it. This is really the intellectual "triumph" of Bush apologists. Of course if they have filibustered any of these bills, you would be blaming the Democrats for blocking Bush's wonderful ideas. Which is why they haven't filibustered them, so that teh GOP has noone left to blame for their failed economic policies. Again, the economic policies that resulted in this deficit were passed by GOP house and senate, and signed into law by Dubya. It's their work, and their deficit.

No - I'm not blaming them for anything - I'm just saying that they aren't blameless -There is a difference. And like charrison said - they are whining about it now, but weren't then...why?.
Have any ideas on how to fix the budget gap? Bush's tax cut will get you ~$100Billion, so you only have 400 to go

CkG

Get rid of the tax cut AND undo the spending hikes since Clinton. Let the neocons at DOD pick what wars they want to fight with a FIXED budget. Not fund every little adventure they go on. And whatever is still left, raise taxes. The cost of the government needs to be passed on to the people, otherwise there is no incentive to control it.

OK, you only have ~200 billion to go

You see SuperTool - it isn't as easy as you seem to think it is. There are many factors that have led to this deficit. I'd hate to hear the whining about Bush "not doing anything to stimulate the economy" -it'd be tons worse since it seems that it has had a positive effect(to the extent anything a President can do) so far. The problem is spending and it needs to be put back in check - this we will agree on. Raising taxes is where we part paths though. If you take away Bush's tax cut(which is raising taxes), and still have to raise taxes another 200Billion you'll take away any progress/momentum we have started to regain since the recession of 2001. I won't support any tax-cuts until ALL of our elected officials get serious about spending and start making progress towards that end. And actually we wouldn't need tax increases if they'd spend the money they do get wisely and not on frivolous "feel good" projects or other waste.

CkG

The only way you are going to get spending cuts is if you pass the cost of that spending to the taxpayers. The only way elected officials will get serious about spending is when every time they pass a spending measure, they have to go to their voters and raise taxes to pay for that spending. If politicians can have the positive publicity of bringing pork to their district without having to bring tax hikes to their districts, they will do it. If there is no negative feedback to the system, and only positive feedback, things get out of control. This borrow and spend scheme is a copout, and what enables out of control spending.

IF spending wasn't out of control to begin with, the raise taxes to fund new stuff would work. The next issue is the way almost everything gets pooled in the "general fund" and gets distributed as Congress sees fit which allows for the "we'll pay for it out of the general fund" type of spending increases. Borrow and spend obviously isn't a good way to run things year after year, but neither is tax and spend since your taxes would ALWAYS go up. You can't just give the existing spending a free pass - we need to fix existing expenditures as well as be more restrictive on how new spending measures can be enacted.

If it were up to me - none of those dirty bastages would get a paycheck until they brought spending back down to a reasonable level which would balance the budget. But then again - it isn't up to me I only get one vote and there are too many "I'm entitled to X from the gov't because I'm..." type of voters here who cancel out my voice.

Out of control spending has existed forever - democrat - republican - whatever - they all spend spend spend - which needs to stop.

CkG

LOL I couldn't resist quoting this, yet again ...

 

[Insane3D]

It's ok...I figured someone would do that, but I had to ask.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Insane3D
charrison-

I understand what you are trying to say, and I admit, you are very knowledgeable when it comes to issues of fiscal budgets and such...much more so than I. However, it seems a bit strange to me that you could find fault with the democrativ minority in congress beause they haven't tried to stop the spending the republican majority and administration is currently doing. To me, it seems the problem is entirely a result of the republican majority. They have control of everything, but it's the dems fault because they aren't trying to stop them?

I am speaking strictly about the current administration and congress, not the past. I don't think the dems have always been blameless, but it seems to me that with the republicans controlling everything, the blame lays squarely at their feet right now. It is sort of like saying a robbery is the fault of the police since they didn't stop it, rather than the criminal that commited it.

That's just how I see it anyway..and I don't consider myself a member of either party.

They only reason I make mention of the senate filibuster and the budget is that the party that is complaing the loudest about the current deficits did nothing to stop them. It seems quite hypocritcal to complain about the defecits, when in fact they did nothing to stop them when they do had the power to do so. I yes I will agree that the republicans get a larger share of the blame this cycle because they do largely control legislative branch, but they do not have total control. Total control would require keeping the current majority in congress and adding about 10 seats in the senate.

Fair enough. I do think you have a valid point about the dems being able to use the filabuster, but it seems to me there also might be politcal ramifications if they did so. I doubt it's a simple matter. For instance, if they used that power to try to cut spending at our new "Homeland Security" juggernaut, they would instantly be labeled as putting the American people in danger or something. I think it would be better if the heavy heavy partisan politcs could truely be put aside and both sides could work together, but I doubt that will happen in my lifetime..

Just a note - they are using the "threat" of a fillibuster for the judicial nominees. Why would they use such means on the seemingly "less important" things but not use it for the very thing they are screaming the loudest about? I'll tell you why Votes - they know we can't have a federal work stoppage like we did a few years back and the voters won't stand for that. IMO of course

CkG

So instead of blaming the GOP House, Senate, and President for passing and signing the laws that have balooned this Deficit, you are blaming the Democrats for not filibustering it. This is really the intellectual "triumph" of Bush apologists. Of course if they have filibustered any of these bills, you would be blaming the Democrats for blocking Bush's wonderful ideas. Which is why they haven't filibustered them, so that teh GOP has noone left to blame for their failed economic policies. Again, the economic policies that resulted in this deficit were passed by GOP house and senate, and signed into law by Dubya. It's their work, and their deficit.

No - I'm not blaming them for anything - I'm just saying that they aren't blameless -There is a difference. And like charrison said - they are whining about it now, but weren't then...why?.
Have any ideas on how to fix the budget gap? Bush's tax cut will get you ~$100Billion, so you only have 400 to go

CkG

Get rid of the tax cut AND undo the spending hikes since Clinton. Let the neocons at DOD pick what wars they want to fight with a FIXED budget. Not fund every little adventure they go on. And whatever is still left, raise taxes. The cost of the government needs to be passed on to the people, otherwise there is no incentive to control it.

OK, you only have ~200 billion to go

You see SuperTool - it isn't as easy as you seem to think it is. There are many factors that have led to this deficit. I'd hate to hear the whining about Bush "not doing anything to stimulate the economy" -it'd be tons worse since it seems that it has had a positive effect(to the extent anything a President can do) so far. The problem is spending and it needs to be put back in check - this we will agree on. Raising taxes is where we part paths though. If you take away Bush's tax cut(which is raising taxes), and still have to raise taxes another 200Billion you'll take away any progress/momentum we have started to regain since the recession of 2001. I won't support any tax-cuts until ALL of our elected officials get serious about spending and start making progress towards that end. And actually we wouldn't need tax increases if they'd spend the money they do get wisely and not on frivolous "feel good" projects or other waste.

CkG

The only way you are going to get spending cuts is if you pass the cost of that spending to the taxpayers. The only way elected officials will get serious about spending is when every time they pass a spending measure, they have to go to their voters and raise taxes to pay for that spending. If politicians can have the positive publicity of bringing pork to their district without having to bring tax hikes to their districts, they will do it. If there is no negative feedback to the system, and only positive feedback, things get out of control. This borrow and spend scheme is a copout, and what enables out of control spending.

IF spending wasn't out of control to begin with, the raise taxes to fund new stuff would work. The next issue is the way almost everything gets pooled in the "general fund" and gets distributed as Congress sees fit which allows for the "we'll pay for it out of the general fund" type of spending increases. Borrow and spend obviously isn't a good way to run things year after year, but neither is tax and spend since your taxes would ALWAYS go up. You can't just give the existing spending a free pass - we need to fix existing expenditures as well as be more restrictive on how new spending measures can be enacted.

If it were up to me - none of those dirty bastages would get a paycheck until they brought spending back down to a reasonable level which would balance the budget. But then again - it isn't up to me I only get one vote and there are too many "I'm entitled to X from the gov't because I'm..." type of voters here who cancel out my voice.

Out of control spending has existed forever - democrat - republican - whatever - they all spend spend spend - which needs to stop.

CkG

It's been forever because the people have given the government a no-limit credit card so that the government can spend without having to ask the people for the money. Notice that once Bush took over both the deficit and the spending went up. When you throw away a balanced budget and decouple spending from taxation, that is what happens.

 

[chowderhead]

The problem with the federal budget is that about 66% of the budget is Non-Discretionary and do not get typically voted on i.e. spending on Social Security, MediCaid, MediCare, interest on debt, etc. Even if you cut every penny of discretionary spending (Except the Defense Dept which is about 50% of discretionary spending) i.e. Dept of Education, Health exclud. MediCare, Energy, transportation, labor, etc. you are still going to have a deficit. Entitlement programs need to be overhauled.

This is a Republican controled House and Senate. There is a Republican President. Blaming the Democrats in the Senate for not filibustering or offering alternatives is disingenuous. First, the Democrats proposed a payroll tax holiday instead of the dividends tax cut. Many americans aren't going to benefit from this round of tax cuts but everyone who works would have under the Democratic plan. They also suggested extending unemployment benefits and tax credits for employers to subsidize health care and some other stuff that never saw the light of day. Budget Resolutions cannot be filibustered. The 13 Appropriations bills get bogged down but generally eventually are passed with lots of changes.

GWB has never presented a balanced federal budget. He has given tax cuts and expanded the federal government reach and breadth to unparallel heights. IMO, history will reflect that GWB presided over the single largest expansion of the federal government since FDR's New Deal. He has offered everything to everyone and has never asked the people for any sacrifice.
He could balance the budget tommorrow if he wanted to but he won't because it's better politically to drive the nation deeper into debt then to grow a spine and make the tough budgetary choices.

Addendum:
------------------------
I love this reasoning as well:

Reagan - tax cuts, ended communism single-handedly. Let's remove Roosevelt's head from Rushmore. We can't name enough things after Reagan.
Democratic House and Senate - responsible for the quadrupling of the national debt even though Reagan had to sign all those budgets


Bush - read my lips, not a true conservative.
Democrats in the Congress aided and abated.
Alan Greenspan/Ross Perot cost Bush the election

Clinton - all that is evil and vile.
Republicans in Congress - responsible for the GREAT economic boom and the balanced budgets even though Clinton had to sign all those budgets.

GWB - GREAT person - looks great in a fighter pilot uniform.
Republican Congress - err ... Democrats are obstructionists with no plan of their own even as they should filibuster the budget.

 

[zantac]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Insane3D
charrison-

I understand what you are trying to say, and I admit, you are very knowledgeable when it comes to issues of fiscal budgets and such...much more so than I. However, it seems a bit strange to me that you could find fault with the democrativ minority in congress beause they haven't tried to stop the spending the republican majority and administration is currently doing. To me, it seems the problem is entirely a result of the republican majority. They have control of everything, but it's the dems fault because they aren't trying to stop them?

I am speaking strictly about the current administration and congress, not the past. I don't think the dems have always been blameless, but it seems to me that with the republicans controlling everything, the blame lays squarely at their feet right now. It is sort of like saying a robbery is the fault of the police since they didn't stop it, rather than the criminal that commited it.

That's just how I see it anyway..and I don't consider myself a member of either party.

They only reason I make mention of the senate filibuster and the budget is that the party that is complaing the loudest about the current deficits did nothing to stop them. It seems quite hypocritcal to complain about the defecits, when in fact they did nothing to stop them when they do had the power to do so. I yes I will agree that the republicans get a larger share of the blame this cycle because they do largely control legislative branch, but they do not have total control. Total control would require keeping the current majority in congress and adding about 10 seats in the senate.

A filibuster is quite dangerous to use. . If abused, the filibuster could be taken away (Or the Rules Committee could make it a lot harder to do). Senators need both republican and democratic votes in most cases to win an election. It would be suicide to filibuster at whim like you say they should've.

 

[LeadMagnet]

They should try using Quicken to balance the budge. If the final number is in red, go back and try it again till it's in black.

 

[sandorski]

Anyone know what the % rate the government borrows at? Is it fixed?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Anyone know what the % rate the government borrows at? Is it fixed?

all sorts of different rate info

The rate of interest depends on the instrument.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: sandorski
Anyone know what the % rate the government borrows at? Is it fixed?

all sorts of different rate info

The rate of interest depends on the instrument.

Thanks, I'm not an Accountant so I may be speaking out of line here.

Anyway, looks like the Debt(Deficit) is being financed from around 1% - 5%, depending on length of(6 months or less to 30 years) time. That would seem to indicate, assuming $1 Trillion(for ease), that the Interest payments on these(2) Deficits will add from $10billion - $50 billion/year. That is, of course, assuming that the current really low Interest rate is maintained. What would happen though if rates were to reach 10%(Interest payments on these 2 deficits could reach $100billion/year! Keep in mind that is only the cost of the additional debt and not the cost of the current total debt), as it certainly could. I'm not saying this will happen, but if it did the debt itself could cause future Deficits or at least amplify fiscal problems when the next Economic downturn occurs.

 

[LunarRay]

maybe a better link for interest on the debt issues

the total interest paid not including aug and sept fy '03 is $288,803,184,023.65 from the link.

edit to add.. (not) including

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Anyone know what the % rate the government borrows at? Is it fixed?

Hell no, it's not fixed (edit: it's a commodities market). And the more it borrows, the higher the rate goes (edit: by increasing supply while decreasing demand). And the rate is tied into almost everything, but most particularly long-term consumer financing, like residential mortgages. Since the government began slamming the bond markets with this new debt in June, mortgage interest rates have gone up more than a percentage point with more increases on the way. Combine that with increased gas prices (if they hold long-term, which I suspect they will), and there will be no "economic recovery."

edit2: and can you people learn to freakin' quote for once? How do you expect people to read your posts when they're nested 20 deep?

 

[LunarRay]

Sandorski,
Ya have basically two policies Fiscal and Monetary. The monetary is mainly to do with the FED (greenspan's boys) and the Fiscal is to do with the Congress and President.

As the Fed moves the 'rate' up to control growth react to something the Prime will also rise with it (almost always) the difference between the secure Federally issued bonds, notes, bills, etc. and every other vehicle for investing is a risk factor. The more risky the more interest or yield.

So. If for what ever reason the prime goes up beyond the risk factor folks will jump to those type investments that lend at prime.. cd's etc. and the Treasury has canceled notes or bonds etc. and no money so they increase the rate paid to keep in line with what is going on in the markets..

having suggested that.. If we go into inflation and the interest rates climb say 5 points as the treasury issues expire or are cashed in, the new (replacement) ones will pay a greater percentage of interest.

Basically

I edit to add... yes this would be a consumption of current revenue and if the unfunded portion is added to debt or defense is or SS no fixed item just what is short in the budget comes from debt issues.

 

[SuperTool]

So 350B for 7T in debt
So for that 1.5T Bush is on track to adding, he is adding 75B a year in interest payments for US taxpayers to bear in the future. That's $300/year for every man,woman and child in America in perpetuity.
That puts that puny $300 rebate in proportion.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
So 350B for 7T in debt
So for that 1.5T Bush is on track to adding, he is adding 75B a year in interest payments for US taxpayers to bear in the future. That's $300/year for every man,woman and child in America in perpetuity.
That puts that puny $300 rebate in proportion.

It won't be that bad if we increase the population to 80billion people and all have jobs in the US.. at greater than $6.75 per hour.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: SuperTool
So 350B for 7T in debt
So for that 1.5T Bush is on track to adding, he is adding 75B a year in interest payments for US taxpayers to bear in the future. That's $300/year for every man,woman and child in America in perpetuity.
That puts that puny $300 rebate in proportion.

It won't be that bad if we increase the population to 80billion people and all have jobs in the US.. at greater than $6.75 per hour.

rofl, sounds like a platform to run on!

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: SuperTool
So 350B for 7T in debt
So for that 1.5T Bush is on track to adding, he is adding 75B a year in interest payments for US taxpayers to bear in the future. That's $300/year for every man,woman and child in America in perpetuity.
That puts that puny $300 rebate in proportion.

It won't be that bad if we increase the population to 80billion people and all have jobs in the US.. at greater than $6.75 per hour.

rofl, sounds like a platform to run on!

It might be one of those underlying assumptions the Congress uses when they talk about "the out years" and when every thing will be rosy... go see Alice when she's 10 feet tall.. Jefferson Airoplane..