Federal budget spending increase freeze: the most agreeable way to rein in spending?

[glenn1]

Problem: out of control federal spending.

Answer (?): freeze spending across the board at an arbitrary point, say 2003 funding levels, for several years.

Lay off the spending increases, and the Treasury intakes will begin to catch up to outlays after a couple of years (intakes tend to increase over time as a simple function of growth of GDP). Wouldn't that be the simplest, easiest way to rein in spending? No arguments over spending priorities, what gets cut, or any of the other infinite number of partisan issues.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: glenn1
Problem: out of control federal spending.

Answer (?): freeze spending across the board at an arbitrary point, say 2003 funding levels, for several years.

Lay off the spending increases, and the Treasury intakes will begin to catch up to outlays after a couple of years (intakes tend to increase over time as a simple function of growth of GDP). Wouldn't that be the simplest, easiest way to rein in spending? No arguments over spending priorities, what gets cut, or any of the other infinite number of partisan issues.

That would be the easiest thing to do.

But if you dont increase spending in certain areas you get accused of being non-caring.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: charrison

That would be the easiest thing to do.

But if you dont increase spending in certain areas you get accused of being non-caring.

Right. Apparantly, you can't be a "compassionate conservative" unless you spend assloads of cash. Honestly, I wish Bush would just stop pretending he cared so much. 😉

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: charrison

That would be the easiest thing to do.

But if you dont increase spending in certain areas you get accused of being non-caring.

Right. Apparantly, you can't be a "compassionate conservative" unless you spend assloads of cash. Honestly, I wish Bush would just stop pretending he cared so much. 😉

Well, if republicans ran a platform of spending freeze or spending cuts, they would be portrayed as not being compassionate. The dems are the first ones to call planned reductions in spending increases a cut. Listen to the whine of dems how not enough money is being spent on their programs.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Actually we need to reign in irresponsible spending . . . I say hack off half of the Secretary of War's budget as a start. Repeal the Medicare Reform/Drug benefit bill. End ALL foreign military aid.

Considering current annual cost increases for Medicare, VA, Medicaid . . . any freeze would dramatically reduce healthcare availability.

 

[Martin]

It will probably be accompanied by the same problems as trying to cut spending, but I guess its better than doing nothing.

Here is an interesting quote

In 2001, the most recent year for which figures are available, all of Canada's governments together doled out the equivalent of 39.7 per cent of the gross domestic product. In America, governments spent 35.3 per cent of the GDP -- a 4.4 percentage-point difference, down from a difference of more than 12 points in the early 1990s.

If you keep going, soon you'll be proud citizens of Soviet Yankeestan. 😉

 

[sandorski]

2003 spending is still way too high.

 

[dirtboy]

As long as our GDP grows faster than our debt, in the long run we'll be fine. In the short run, freezing or curbing spending is beneficial. Luckily our debt is not out of control. Fiscally, we are in good shape.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

As long as our GDP grows faster than our debt, in the long run we'll be fine. In the short run, freezing or curbing spending is beneficial. Luckily our debt is not out of control. Fiscally, we are in good shape.

That's a ridiculous long term plan for America. As long as debt continues to increase so will the expense of servicing those debts. Due to the likely acceleration of spending through unfunded liabilities for Boomers (Medicare/SS) our balance sheet will look even worse.

Even Bush 43 admits spending is out of control (albeit he blames Congress) while using various spin mechanisms to claim spending is under control (an argument most real conservatives reject). Fiscally, we are in bad shape and the prospect for substantitive improvement is less than encouraging. Prior tax cut legislation will become progressively more expensive while budgetary restraint remains rhetorical inside the Beltway.

 

[SuperTool]

Solution is split government, when one branch checks the other.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

As long as our GDP grows faster than our debt, in the long run we'll be fine. In the short run, freezing or curbing spending is beneficial. Luckily our debt is not out of control. Fiscally, we are in good shape.

That's a ridiculous long term plan for America. As long as debt continues to increase so will the expense of servicing those debts. Due to the likely acceleration of spending through unfunded liabilities for Boomers (Medicare/SS) our balance sheet will look even worse.

Even Bush 43 admits spending is out of control (albeit he blames Congress) while using various spin mechanisms to claim spending is under control (an argument most real conservatives reject). Fiscally, we are in bad shape and the prospect for substantitive improvement is less than encouraging. Prior tax cut legislation will become progressively more expensive while budgetary restraint remains rhetorical inside the Beltway.

Only rediculous if you fail to understand it.

 

[Jhhnn]

Luckily our debt is not out of control. Fiscally, we are in good shape.

Dream on, dirtboy.

One third of Federal expenditures are deficit spending. Over 10% of every tax dollar goes to pay interest on the debt, and that's rising fast.

Simply freezing the budget won't do the job, we'll end up in the poor risk lending category right next to our Argentine friends some time prior to 2010. Freezing the budget as is will merely maintain outrageous military expenditures, hasten state and local tax increases, promote ongoing corporate welfare... while driving the federal govt into bankruptcy...

Cutting out the pork, abandoning neocon dreams of global military dominance and raising taxes back to pre-Bush levels would be a start in the right direction. That's not going to happen as long as the current leadership can continue to sell the big lie...

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Luckily our debt is not out of control. Fiscally, we are in good shape.

Dream on, dirtboy.

One third of Federal expenditures are deficit spending. Over 10% of every tax dollar goes to pay interest on the debt, and that's rising fast.

Simply freezing the budget won't do the job, we'll end up in the poor risk lending category right next to our Argentine friends some time prior to 2010. Freezing the budget as is will merely maintain outrageous military expenditures, hasten state and local tax increases, promote ongoing corporate welfare... while driving the federal govt into bankruptcy...

Cutting out the pork, abandoning neocon dreams of global military dominance and raising taxes back to pre-Bush levels would be a start in the right direction. That's not going to happen as long as the current leadership can continue to sell the big lie...

Don't cry for me Argen...er America. Oh come on Jhhn, what's the matter, the Gov't tells Consumers to spend like mad to boost the great Economy so it's only fitting the Gov't spends like mad too. Go Go Go..

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

One third of Federal expenditures are deficit spending. Over 10% of every tax dollar goes to pay interest on the debt, and that's rising fast.

So. If I was spending 30% of my income on debt service I'd still be considered a good credit risk.

Cutting out the pork, abandoning neocon dreams of global military dominance and raising taxes back to pre-Bush levels would be a start in the right direction. That's not going to happen as long as the current leadership can continue to sell the big lie...

For one it would shove our economy right back into a recession. That's what we need. Raise taxes but get less money because more people are out of work! That's brilliant. Why don't more people think as intelligently as you???

Second, there aren't any neocons bent on global military dominance. Do you see our troops rolling from country to country enslaving people along the way? No. Of course your thinking is brilliant. More people should fabricate the truth like you in order to support their weak arguements.

Sell the big lie, huh? You're the only one out peddling lies.

 

[Jhhnn]

Touch a nerve, dirtboy? getting in over your head, letting that ideological conditioning get in the way of actual thought? Be careful, you might actually learn something you'd rather not know...

"So. If I was spending 30% of my income on debt service I'd still be considered a good credit risk."

Not if that debt service was merely paying the interest on what you owe, without touching the principal. That's what debt service means in terms of the national debt- just keeping our noses above water... not paying back anything... Tell me where you'd be after a few years if you spent 50% more than you take in ...

Back into recession, you say? The short term taxcuts to the middle class have had their effect, now the long-term cuts for the wealthy will kick in, putting the squeeze on revenues. Do you think that rescinding the 50% of the taxcuts going to the top few percent of the population will throw them out of work? Seems unlikely...

We've invaded two countries in two years, one of them on utterly false pretenses, and would obviously invade more if the public were gullible enough to accept it... The Iraqi adventure will cost us at least a quarter of a trillion dollars before it's over... and the Admin already has their sights zeroed in on Syria, Iran, and the DPRK.

Deficit spending while cutting taxes is a nifty way to feed the rich and give them a safe investment path at the same time- if they didn't have govt bonds to buy, they'd be forced to invest in something riskier, like the economy....

The seeming prosperity you see around you is based on debt, plain and simple. Borrow against the future to indulge yourself today. And it's not like personal finance, uncle sam can't exactly take out bankruptcy when the time to pay the piper rolls around...

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Touch a nerve, dirtboy? getting in over your head, letting that ideological conditioning get in the way of actual thought? Be careful, you might actually learn something you'd rather not know...

You could only hope...

Not if that debt service was merely paying the interest on what you owe, without touching the principal. That's what debt service means in terms of the national debt- just keeping our noses above water... not paying back anything... Tell me where you'd be after a few years if you spent 50% more than you take in ...

If I spent 30% of my income just servicing debt I would still be a good credit risk. Now if you want to change your story to something else in a weak effort to try to prove me wrong, then go ahead, because that's what you've had to do.

Back into recession, you say? The short term taxcuts to the middle class have had their effect, now the long-term cuts for the wealthy will kick in, putting the squeeze on revenues. Do you think that rescinding the 50% of the taxcuts going to the top few percent of the population will throw them out of work? Seems unlikely...

Maybe you should read more about what economists are saying before you announce that the tax cuts have had their effect. They have begun to have an effect and are necessary for awhile longer or indefinitely. It takes time for things to happen; time for the economy to move. You might think things should magically happen overnight, but it can take years for something like a tax cut to have its full effect. Again you have to drop in the comment about the rich to support your weak arguements.

Read up on something called AMT. The government is still getting extra money from the rich and middle class.

We've invaded two countries in two years, one of them on utterly false pretenses, and would obviously invade more if the public were gullible enough to accept it... The Iraqi adventure will cost us at least a quarter of a trillion dollars before it's over... and the Admin already has their sights zeroed in on Syria, Iran, and the DPRK.

Do you see our military storming from country to country. No, you don't.

Deficit spending while cutting taxes is a nifty way to feed the rich and give them a safe investment path at the same time- if they didn't have govt bonds to buy, they'd be forced to invest in something riskier, like the economy....

Of course you wouldn't know this, because that would require you to be informed on an issue. Government bonds are paying extremely low rates right now. Rich people aren't buying them right now because buying bonds is a foolish move right now, especially when we could see a rise in interest rates in the future. Keep attacking the rich... after all, it is they who pay most of the taxes.

The seeming prosperity you see around you is based on debt, plain and simple. Borrow against the future to indulge yourself today. And it's not like personal finance, uncle sam can't exactly take out bankruptcy when the time to pay the piper rolls around...

Oh really....

Uncle Sam is fine. There have been periods in our great nation's history where our debt was extremely high -- I believe 95% of our GDP. Now we are at 30% according to what you stated in an earlier post. So you cry that 30% debt to GDP is going to ruin us, yet when we had higher we didn't go broke.

 

[Genesys]

i say cut spending to programs that are (A)obsolete AND (B)failing to meet expectations. and cut all the frivolous handouts and entitlements.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: Genesys
i say cut spending to programs that are [A]obsolete AND failing to meet expectations. and cut all the frivolous handouts/entitlements.

Here's an intelligent idea that I agree with. 🙂

 

[Jhhnn]

There have been periods in our great nation's history where our debt was extremely high -- I believe 95% of our GDP.

Quite true, in the latter years of WW2, an all out struggle, total war. If you lose, debt doesn't matter... Marginal tax rates were also 90%, which paid off those debts rather quickly, then those rates continued through the 50's. Total indebtedness as compared to gdp didn't even approach the levels established by Reagan and Dubya's father- they quadrupled the total debt, in real dollars... and Dubya is now doing his part, too...

Govt bonds are paying low rates precisely because they're in demand- it's an auction of sorts. They're in demand precisely because those who have investment dollars seek a safe haven, a place to park their money, reduce risk, wait for the business climate to improve... when the business climate improves, and/or they start to see uncle sam as a poor risk, those rates will skyrocket, as will debt maintenance costs. The debt is continuously refinanced whenever the budget is balanced or in deficit- bonds that come due are paid, and more issued at the going rate... The IMF has been issuing a series of warnings concerning the deficits, and not all economists agree with the Reaganomics "spend your way to glory" school of thought...

http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/0,1518,258983,00.html

Not that he'd know anything, being the recipient of a Nobel prize in Economics...

Feel free to maintain denial, it's your right as a patriotic American, some would even claim it's your duty. I suspect that you're considerably younger than myself, so you'll have more years to enjoy the bitter fruits of our current folly... I'm sure you'll be able to blame it on the tax and spend liberals, the welfare queens, the "social programs" even when the truth is smacking you up the side of the head...

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As long as our GDP grows faster than our debt, in the long run we'll be fine. In the short run, freezing or curbing spending is beneficial. Luckily our debt is not out of control. Fiscally, we are in good shape.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's a ridiculous long term plan for America. As long as debt continues to increase so will the expense of servicing those debts. Due to the likely acceleration of spending through unfunded liabilities for Boomers (Medicare/SS) our balance sheet will look even worse.

Even Bush 43 admits spending is out of control (albeit he blames Congress) while using various spin mechanisms to claim spending is under control (an argument most real conservatives reject). Fiscally, we are in bad shape and the prospect for substantitive improvement is less than encouraging. Prior tax cut legislation will become progressively more expensive while budgetary restraint remains rhetorical inside the Beltway.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Only rediculous if you fail to understand it.

Let me see if I can help you out. Bush, the Lesser will add $1.4TRILLION in GOP elephant crapping in the corner by the end of his disastrous administration. Yet outside of the military-industrial complex he's done nothing to shift production jobs back to the US. Productivity gains in the US are great but over the last three years MORE productive Americans has meant LESS employed Americans . . . that's an unsustainable trend.

Due to the structural nature of US deficits (even the President predicts $200B+ annual deficits through the decade) interest rates will invariably rise with the continuing sucking sound at the US Treasury. Accordingly servicing our $9 . . . dare I say $10 trillion debt will be a struggle. You could almost make an argument for deficit spending if the investment was producing better schools, better roads, fusion, pollution-control tech (amongst other technologies to sell to the EU), and sprinkling aid around the world to foster good relations with EVERYONE. Instead we've blown up one country and occupied another while spreading little more than ineffectual propaganda and favors to malcontents. That's a prescription for disaster.

I'm not sure what the current VA budget looks like but I do know they've faced double digit inflation in drug costs each year over the past five. Those costs . . . along with all other healthcare costs are likely to grow tremendously as soldiers return from Afghanistan and Iraq with physical and mental injuries. The VA will be responsible for these men and women for the rest of their lives . . . that ain't cheap. There's a reason why Bushies attempted to move WWII/Korean/Vietnam vets off the roles . . . costs money . . . mad money. And it's only getting more expensive each year.

As a guesstimate, take the VA expense and multiply by 50. That's what Medicare costs. Unless somebody starts knocking off old people or we have Franco-like protocol for culling the elderly herd with heat . . . there's a growing fiscal storm that even wet neocon dreams of GDP will not correct.

Of course . . . then there's Social Security. My point is that your spending freeze means very real cuts at the VA, in Medicare, and Social Security and/or dramatic reforms . . . I don't see either party developing the intestinal fortitude necessary for real reform in these programs.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: glenn1
Problem: out of control federal spending.

Answer (?): freeze spending across the board at an arbitrary point, say 2003 funding levels, for several years.

Lay off the spending increases, and the Treasury intakes will begin to catch up to outlays after a couple of years (intakes tend to increase over time as a simple function of growth of GDP). Wouldn't that be the simplest, easiest way to rein in spending? No arguments over spending priorities, what gets cut, or any of the other infinite number of partisan issues.

Spending freezes/increase caps would be a good start but I want to see that time used to evaluate ALL areas of gov't spending. I've said this time and time again but people still don't seem to understand it. The gov't can't continue to outspend the intake so the REAL answer is to see where the "fat" is and hack it off. The American Federal gov't has been given permission(and even told to by the electorate) to get involved in almost every aspect of our daily lives. THAT is the problem that causes our Federal gov't to spend spend spend. People need to figure out that the Federal gov't can't provide everything for everyone and that any attempt at doing so only causes more spending. Increasing our taxes is fine if we REALLY need the money to do something but this attitude of "what are you going to do for me" needs to end. The Federal gov't isn't your MOM or your Rich uncle - it doesn't need to hold your hand through life - YOU need to do things on your own.

Freezes or across the board cuts will get my support but I also want to see it go a step further by auditing existing spending to see if it really does what it is intended to do. Once that is done and those things that don't really do what they were intended to are scrapped - I want to see ALL the remaining items combed to see if they are really supposed to be in the scope of the Feds responsibility(per the constitution). Will this create a bigger load on state and local gov'ts? Sure but then again - I believe in states rights and believe in the "local governance" structure. People have a hard time passing and increasing spending measures locally when they know it mainly affects THEIR pocket book instead of being spread out across the nation. Ever seen how tough it is to get a new schools built by local referendum? In older communities it is next to impossible to pass them but in younger areas it can be a bit easier since the people have a greater stake the use of the funds.

Meh - someday people will learn - I just wish we could solve things now instead of trying to cover up the problem by increasing taxes.

CkG

 

[Ferocious]

The modern Republican party LOVES to spend.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Govt bonds are paying low rates precisely because they're in demand- it's an auction of sorts.

Amazing how in one sentance you have provided complete proof that you have no clue what you are talking about.

There isn't a demand for buying government bonds right now. Why do you think the dollar is sliding? For two big reasons: the first is that people are putting their money back into the stock market and getting out of bonds because you don't want to get stuck holding a bond when rates rise; and second there are other stable governments in other countries right now that have higher rates so people who invest in safe government bonds are choosing ones that pay higher that ours.

Want to see a demand in government bonds? Raise interest rates to 12% and watch the money pour in.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
My point is that your spending freeze means very real cuts at the VA, in Medicare, and Social Security and/or dramatic reforms . . . I don't see either party developing the intestinal fortitude necessary for real reform in these programs.

No it doesn't. Jeez.

I say I would support a freeze in spending and you fly in here shoving in my face that the VA, MC, & SS are the ONLY things that are going to suffer and that everyone's going to be pissed. :yawn;

Here's what I'd like to see and I'll say this again for you... Keep the GDP growing faster than our debt. Obviously there will be years that you can't freeze. This is one of those, but it's a goal to work toward. As long as the GDP outpaces our debt, each year we will look better and better.

This is nothing different than having a job, buying your first house of which required you to finance your life away, having a car payment, credit card debt the works. Very common situation for alot of people. As they get raises and better jobs, over time, those payments get smaller and smaller -- even if they just paid interest only, because their income is increasing.

Keep our economy on it's feet, keep it rolling year after year and work on containing spending.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Meh - someday people will learn - I just wish we could solve things now instead of trying to cover up the problem by increasing taxes.

That's because, like me, you pay taxes. Of course people want tax increases. Why wouldn't they? I would too... IF I WASN'T PAYING TAXES. Funny how the have-nots want the affluent to continue to fund their social programs, but as soon as they ask for a break, the have-nots start whining about how unfair it is.

Yea, really unfair. I wouldn't be suprised if I paid more taxes in a year than some people make. And of course I should be willing to do with less, I don't need it, because I'm "rich". Little do they realize that if I have some of that money back, that I'm going to go spend it. Of course they'll have you believe that I'm going to stick it in the stock market or somewhere to get richer and they'll never see a penny. Must be sad being poor and having to be jealous of and to blame your problems on other people.

Instead of crying and whining about how unfair it is that they aren't rich, I wish those people would get out there and work harder, get an education, and not frivilously spend their money away and use it to make money. This nation is full of opportunity, but it's left for the "rich" to take advantage of only because they choose not to buy new cars all the time or expensive electronics or bigger houses than they really need or whatever it is that people waste money on rather than using wisely.

Sadly those people will never learn. It's easier to cry than it is to better yourself and admit that you could have made smarter decisions. People don't want that. They like working for the man and spending every cent they get their hands on. It's a shame, but in the end it's their choices. It's just a shame that their poor choices somehow turn into me paying more taxes so they can get more benefits. The worst part of it all, is people don't care. They want free money, free benefits and whatever they can get their hands on. They never stop to take a moment to think that the people they hate so much (the rich of course) are the ones who are funding this. You'd think that they might be slightly appreciative, but their not. Hell, bums are more appreciative when you give them a couple bucks or buy them a hot meal.