Time to REALLY Cut Spending

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

Then we have 1 area of agreement, however, I’d go a little further and say that phasing these programs out will, over time, correct the imbalances these programs have created. A clean cut would have disastrous results for the people who have depended heavily on these programs for such a long time.
[/quote]

Unless wages rise or prices fall according to the phasing out of those programs, you’re looking at those same disasters, though possibly over a longer span.

You keep assuming that the only result that can come from a company paying its workers more is that prices will rise. I do think you’re absolutely right, in reality - but its not impossible that, instead of raising prices, investors and owners could simply take less.

62

I am curious with all the anti social program people, do you think if you kill the programs we will cease to have poor people to deal with ? What will we do with the poor ? Even now with all the programs , we still have a lot of poverty

If you want to balance the budget, go after big wastes of money , Military and the war on drugs

63

The reason we have a vanishing middle class is because the unions vanished. look at the statistics from union government workers to those that are not union

64

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I am curious with all the anti social program people, do you think if you kill the programs we will cease to have poor people to deal with ? What will we do with the poor ? Even now with all the programs , we still have a lot of poverty

If you want to balance the budget, go after big wastes of money , Military and the war on drugs[/quote]

I will absolutely agree on the war on “EVERYTHING” that needs to go, drugs, foreign entanglements etc.

The way I look at it is the entitlement programs are saddled with waste. The government doesnt have a profit incentive. Now, the typical connotation of profit incentive is that it is disingenuous to the lower class.

It is well known that the lower and middle class far outnumber the rich. So as a market for medical, educational services etc, they represent a very large share. Any company that would not provide the most efficient service in pricing to this market would be foolhardy.

An example of marketing to the lower income people and achieving a desirable social outcome is the mobile phone market in Africa and the personal computer market in India. Basically reverse engineering is at place which strips down the frivolities and provides necessary items at a very reduced cost. Mobile phone usage in Africa allows mobile banking. Now with cheap and efficient cell phones, people can save their money easily and effectively, not to mention get up to date information on market prices for their goods.

Similarly in India, they are reducing the cost of a PC tablet, something similar to the IPAD so that a majority of people can afford it and utilize it. Is it an IPAD? No, but its a technology that is priced for the lower end of the market that allows them to participate in the information age.

I feel similar social outcomes can be obtained with medical care and education.

65

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

Then we have 1 area of agreement, however, I’d go a little further and say that phasing these programs out will, over time, correct the imbalances these programs have created. A clean cut would have disastrous results for the people who have depended heavily on these programs for such a long time.
[/quote]

Unless wages rise or prices fall according to the phasing out of those programs, you’re looking at those same disasters, though possibly over a longer span.

You keep assuming that the only result that can come from a company paying its workers more is that prices will rise. I do think you’re absolutely right, in reality - but its not impossible that, instead of raising prices, investors and owners could simply take less. [/quote]

I agree. There is a fiscal conservative talk show host whom I listen to, but he claims that any tax on a corporation is a tax on the consumer. He said that if taxes are raised on a corporation, the corporation must make up ALL of the cost by raising prices. I wrote to him and asked why there would not be a rebalancing in which prices rose some, pay was reduced some, and the owners profit was decreased some. He wrate back that it was too complicated to explain in an E-mail.

He does make a good point that the US has historically only been able to take in revenues in the range of 17-20% of GDP regardless of the breakdown of tax rates, especially at the high end. The top tax rate has been 90%, 70%, 39.6%, 28% but revenues have been roughly 18% of GDP in all of those ranges, AND GDP itself went up FASTER during the periods of lower top marginal tax rates, so higher top tax rate does not historically raise the % of GDP that becomes revenues, but it does raise GDP. This is why I’ve come to believe that the Democrat party leaders do not want to raise revenue or help the most people, they want to take the greatest degree of control possible.

I would also like to add that when somebody stays in school, and training, so that they will eventually receive a six figure income and then get taxed higher it is not fair. An MD cardiologist might spend as much as 14 years in additional training and research making less money than a public school teacher during that period, and then suddenly they get 300K a year at age 36 and get taxed despite probably 7 years of making about negative 50K a year due to debt, and 7 years of making 30 to 45K as a resident working 65 hours a week while their debt grows, and ending up at age 36 with maybe 14-16 years left before they reach the age at which a typical public school teacher can retire with 80K a year adjusted upwards for the cost of living +1% forever. To make six figures you often have to work for nothing for a decade, rack up debt, cut your career length in half, and raise your risk.

66

Why are the rating agencies still taken seriously?

Aren’t these the same guys that gave triple A status to junk mortgage-backed bonds?

Our credit status should have been knocked down a while ago, anyways.

67

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

Then we have 1 area of agreement, however, I’d go a little further and say that phasing these programs out will, over time, correct the imbalances these programs have created. A clean cut would have disastrous results for the people who have depended heavily on these programs for such a long time.
[/quote]

Unless wages rise or prices fall according to the phasing out of those programs, you’re looking at those same disasters, though possibly over a longer span.[/quote]

I think people who would normally depend on these programs will learn to arm themselves with better skills which DEMAND employers pay more for their services. And the ones that don’t, they don’t deserve more money.

FTR, I’m not against a safety net. I think it’s far too easily abused and creates a culture of failure in which generations depend on it instead of using it as it was intended, a safety net.

[quote]

You keep assuming that the only result that can come from a company paying its workers more is that prices will rise. I do think you’re absolutely right, in reality - but its not impossible that, instead of raising prices, investors and owners could simply take less. [/quote]

It’s not the only result, it all depends on the elasticity of the product/service being provided and how much consumers are willing to pay. Some companies (gas companies, for example) can raise prices to astronomical levels and see little to no decrease in demand. These companies will pass on to the customer every extra penny they pay their employees. Other companies have a product that is inelastic and forcing employers to raise wages can put them out of business.

I think this answers mertdawgs question as well.

68

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
The reason we have a vanishing middle class is because the unions vanished. look at the statistics from union government workers to those that are not union[/quote]

Not enough.

You need to cut MOAR…

War on drugs is a mere 40 billion, i.e. peanuts.

Cut the military budget in half, abolish the TSA, department of education, still not enough, cut half of your myriad of intelligence agencies, still not enough and we are already deep, deep, deep in the realm of political impossibility.

But lets look further, no farm subsidies, no college loans, no tax benefits for mortgages, no subsidies for renewable energies, no generous pensions for public employees…

So, at which point to you think they would actually have to turn this FEMA sites into camps for dissenters, because I am betting that they would need them.

Thing is though, it all needs to be done.

Bummer.

69

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

You keep assuming that the only result that can come from a company paying its workers more is that prices will rise. I do think you’re absolutely right, in reality - but its not impossible that, instead of raising prices, investors and owners could simply take less. [/quote]

Unfortunately, good intentions =/= good results.

70

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

You keep assuming that the only result that can come from a company paying its workers more is that prices will rise. I do think you’re absolutely right, in reality - but its not impossible that, instead of raising prices, investors and owners could simply take less. [/quote]

Interesting idea.

You do realize though that the prize of money from investors is subject to the market forces like anything else and the relation between factors of production is dependent on their relatice scarcity.

And that means that in this day and age where most individuals and organisations seem to be structurally unable to save money investors are a rather scarce commodity.

Plus, with the artificially low interest rates of the last 30 years they already have received less than they should have.

71

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
The reason we have a vanishing middle class is because the unions vanished. look at the statistics from union government workers to those that are not union[/quote]

Not enough.

You need to cut MOAR…

War on drugs is a mere 40 billion, i.e. peanuts.

Cut the military budget in half, abolish the TSA, department of education, still not enough, cut half of your myriad of intelligence agencies, still not enough and we are already deep, deep, deep in the realm of political impossibility.

But lets look further, no farm subsidies, no college loans, no tax benefits for mortgages, no subsidies for renewable energies, no generous pensions for public employees…

So, at which point to you think they would actually have to turn this FEMA sites into camps for dissenters, because I am betting that they would need them.

Thing is though, it all needs to be done.

Bummer.

[/quote]

I wonder what all is counted in those figures on the war on drugs , I wonder if they count the Cop’s time to stop and investigate the supposed crime , The court costs,the incarceration and the money we pay other countries to make war on our problem. I doubt they consider much of that.

As far as the other things you posted , I could agree with most of them. But why i said the military and the war on drugs is because we would get the biggest bang for the buck and smaller down sides. I do how ever think cutting the military would be felt pretty immediately.

The war on drugs would not only a savings it IMO have a wide spread good side.

72

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
The reason we have a vanishing middle class is because the unions vanished. look at the statistics from union government workers to those that are not union[/quote]

Not enough.

You need to cut MOAR…

War on drugs is a mere 40 billion, i.e. peanuts.

Cut the military budget in half, abolish the TSA, department of education, still not enough, cut half of your myriad of intelligence agencies, still not enough and we are already deep, deep, deep in the realm of political impossibility.

But lets look further, no farm subsidies, no college loans, no tax benefits for mortgages, no subsidies for renewable energies, no generous pensions for public employees…

So, at which point to you think they would actually have to turn this FEMA sites into camps for dissenters, because I am betting that they would need them.

Thing is though, it all needs to be done.

Bummer.

[/quote]

I wonder what all is counted in those figures on the war on drugs , I wonder if they count the Cop’s time to stop and investigate the supposed crime , The court costs,the incarceration and the money we pay other countries to make war on our problem. I doubt they consider much of that.

As far as the other things you posted , I could agree with most of them. But why i said the military and the war on drugs is because we would get the biggest bang for the buck and smaller down sides. I do how ever think cutting the military would be felt pretty immediately.

The war on drugs would not only a savings it IMO have a wide spread good side. [/quote]

Sure, not killing people abroad and not incarcerating people who have not harmed anyone would be a nice thing, but lets be realistic here who cares if there are legions (literally!) of people who have built their careers around these activities?

I dont they would let go so easily.

73

[quote]fcrenshaw wrote:
Aren’t these the same guys that gave triple A status to junk mortgage-backed bonds?[/quote]

Yep.

And isn’t what S&P’s statement means, is that there’s a 33.3% chance that U.S. Treasuries might be downgraded sometime in the next 50 years or so?

Smells like a lot of bullshit to me.

74

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I am curious with all the anti social program people, do you think if you kill the programs we will cease to have poor people to deal with ? What will we do with the poor ? Even now with all the programs , we still have a lot of poverty

If you want to balance the budget, go after big wastes of money , Military and the war on drugs[/quote]

You know what, I will agree with you on both cuts. However that isn’t going to balance us out, nor is it going to cut the debt! We have gone too far in debt to be able to say such things. Right now, if you are really truly serious about balancing the budget and getting our country out of debt we need to cut everything. No exceptions, no dicking around. That doesn’t mean we have to KILL all social programs, although there are some I really think we can and should do without (i also liked orion’s list in his earlier post) but it Does mean we have to cut down funding and scope to the ones that remain.

As I said earlier, everyone has their sacred cows they don’t want touched and they are all on the exempt list. And nothing will get done. Again.

I never said we wouldn’t have to suffer a lot and sacrifice. We have gone much too far past the point where relatively painless fixes will right things. Now we have to man up and take the hit. And if Obama were ever in any way shape or form serious about balancing the budget he would never have passed the abominations in healthcare. We. Don’t. Have. The. Money!

It is not about being “anti social program”. It is about cold hard reality.

75

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I am curious with all the anti social program people, do you think if you kill the programs we will cease to have poor people to deal with ? What will we do with the poor ? Even now with all the programs , we still have a lot of poverty

If you want to balance the budget, go after big wastes of money , Military and the war on drugs[/quote]

You know what, I will agree with you on both cuts. However that isn’t going to balance us out, nor is it going to cut the debt! We have gone too far in debt to be able to say such things. Right now, if you are really truly serious about balancing the budget and getting our country out of debt we need to cut everything. No exceptions, no dicking around. That doesn’t mean we have to KILL all social programs, although there are some I really think we can and should do without (i also liked orion’s list in his earlier post) but it Does mean we have to cut down funding and scope to the ones that remain.

As I said earlier, everyone has their sacred cows they don’t want touched and they are all on the exempt list. And nothing will get done. Again.

I never said we wouldn’t have to suffer a lot and sacrifice. We have gone much too far past the point where relatively painless fixes will right things. Now we have to man up and take the hit. And if Obama were ever in any way shape or form serious about balancing the budget he would never have passed the abominations in healthcare. We. Don’t. Have. The. Money!

It is not about being “anti social program”. It is about cold hard reality.[/quote]

Very true. Both governments in Britain and the USA need to cut spending drastically. In the UK we’re cutting spending to the levels of 2008 and to hear the cries of anguish from opposition you’d think we were heading back to the Victorian era.

I find it intolerable though to listen to leaders preaching fiscal responsibility when we’re involved in a pointless Libyan/Afghanistan/Iraq conflict that has brought nothing but death and misery to millions. As wastes of money go, they are up there.

76

That’s what politicians do, rhetoric and action are never in line with one another.

77

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I am curious with all the anti social program people, do you think if you kill the programs we will cease to have poor people to deal with ? What will we do with the poor ? Even now with all the programs , we still have a lot of poverty

If you want to balance the budget, go after big wastes of money , Military and the war on drugs[/quote]

You know what, I will agree with you on both cuts. However that isn’t going to balance us out, nor is it going to cut the debt! We have gone too far in debt to be able to say such things. Right now, if you are really truly serious about balancing the budget and getting our country out of debt we need to cut everything. No exceptions, no dicking around. That doesn’t mean we have to KILL all social programs, although there are some I really think we can and should do without (i also liked orion’s list in his earlier post) but it Does mean we have to cut down funding and scope to the ones that remain.

As I said earlier, everyone has their sacred cows they don’t want touched and they are all on the exempt list. And nothing will get done. Again.

I never said we wouldn’t have to suffer a lot and sacrifice. We have gone much too far past the point where relatively painless fixes will right things. Now we have to man up and take the hit. And if Obama were ever in any way shape or form serious about balancing the budget he would never have passed the abominations in healthcare. We. Don’t. Have. The. Money!

It is not about being “anti social program”. It is about cold hard reality.[/quote]

I personally could understand cutting social programs , but the standard operating procedure
Of the Republicans is to cut social programs and ignore everything else. I would not hold my breath for that kind of cuts , you still have the Dems PRO SOCIAL and the Reps PRO MILITARY AND CONTRACTORS

78

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I am curious with all the anti social program people, do you think if you kill the programs we will cease to have poor people to deal with ? What will we do with the poor ? Even now with all the programs , we still have a lot of poverty

If you want to balance the budget, go after big wastes of money , Military and the war on drugs[/quote]

You know what, I will agree with you on both cuts. However that isn’t going to balance us out, nor is it going to cut the debt! We have gone too far in debt to be able to say such things. Right now, if you are really truly serious about balancing the budget and getting our country out of debt we need to cut everything. No exceptions, no dicking around. That doesn’t mean we have to KILL all social programs, although there are some I really think we can and should do without (i also liked orion’s list in his earlier post) but it Does mean we have to cut down funding and scope to the ones that remain.

As I said earlier, everyone has their sacred cows they don’t want touched and they are all on the exempt list. And nothing will get done. Again.

I never said we wouldn’t have to suffer a lot and sacrifice. We have gone much too far past the point where relatively painless fixes will right things. Now we have to man up and take the hit. And if Obama were ever in any way shape or form serious about balancing the budget he would never have passed the abominations in healthcare. We. Don’t. Have. The. Money!

It is not about being “anti social program”. It is about cold hard reality.[/quote]

I personally could understand cutting social programs , but the standard operating procedure
Of the Republicans is to cut social programs and ignore everything else. I would not hold my breath for that kind of cuts , you still have the Dems PRO SOCIAL and the Reps PRO MILITARY AND CONTRACTORS[/quote]

Oh I’m not holding my breath for anything even resembling a real, viable solution to our debt problem. Nobody has the balls. Rand Paul is the only one who came up with anything even remotely like a real solution and his plan is not executable because nobody is willing to take the political heat to do it. Incidentally, he is a republican who proposed cutting military.

One might also say that standard operating procedure for democrats is to not cut anything, spend more and tax more. Or cut “discretionary spending” which is such a small chunk of the budget it is really only a political grandstand move. It amounts to pissing on the real problem.

79

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
Other companies have a product that is inelastic and forcing employers to raise wages can put them out of business.

[/quote]

I never advocated and will never advocate forcing employers to raise wages.

80

A pretty good and visual explanation