We can't cut and we could tax the rich 100% and not make a dent. The only answer is growth. Grow grow grow the economy. Drill baby drill. Innovate. Annex Mexico.
We have set up an entitlement system that has hooked 90% of Americans and then added "free" healthcare.
We can't cut and we could tax the rich 100% and not make a dent. The only answer is growth. Grow grow grow the economy. Drill baby drill. Innovate. Annex Mexico.
We have set up an entitlement system that has hooked 90% of Americans and then added "free" healthcare.
I thought it was 81%.
But yes, eventually we will have to grow and inflate our economy, while slowing the growth in debt. Fortunately interest expense on the debt is cheap now.
I appreciate the details, especially since you know about them than I do.
I'm sure there are easier ways to trim defense spending, perhaps one would be changing the budget process for generals and commanders? A friend of mine said that they have a budget of "use it or lose it" where they get a certain amount of money to outfit their offices, etc. If they don't spend it all, they lose what they don't spend so they waste money on $3k couches and other frivolities. Yeah it's a drop of water in the ocean but if it's happening on bases around the world and every year, it can add up to real money.
I'm sure there are other, more substantial ways to cut the bloat out of defense spending but more importantly, the entitlement programs are an albatross. We can trim defense spending but it won't mean jack if we don't get Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, and Social Security Disability under control.
And yes, I think they should freeze defense spending for a few years (even with low inflation, it would be a "cut" in real / inflation-adjusted terms).
As for military benefits, and as I understand it, dependents (wife / children) do not have to pay any co-pay whatsoever. I have also heard elective surgeries (such as boob jobs) are much less than they should cost. I could be wrong though since it's just what I recall hearing (obligatory don't twist).
You're not too knowledgeable about the budget are you?
Did you know that defense has already been cut? And did you know that they are already (wisely) looking at trimming the overly generous benefits that military spouses receive?
And exactly what "corporate welfare" would you like to cut? The devil is in the details.
I always find that talking point especially stupid because it's as if anyone who uses that phrase forgets that we are talking about massive government programs, which are uniquely vulnerable to fraud, waste, and abuse.
So don't you think if each of the budgets are trimmed it will sharpen the "minds" at these departments to hasten their work on rooting out fraud and abuse? Or will they prove that bureaucrats are mostly lazy pieces of shit who maintain the status quo of letting our taxpayer dollars walk out the door?
Because there's no fraud, waste, or abuse in defense? No corporate welfare we can cut?
Here's my point. Cut from everywhere. You don't read well.
Welfare has already been cut. Or did you miss the memo?
We need to either raise taxes, cut from everywhere, or do both. That's how you balance a budget. You don't cut from welfare and add to defense.
Here's the deal. If you want a capable all-volunteer, deployable expeditionary military, you will need to either (1) pay them wages commensurate with their worth in the job market, or (2) get innovative with benefits.
The US military has traditionally chosen (2), because it is cheaper in the long run.
It is true that spouses and dependents get no-copay access to Tricare. Tricare is *not* a traditional health plan. If you are near a military base and there is an available military practitioner, that is who the dependent is going to see. Only if there is no availability on the installation will Tricare refer to an outside provider, and then Tricare reimburses physicians at rates that would make Medicare blush. Like 10% of billed fees, in my experience.
Remember that career military are making 65%-85% of what they could be making in the civilian economy, and that because the military makes them move every 2-4 years their spouses are typically unable to have careers. So they are stay-at-home moms or they make do earning far below their capabilities. Many spouses with professional certificiations and college degrees work in entry-level jobs or volunteer positions on military installations because they aren't able to find work at Fort Pigsknuckle, Kentucky.
So you want them to make copays?
Tricare uses excess capacity of military medicine when and where it exists, and pays so poorly on the outside that it isn't accepted by many providers in the civilian economy.
There was a time in the mid-Iraq war when the Army was training a bunch of residents in plastic surgery because of all the IEDs and burn cases, and they would get them to log hours with elective surgeries, which were reimbursed at Tricare (bargain-basement) rates. But this was the Army getting paid to train its plastic surgeons. That's what I call a win-win, and that program's done for now anyway.
People look at the military benefits package and get all jealous, but they forget about the moving to Nowheresville, Arkansas every 2-3 years and the low pay without even factoring in much longer hours than civilians and a training schedule that wears out bodies. Even pencil-pushers and file clerks go out and train in body armor and strain the hell out of their bodies. There's a good reason military members are eligble for retirement after 20 years. I got out of my "strenous" MOS six years ago, and they're going to put some titanium screws in my back next month. Guess what? I will be eligible for Army, VA, and SS disability. And I will have earned it.
I don't get worker's comp, I don't get to sue my doctors if they fuck up, and I don't get to quit if I don't get along with my boss. Also the military happily exempts itself from workplace safety regulations and the right to organize.
And yes, I think they should freeze defense spending for a few years (even with low inflation, it would be a "cut" in real / inflation-adjusted terms).
As for military benefits, and as I understand it, dependents (wife / children) do not have to pay any co-pay whatsoever. I have also heard elective surgeries (such as boob jobs) are much less than they should cost. I could be wrong though since it's just what I recall hearing (obligatory don't twist).
You're not too knowledgeable about the budget are you?
Did you know that defense has already been cut? And did you know that they are already (wisely) looking at trimming the overly generous benefits that military spouses receive?
And exactly what "corporate welfare" would you like to cut? The devil is in the details.
I always find that talking point especially stupid because it's as if anyone who uses that phrase forgets that we are talking about massive government programs, which are uniquely vulnerable to fraud, waste, and abuse.
So don't you think if each of the budgets are trimmed it will sharpen the "minds" at these departments to hasten their work on rooting out fraud and abuse? Or will they prove that bureaucrats are mostly lazy pieces of shit who maintain the status quo of letting our taxpayer dollars walk out the door?
Because there's no fraud, waste, or abuse in defense? No corporate welfare we can cut?
Here's my point. Cut from everywhere. You don't read well.
Welfare has already been cut. Or did you miss the memo?
We need to either raise taxes, cut from everywhere, or do both. That's how you balance a budget. You don't cut from welfare and add to defense.
Here's the deal. If you want a capable all-volunteer, deployable expeditionary military, you will need to either (1) pay them wages commensurate with their worth in the job market, or (2) get innovative with benefits.
The US military has traditionally chosen (2), because it is cheaper in the long run.
It is true that spouses and dependents get no-copay access to Tricare. Tricare is *not* a traditional health plan. If you are near a military base and there is an available military practitioner, that is who the dependent is going to see. Only if there is no availability on the installation will Tricare refer to an outside provider, and then Tricare reimburses physicians at rates that would make Medicare blush. Like 10% of billed fees, in my experience.
Remember that career military are making 65%-85% of what they could be making in the civilian economy, and that because the military makes them move every 2-4 years their spouses are typically unable to have careers. So they are stay-at-home moms or they make do earning far below their capabilities. Many spouses with professional certificiations and college degrees work in entry-level jobs or volunteer positions on military installations because they aren't able to find work at Fort Pigsknuckle, Kentucky.
So you want them to make copays?
Tricare uses excess capacity of military medicine when and where it exists, and pays so poorly on the outside that it isn't accepted by many providers in the civilian economy.
There was a time in the mid-Iraq war when the Army was training a bunch of residents in plastic surgery because of all the IEDs and burn cases, and they would get them to log hours with elective surgeries, which were reimbursed at Tricare (bargain-basement) rates. But this was the Army getting paid to train its plastic surgeons. That's what I call a win-win, and that program's done for now anyway.
People look at the military benefits package and get all jealous, but they forget about the moving to Nowheresville, Arkansas every 2-3 years and the low pay without even factoring in much longer hours than civilians and a training schedule that wears out bodies. Even pencil-pushers and file clerks go out and train in body armor and strain the hell out of their bodies. There's a good reason military members are eligble for retirement after 20 years. I got out of my "strenous" MOS six years ago, and they're going to put some titanium screws in my back next month. Guess what? I will be eligible for Army, VA, and SS disability. And I will have earned it.
I don't get worker's comp, I don't get to sue my doctors if they fuck up, and I don't get to quit if I don't get along with my boss. Also the military happily exempts itself from workplace safety regulations and the right to organize.
Here's why we can never balance a budget. If you raise taxes, it takes money out of people's pocket. If you cut welfare, it takes money out of people's pocket. If you cut defense, it takes money out of people's pocket. If you cut government employment and programs, it takes money out of people's pocket. If you cut social security and medicare/medicaid, it takes money out of people's pocket.
The only cut that I can think of is corporate welfare. Regardless of what conservatives say, if you cut from corporations, they won't fire people and the cost of goods won't go up. However, the amount we can cut from corporations is rather meaningless in the grand scheme of things.
So as long as democrats won't cut from welfare and Republicans won't raise taxes or cut from defense, we won't get anywhere on the deficit. That's a reality.
The one thing about the various QEs is that they have been successful in rolling over maturing debt at higher interest rates into new debt at artificially low interest rates. In a few years with a new president (and no deep recession), we might even get into a primary budget surplus (revenues exceeding expenses before interest payments).
I believe in term limits (the power of the incumbency is too strong) and wonder if faster progress would be made on some items if we did have term limits. Ultra-partisans like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Cruz etc etc wouldn't be able to be professional politicians for too long if they were limited to 12 years (2 terms in the Senate, 6 terms in the House).
If Obama was a true leader rather than a politico masquerading as a head of state, he'd focus on corporate tax reform. We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world and then it is distorted by various exemptions, deductions, and loopholes so why not lower the rate to somewhere between 15 and 25% and get rid of all the accounting tricks (legal, since Congress has passed them over the years).
Congress could also apply a reduced 15% tax on repatriated foreign profits to increase tax revenues. There are hundreds of billions of dollars sitting abroad and even just a 15% would see over $100 billion flow to the treasury. A good compromise would be to split the, say, $120 billion (estimating about $800 billion overseas) with $60 billion going towards deficit reduction and $60 billion going towards starting an infrastructure bank. Both sides want to reduce our deficit and both sides want to improve our National infrastructure so what's not to like?
We can't cut and we could tax the rich 100% and not make a dent. The only answer is growth. Grow grow grow the economy. Drill baby drill. Innovate. Annex Mexico.
We have set up an entitlement system that has hooked 90% of Americans and then added "free" healthcare.
I thought it was 81%.
But yes, eventually we will have to grow and inflate our economy, while slowing the growth in debt. Fortunately interest expense on the debt is cheap now.
Don't disagree one bit...just disagree with the initial (moronic) post that started this thread. You have to address those, with most reasonable methods being limiting how fast they grow. Recommending that gets morons like 2001400ex to start claiming people are trying to kill the old and poor and crap like that.
And if/when interest rates go up...the budget is going to blow up.
Don't disagree one bit...just disagree with the initial (moronic) post that started this thread. You have to address those, with most reasonable methods being limiting how fast they grow. Recommending that gets morons like 2001400ex to start claiming people are trying to kill the old and poor and crap like that.
And if/when interest rates go up...the budget is going to blow up.
You are correct that politicians like to call slower future growth a "cut". However, welfare spending outside of medical and social security, are actually declining right now already. Just the natural job growth has reduced benefit payments. This is marginal in dollar terms, and drastic in terms of percent if GDP.
Nice to see but we need to get back to where we were faster. Not dismissing the mild progress so far as much as worried about structural changes that could make it difficult.
But food stamps are pretty far down the spending list...besides Medicare and Medicaid, there's also SSDI.
Don't disagree one bit...just disagree with the initial (moronic) post that started this thread. You have to address those, with most reasonable methods being limiting how fast they grow. Recommending that gets morons like 2001400ex to start claiming people are trying to kill the old and poor and crap like that.
And if/when interest rates go up...the budget is going to blow up.
You are correct that politicians like to call slower future growth a "cut". However, welfare spending outside of medical and social security, are actually declining right now already. Just the natural job growth has reduced benefit payments. This is marginal in dollar terms, and drastic in terms of percent if GDP.
Nice to see but we need to get back to where we were faster. Not dismissing the mild progress so far as much as worried about structural changes that could make it difficult.
But food stamps are pretty far down the spending list...besides Medicare and Medicaid, there's also SSDI.
Don't disagree one bit...just disagree with the initial (moronic) post that started this thread. You have to address those, with most reasonable methods being limiting how fast they grow. Recommending that gets morons like 2001400ex to start claiming people are trying to kill the old and poor and crap like that.
And if/when interest rates go up...the budget is going to blow up.
You are correct that politicians like to call slower future growth a "cut". However, welfare spending outside of medical and social security, are actually declining right now already. Just the natural job growth has reduced benefit payments. This is marginal in dollar terms, and drastic in terms of percent if GDP.
Like I said, that is as a percent if GDP, but if you look at straight dollars, it is declining as well.
(This chart is technically number is participants)
What politician is going to support cutting social security disability? Lol I mean, regular social security should have some changes, but I'm pretty sure cutting funding to the disabled is a tough sell for either party.
It all comes back to the beginning. We need to cut from everywhere. And until Congress realizes that and both parties agree, we will have an unbalanced budget.
so... the unprecedented, meteoric rise in cost and number of participants under Obama is real/actual but the gdp growth and reduction in participation is conjecture... is your point?
Don't disagree one bit...just disagree with the initial (moronic) post that started this thread. You have to address those, with most reasonable methods being limiting how fast they grow. Recommending that gets morons like 2001400ex to start claiming people are trying to kill the old and poor and crap like that.
And if/when interest rates go up...the budget is going to blow up.
You are correct that politicians like to call slower future growth a "cut". However, welfare spending outside of medical and social security, are actually declining right now already. Just the natural job growth has reduced benefit payments. This is marginal in dollar terms, and drastic in terms of percent if GDP.
Don't disagree one bit...just disagree with the initial (moronic) post that started this thread. You have to address those, with most reasonable methods being limiting how fast they grow. Recommending that gets morons like 2001400ex to start claiming people are trying to kill the old and poor and crap like that.
And if/when interest rates go up...the budget is going to blow up.
You are correct that politicians like to call slower future growth a "cut". However, welfare spending outside of medical and social security, are actually declining right now already. Just the natural job growth has reduced benefit payments. This is marginal in dollar terms, and drastic in terms of percent if GDP.
Don't disagree one bit...just disagree with the initial (moronic) post that started this thread. You have to address those, with most reasonable methods being limiting how fast they grow. Recommending that gets morons like 2001400ex to start claiming people are trying to kill the old and poor and crap like that.
And if/when interest rates go up...the budget is going to blow up.
You are correct that politicians like to call slower future growth a "cut". However, welfare spending outside of medical and social security, are actually declining right now already. Just the natural job growth has reduced benefit payments. This is marginal in dollar terms, and drastic in terms of percent if GDP.
Like I said, that is as a percent if GDP, but if you look at straight dollars, it is declining as well.
(This chart is technically number is participants)
So Spending had doubled (100% increase) in the last 6 years, but because it went down a couple % the last year then all is well
Got it....
Not what I said. But I understand reading comprehension isn't your strong suit.
I was actually responding to a comment that welfare spending hasn't been cut. And I was demonstrating that it has.
Holy cow you are mentally challenged. Saying something just went up 100% followed by down by something like 3% under the same administration is now demonstrating a "cut" in spending. Fucking brilliant.
Comments
We have set up an entitlement system that has hooked 90% of Americans and then added "free" healthcare.
But yes, eventually we will have to grow and inflate our economy, while slowing the growth in debt. Fortunately interest expense on the debt is cheap now.
Both are exactly the same. Special interests and making it a career job is all that matters.
More dysfunction the better, as the rhetoric increases to hook the sheep that swallows like Kjv swallows sarks frank and beans.
Carson, pelosi, Reid,Rubio, Cruz, Akin, Palin, Bachman, Perry. Proves the stupidity of the sheep.
The preppers will have their 15 minutes of fame
I'm sure there are easier ways to trim defense spending, perhaps one would be changing the budget process for generals and commanders? A friend of mine said that they have a budget of "use it or lose it" where they get a certain amount of money to outfit their offices, etc. If they don't spend it all, they lose what they don't spend so they waste money on $3k couches and other frivolities. Yeah it's a drop of water in the ocean but if it's happening on bases around the world and every year, it can add up to real money.
I'm sure there are other, more substantial ways to cut the bloat out of defense spending but more importantly, the entitlement programs are an albatross. We can trim defense spending but it won't mean jack if we don't get Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, and Social Security Disability under control.
The only cut that I can think of is corporate welfare. Regardless of what conservatives say, if you cut from corporations, they won't fire people and the cost of goods won't go up. However, the amount we can cut from corporations is rather meaningless in the grand scheme of things.
So as long as democrats won't cut from welfare and Republicans won't raise taxes or cut from defense, we won't get anywhere on the deficit. That's a reality.
I believe in term limits (the power of the incumbency is too strong) and wonder if faster progress would be made on some items if we did have term limits. Ultra-partisans like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Cruz etc etc wouldn't be able to be professional politicians for too long if they were limited to 12 years (2 terms in the Senate, 6 terms in the House).
If Obama was a true leader rather than a politico masquerading as a head of state, he'd focus on corporate tax reform. We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world and then it is distorted by various exemptions, deductions, and loopholes so why not lower the rate to somewhere between 15 and 25% and get rid of all the accounting tricks (legal, since Congress has passed them over the years).
Congress could also apply a reduced 15% tax on repatriated foreign profits to increase tax revenues. There are hundreds of billions of dollars sitting abroad and even just a 15% would see over $100 billion flow to the treasury. A good compromise would be to split the, say, $120 billion (estimating about $800 billion overseas) with $60 billion going towards deficit reduction and $60 billion going towards starting an infrastructure bank. Both sides want to reduce our deficit and both sides want to improve our National infrastructure so what's not to like?
And if/when interest rates go up...the budget is going to blow up.
Here is food stamps:
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=4054
Like I said, that is as a percent if GDP, but if you look at straight dollars, it is declining as well.
(This chart is technically number is participants)
But food stamps are pretty far down the spending list...besides Medicare and Medicaid, there's also SSDI.
It all comes back to the beginning. We need to cut from everywhere. And until Congress realizes that and both parties agree, we will have an unbalanced budget.
Got it....
I was actually responding to a comment that welfare spending hasn't been cut. And I was demonstrating that it has.