Debt limit explained

[Miles]

Well...
6% to service the debt
5% roads and transportation
3% veterans benefits
2% education
2% operating the govt.
4% food and agriculture
1% international affairs
Etc......

All the things that get blamed for govt. spending are not heavy lifting areas.


For more perspective, total discretionary spending 1.16 trillion last year
Total tax "breaks" claimed last year 1.18 trillion

Now I assume this includes mortgage interest etc.. But ant there SOME room to decrease tax breaks without harming the economy? Would limiting the tax deductions by 10% hurt the economy worse than reducing the public debt by 120 billion per year would help the economy?

Those are the heavy lifting questions.

[Miles]

More perspective

2013 military spending

1. US 668 billion
2. China 166 billion
3. Russia 91 billion
4. UK 61 billion


We could cut our military spending in half and still spend twice as much as the next highest spending country.

[GuyboR]

More perspective

2013 military spending

1. US 668 billion
2. China 166 billion
3. Russia 91 billion
4. UK 61 billion


We could cut our military spending in half and still spend twice as much as the next highest spending country.

Is this where they lump the money that we "give" to other countries for aid and military? If so....CUT IT OUT OF OUR SPENDING!!!!

[Dan R.]

Guy I think that the State Department handles the freebies, beside military.

We make huge payments to Israeli government every year to hold the peace. They pass it on to their citizens. Fair?

We just sent $1 billion in military aid to Egypt, when it was the Muslim brotherhood leaders. Is this wise?

We have protected Europe for more than a generation. With their savings on military costs they implemented social changes and policies that are looked to as a model programs, but they are unrealistic. Unrealistic because they are unsustainable if they had to pay all their own bills, including defense.

Yeah we are the world bully, but who doesn't want that relationship? France? Saudi? Who? The answer is Iran, North Korea, China, Syria and the national-less terror organizations that want everyone to live in a cave and kill everyone, save for one single religion.

[Miles]

2001 US military spending - 325 billion
2012 US military spending - 700 billion

And to be fair-
2001 Food Stamp spending 15 billion
2012 Food Stamp spending 74 billion

So yes, we are spending 5 times more on food stamps. Cut it. But if you cut both back to levels of 10 years ago you are going to save 60 billion on food stamps and 350 billion on defense cuts.

But somehow, defense cuts are taboo, and the savings are greatest.

[Dan R.]

Could we get gas prices 10 years old, while we are at it? And political salaries.

How about social programs.
How about eliminating Obama phones.
How about eliminating duplicate child care programs (there are 11 offering the same services).
How about less than 99 weeks unemployment.
How about kicking people in the ass to fend for themselves.
How about not reducing government give aways.
How about holding elected officials responsible for the messes they create?



Oh yeah, and I want a new GI JOE for Christmas, too.

[Miles]

More numbers-

Tax revenues as percent of GDP

1978 (under Carter) - 18% GDP 5.8 trillion
1983 (under Reagan)- 17.5% GDP 6.3 trillion
1999- (under Clinton)- 20% GDP 11 trillion
2007- (under Bush)- 18.5% GDP 13.3 trillion
2012- (under Obama)- 15.8% GDP 13.8 trillion

You can argue what this means. But higher taxes don't seem to have ever killed economic growth. Lower taxes don't seem to have spurred economic growth.

Bringing in more money would seemed to be one logical way of dealing with the debt and deficit.

[GuyboR]

Oh yeah, and I want a new GI JOE for Christmas, too.

With Kung Fu grip.

[Miles]

Dan we can do all those things you talked about. Sounds good. But real numbers say we will save 15-20 billion maybe. Nothing to sneeze at.

But if we cut our defense spending to twice what the next highest country spends we can save 350 billion.

Dealing with our debt problem through these social programs is like saying I'm going to get my companies spending under control by limiting the number of razor blades and paper towels my guys use.

[Ken Lago]

The way I see it: Nobody in DC knows what to do with this monster or even how to begin fixin it, so instead they just blow smoke in our eyes and try to hang on as long as they can skimming as much as possible while they are there.
Just like a vanity top in my shop that fell over this afternoon and broke, the solution is to do it over.

[steven nenzel]

It is not often I agree with Miles but I do think defense spending needs to be cut along with everything else. Taxes should not be raised. Revenue would go up with a vibrant economy but that is not likely to happen under Obama. Bush & Clinton collected more tax because there were more profits... a more vibrant economy. Obama is collecting less tax because of his stupid policies.

I would bet if there was a way to measure the underground economy you would find an explosion of growth under Obama. When you have people believing the system is rigged they will stop following the rules.

Government is a necessary evil and big government is more evil than necessary.

[Omni Cubed Larry]

...
Government is a necessary evil and big government is more evil than necessary.

That is so true... and deep man.

[Miles]

Steven,

If you and I can agree on something then surely it can get through congress!

Seriously, there has to be some things that everybody can agree to cut that won't hurt the economy. I would still argue that there are changes to the tax codes that could bring more money in that everybody could agree to.

I don't want to pay anymore taxes than I have to, just like everybody else. But surely there are some things that would be acceptable to all.

In Georgia, years ago, Zell Miller was the governor and swore that he would not raise taxes. But he realized that we were not bringing in enough money to cover expenses. So to avoid raising "taxes" he raised the cost of drivers license, fishing license, park access fees, corporate renewal fees, etc.. He left office as a hero because he did not raise taxes.

[clhilde]

How about foreign aid? I didn't see that listed anywhere. What are you thoughts about cutting it?

[Miles]

Me, personally, I don't believe in fighting other people's wars or giving money to other countries. I'd tax the heck out of imports too.

[szw21]

Good to see not much has changed here and Jeff is still going on about illegals etc

[Joe Little]

My biggest fear is the World Reserve currency shifts away from the Dollar, since our government cannot slow down spending and just keep printing money to cover it. We are soo deep in dept its hard to fathom ever getting out.
Certain trends seem to be moving in that direction , our dept problem and inability to curb spending seems to be pushing other countries in that direction.

[Dan R.]

Ravin, that is all you took from this thread?

I think you may feel differently, if not act differently, if you knew why Jeff is so passionate about the subject of illegals. It has cost him far more than anyone should be expected to pay. The passion is a direct result of personal experience.

We can disagree and still try to respectful, there is a line.


Back on subject.
I think everyone agrees that there needs to be some combination of more cuts and more revenues. The question is really is how much people are willing to give up? I say on average, the answer is nothing. Poor people (on entitlement) or the working guy (earning & paying taxes) have both come to a level of complacency and comfort.

If the working guy quit earning where would tax money come from? Just like the governor story above, raise fees. There are many faces of taxes. Think of taxes as a function of disposable income, just like groceries, gasoline, car payments, etc. The income tax can be lower (or raised) and it has little effect on the dude with no job, he still gets the same govt check. But think of the guy driving to work 50 miles one way making $15/hr. Now, apply gasoline to that equation. Now apply higher food costs ti that equation, (understanding that welfare gets automatic COLA raises, no matter).

There are many factors in determining standard of living. I am unwilling to give up what I work for so that others may slack, squander and spend free money. That being said, I do believe in charity. I like to control where my money goes to help.

I would rather donate to Habitat for Humanity, where families get financial management counseling as part of the process of getting a Habitat house, than an admin heavy charity (who mostly benefits themselves).
I would rather give money to specific schools and teachers who exhibit a passion for what they do, than dole out tax money based on some archaic union measurement or inaccurate govt testing..
I would rather send a check to Chris Y for his noble work, than give money to the Red Cross (an organization that charges soldiers for comfort items in a war zone, while paying their politically connected CEO a half mil).
I would rather give the local guy collecting cans a $20 than give another penny to any govt that acts irresponsible. At least he know the value of a dollar.

Wouldn't it be better for everyone if we all cleaned up our own little circle of the world? Eventually, those little circles would overlap. Cheaters, liars and takers are the snag. I refuse to let them effect my circle. I speak up when I see wrong and reward when I see right. pretty simple, at least to me. Welfare was meant as a stop gap, not a way of life. A temporary helping hand to help people get reestablished. Not a 4-5 generation game of cat and mouse to milk public coffers. Tell me again why people who get govt aid NEED a free cell phone (paid for by people who pay for their cell phones)?

The government can not teach, inspire or manage people, they should quit trying. They were design for national defense and infrastructure management. They have intruded way too far into the daily lives of Americans,imo.

[szw21]

Sorry Dan I fail to see where I was disrespectful in what I posted. I briefly skimmed the thread and that was one of the things that caught my eye. Same as your position on gun ownership etc.

All this posting and debating is nice but if people really want to enact change they should get involved in politics, run for office and/or otherwise get involved. I see too many people very passionate about political topics but all they do is talk (and in a lot of cases whine) about how things are.

[Dan R.]

Of course, you don't see the point. I ever expected any less (or more from you) . Instead of adding constructively to the debate, you chose to jab at Jeff's personal pain. Pathetic, IMO.

Being a legal immigrant, you could give a unique perspective. Obviously, it was worth the effort for you, or you would be back home with far less opportunity. Isn't America great?! Why wouldn't you encourage others to take that route? baffling.

[szw21]

...and your post again just confirms the nature of Internet political debates (endless loops) as you have made the same comment in the past and I have also responded at length with my perspective.

Maybe I should have a cut and paste speech ready - that should save repeating myself

[Dan R.]

Yet, you just chose to jab @ Jeff and continue the cycle..

Cheers!

[Dan R.]

……Same as your position on gun ownership etc…..

Off topic for my immigrant friend.
FYI, my position opinion gun control is that everyone should not be required to own or possess one. And that gun owners (users) be held responsible for their actions). I would welcome this standard in every facet of governance and personal responsibility.

Gun Ownership should be a personal choice. The right for gun ownership is clearly spelled out in the constitution. I can't say the same thing for government spending and intrusion. In fact, these two items are specifically warned against by our forefathers (excuse me, MY forefathers).

Other views are welcome, even opposing ones. In America, everyone has the right to be wrong.

[szw21]

……Same as your position on gun ownership etc…..

Off topic for my immigrant friend.
FYI, my position opinion gun control is that everyone should not be required to own or possess one. And that gun owners (users) be held responsible for their actions). I would welcome this standard in every facet of governance and personal responsibility.

Gun Ownership should be a personal choice. The right for gun ownership is clearly spelled out in the constitution. I can't say the same thing for government spending and intrusion. In fact, these two items are specifically warned against by our forefathers (excuse me, MY forefathers).

Other views are welcome, even opposing ones. In America, everyone has the right to be wrong.

...sorry man - got a busy day - I'll leave you to debate with the others...

[Dan R.]

No debate,just making my opinion known.
Enjoy your day in a free America!