No one wants to cut spending

C

Cancel 2020.1

Canceled
It’s a given that the left isn’t really about spending cuts. Still, I wish more on that side would come around to the idea that unrestrained gov’t spending will eventually bankrupt a lot of programs they hold dear, and undermine progressive ideals.

More surprising to me is that Republicans are not really serious about cutting spending, and haven’t been since the ‘90’s. When you ask a Republican where they’d really cut spending, the answers are generally the same: public broadcasting, the NEA, foreign aid – all of which comprise less than 1% of the federal budget combined. When it comes to defense – one of our most bloated allocations, and one of the biggest pieces of the budget pie – even program-slashing radicals like Paul Ryan don’t talk about anything but symbolic, insignificant reductions.

To me, it’s fairly easy to see where this is all headed – just like I can see where a family on a fixed income is headed if they start maxxing out their credit cards to live a lifestyle that isn’t consistent with their means.
 
It is shocking at how few actually care (in either party). The idiots in DC care about nothing other than getting re-elected and keeping their bribes rolling in from corp/special interests.

To pretend that the fiscal crisis level of spending should be the baseline, to pretend that a $62B revenue increase while running deficits of $1T is going to help, to pretend that spending isn't the problem... it just shows how disconnected DC has become. Just look at the consolidation of money and power within DC. I heard that 10 of the 20 wealthiest counties in the country are located in the DC metro area.

The time to truly cut spending is now. Yes, we will have to take some pain via a recession. But that is what responsible adults do. They take the pain when they have previously been profligate with spending. They do not continue being reckless.

Take everything back to 2007 levels (adjusted for inflation). Then cut defense by a 1/3 for starters. Next look to cut the $500B in waste Obama identified within Medicare.

Simplification of the tax code would go a long way towards reducing the influence of special interest groups/corporations on the actions of the idiots in DC.

In addition we need to start hammering at our respective governors and state reps... time to end the rigged House seats. No more safe seats. That might help to get rid of a lot of the extremists from left and right.
 
Superfreak said:
It is shocking at how few actually care (in either party). The idiots in DC care about nothing other than getting re-elected and keeping their bribes rolling in from corp/special interests.

To pretend that the fiscal crisis level of spending should be the baseline, to pretend that a $62B revenue increase while running deficits of $1T is going to help, to pretend that spending isn't the problem... it just shows how disconnected DC has become. Just look at the consolidation of money and power within DC. I heard that 10 of the 20 wealthiest counties in the country are located in the DC metro area.

The time to truly cut spending is now. Yes, we will have to take some pain via a recession. But that is what responsible adults do. They take the pain when they have previously been profligate with spending. They do not continue being reckless.

Take everything back to 2007 levels (adjusted for inflation). Then cut defense by a 1/3 for starters. Next look to cut the $500B in waste Obama identified within Medicare.

Simplification of the tax code would go a long way towards reducing the influence of special interest groups/corporations on the actions of the idiots in DC.

In addition we need to start hammering at our respective governors and state reps... time to end the rigged House seats. No more safe seats. That might help to get rid of a lot of the extremists from left and right.
Click to expand...

It truly pains me to say this, and I already feel the contempt of many on this board for saying so - but every word & recommendation posted above is 100% correct.
 
Thing1 said:
It truly pains me to say this, and I already feel the contempt of many on this board for saying so - but every word & recommendation posted above is 100% correct.
Click to expand...

I doubt that you could cut defence spending by a third overnight, it would have to be over a minimum of five years otherwise it would cause a depression.
 
Thing1 said:
It’s a given that the left isn’t really about spending cuts. Still, I wish more on that side would come around to the idea that unrestrained gov’t spending will eventually bankrupt a lot of programs they hold dear, and undermine progressive ideals.

More surprising to me is that Republicans are not really serious about cutting spending, and haven’t been since the ‘90’s. When you ask a Republican where they’d really cut spending, the answers are generally the same: public broadcasting, the NEA, foreign aid – all of which comprise less than 1% of the federal budget combined. When it comes to defense – one of our most bloated allocations, and one of the biggest pieces of the budget pie – even program-slashing radicals like Paul Ryan don’t talk about anything but symbolic, insignificant reductions.

To me, it’s fairly easy to see where this is all headed – just like I can see where a family on a fixed income is headed if they start maxxing out their credit cards to live a lifestyle that isn’t consistent with their means.
Click to expand...

Yea, it costs us a fortune to play world police http://costofwar.com/ The defense the citizens are informed about costs us around $300 million a day. The same cost of PBS for a full year. What's really creepy is the actual reasons we are at war..
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
I doubt that you could cut defence spending by a third overnight, it would have to be over a minimum of five years otherwise it would cause a depression.
Click to expand...

Fine by me. Rarely does that kind of cut to such a major program get fully implemented right away.

But, it has to start with agreement that we're spending at least 33% more on defense than we need to right now, and then decide what the best way to move forward on that fact is, economically speaking.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
I doubt that you could cut defence spending by a third overnight, it would have to be over a minimum of five years otherwise it would cause a depression.
Click to expand...

That is not necessarily true. Our corporations are sitting on record amounts of cash. They are too timid to spend on growth right now, largely due to the insane spending of the morons in DC. The cuts to defense can be offset by an increase in corporate spending. Corporate spending would in turn lead to lower unemployment and subsequently consumer spending. Lower unemployment would in turn lead to lower expenditures on unemployment by the fed and state governments.

I admit that is a bit of a pollyanna view on it, but given how the market in general seems to be chomping at the bit to move forward, I don't think it is too far fetched.
 
Superfreak said:
That is not necessarily true. Our corporations are sitting on record amounts of cash. They are too timid to spend on growth right now, largely due to the insane spending of the morons in DC. The cuts to defense can be offset by an increase in corporate spending. Corporate spending would in turn lead to lower unemployment and subsequently consumer spending. Lower unemployment would in turn lead to lower expenditures on unemployment by the fed and state governments.

I admit that is a bit of a pollyanna view on it, but given how the market in general seems to be chomping at the bit to move forward, I don't think it is too far fetched.
Click to expand...


Wow. I'm not sure where to start. I guess I'm left wondering what these corporations are going to spend money on in a recession induced by a $200 billion cut to government spending overnight and why they would do it? Just for giggles? Where's the demand for increased good and services going to come from? The newly unemployed?

Also, too, the market rallied on news that the government would not cut spending this year (for 2 months at least). Your hypothesis is that the market would have rallied more if we went off fiscal cliff? That makes no sense.
 
Dungheap said:
Wow. I'm not sure where to start. I guess I'm left wondering what these corporations are going to spend money on in a recession induced by a $200 billion cut to government spending overnight and why they would do it? Just for giggles? Where's the demand for increased good and services going to come from? The newly unemployed?

Also, too, the market rallied on news that the government would not cut spending this year (for 2 months at least). Your hypothesis is that the market would have rallied more if we went off fiscal cliff? That makes no sense.
Click to expand...

I know government spending hacks like you will never comprehend this. That has been proven time and again by your insistence that we just 'must' keep on spending at the financial sector meltdown year levels in order to avoid a recession. A recession is fine Dung... it is how we correct. You are looking short term, I am talking long term. Tom stated it would cause a depression, I disagreed with that. Yes, we would have a recession. But like 1982 recession, we would come out of it stronger ready to grow. Under your scenario we keep kicking the can down the road until ultimately it explodes in our face.
 
bravo said:
The DEMOCRATS are IN POWER......for 4 years now......the losing party doesn't lead the country.....
Click to expand...

The reps have the house and can do a lot, but they're not.

When they were in control, they just grew gov't and did away liberties just like they always do.

Tax payers are really screwed.
 
Thing1 said:
It truly pains me to say this, and I already feel the contempt of many on this board for saying so - but every word & recommendation posted above is 100% correct.
Click to expand...

Who holds you in contempt, a bunch of trolls, I say don't worry!
 
Superfreak said:
I know government spending hacks like you will never comprehend this. That has been proven time and again by your insistence that we just 'must' keep on spending at the financial sector meltdown year levels in order to avoid a recession. A recession is fine Dung... it is how we correct. You are looking short term, I am talking long term. Tom stated it would cause a depression, I disagreed with that. Yes, we would have a recession. But like 1982 recession, we would come out of it stronger ready to grow. Under your scenario we keep kicking the can down the road until ultimately it explodes in our face.
Click to expand...


Well, you see, what you said that I quoted was just plain fucking nonsense. If you want to advocate for a recession now because you think it will do us good in the long run, do it. But don't pretend that corporations are going to spend lots of money in the midst of a recession just for no good reason so it won't be that bad. That's just stupid. And don't pretend that the market really wants the government to cut spending. There's no factual basis for it.
 
Dungheap said:
Well, you see, what you said that I quoted was just plain fucking nonsense. If you want to advocate for a recession now because you think it will do us good in the long run, do it. But don't pretend that corporations are going to spend lots of money in the midst of a recession just for no good reason so it won't be that bad. That's just stupid. And don't pretend that the market really wants the government to cut spending. There's no factual basis for it.
Click to expand...

The market responds favorably to efforts by the gov't to balance the budget & act in a fiscally responsible way. I don't think the boom of the '90's happens without the balanced budget efforts of the gov't during that time period.

Conversely, the market loses confidence during times like we've seen over the past decade, where gov't doesn't seem to have a compass when it comes to spending, and is fiscally irresponsible.

Markets like to have confidence in America & its economic stability.
 
Superfreak said:
That is not necessarily true. Our corporations are sitting on record amounts of cash. They are too timid to spend on growth right now, largely due to the insane spending of the morons in DC. The cuts to defense can be offset by an increase in corporate spending. Corporate spending would in turn lead to lower unemployment and subsequently consumer spending. Lower unemployment would in turn lead to lower expenditures on unemployment by the fed and state governments.

I admit that is a bit of a pollyanna view on it, but given how the market in general seems to be chomping at the bit to move forward, I don't think it is too far fetched.
Click to expand...

Really?

Would this be the same corporations that absolutely refuse to pay for any cost increase of any kind on their own?

Or would it be the same corporations who pass along any sort of increase to the consumers to eat, in the form of higher prices?

You mock Liberals for their Utopian ideas, but to naively think corporations will magically start doing "the right thing" once the morons in DC start acting responsible is ludicrous.
 
Thing1 said:
The market responds favorably to efforts by the gov't to balance the budget & act in a fiscally responsible way. I don't think the boom of the '90's happens without the balanced budget efforts of the gov't during that time period.

Conversely, the market loses confidence during times like we've seen over the past decade, where gov't doesn't seem to have a compass when it comes to spending, and is fiscally irresponsible.

Markets like to have confidence in America & its economic stability.
Click to expand...


The trouble with your analysis is that the fiscal cliff was a bipartisan effort to balance the budget and act in a fiscally responsible way. It was a wonderful piece of bipartisan deficit-busting legislation. And the markets hated it.
 
The last decade or so;

Democrats wanted to spend a lot and raise taxes, and did.

Republicans wanted to spend less and cut taxes, but had more growth spending and cut taxes.

People rarely account for what's already being spent when a president takes over office. It's why Obama has the lowest spending growth since the 50's. Most of Obama's spending was already in place when he was sworn in such as "the obama phone"(actually the Bush phone), auto-bailout and bank-bailout.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top