Reagan budget director warns:America has ‘reached the point of no return,’

[Pocketman]

Originally Posted by Pocketman

Time for the wife to go back to work.

While at first pass this appears somewhat facetious, but in reality it reflects a mindset. People who over spend and get into debt trouble often seek another source of revenue rather that give up the life style. Government is no different. They will seek to raise revenue (taxes) rather than make difficult decisions on spending cuts. Given the kind of debt trouble we're facing, both remedies will likely be necessary.

I am open to correction on this, but I understand Social Security was designed to pay for itself. From what I've been able to glean, it would be self sustaining had Congress not repeatedly raided the fund. Therefore, Social Security in itself is not the root problem, so removing it from the budget would not solve anything.

[dross]

Originally Posted by machete

if we can get you to follow the founding fathers on overseas bases***foreign wars***and standing armies...we might get somewhere on reducing spending...

Let's cut all of defense:

Now our budget looks like this:

Our salary is 23,000 per year.
We spend 28,441 per year.
We owe a total of 140,000 for overspending in years past.
Each year we add 5,441 to what we owe.

We spend about 8750 to operate our household, to fund the different functions, excepting defense.

We spend 0 on defense.

We spend 19,859 that we give to other people in our house in the form of social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare, and unemployment benefits.

We spend 1620 per year on interest for the debt of years past.

Okay, done. What's next?

[hornadylnl]

Dross,

Maybe you haven't seen my post yet but do you think a family that can't maintain a budget at $23,000 a year will be able to do so at $35,000 a year? Our cultural mindset is to always spend more than we have. How many of us think about how much extra money we will have in our wallet after we get that loan paid off or that pay raise only to not have any more to show for it once we do? We tend to nickle and dime that money away and never figure out where it actually went. Now add in the fact that our government is spending someone else's money, they have no desire to cut their spending.

[dross]

Originally Posted by hornadylnl

Dross,

The problem with growing GDP to overcome our debt is this. If you can't make it on $23,000, you won't make it on $35,000. Your spending will go up. Do you think our congress will hold the line on spending?

Wilkow had a pretty good monologue on this the other day. Our government is setting it's budget long before they even know what revenues are going to be. Income vs spending has no bearing on the choices our government makes.

Limiting spending and growing GDP is just as wishful thinking as cutting welfare programs.

Originally Posted by ATOMonkey

Not only that, but holding the line on spending also requires faith that future congresses will also hold the line on spending.

I think we'd need a dictator to make the "don't increase spending" plan work.

I vote we just inflate the money supply so much that our debt becomes worthless. Then it'll be easy to pay it off.

I didn't say I had a good solution, I just have a solution. Any potential solution is going to have major problems.

The first and biggest problem is that a group of politicians has to pass it, which means it must be politically palatable. Drastically cutting entitlements, which I'd be for, just won't happen.

The main point of my argument is that the chorus of "cut defense" doesn't solve the problem. Even if we cut it out completely, we're faced with the same problem, just not as large.

Yes, we should cut defense. We can't cut it completely, but again, even if we do, it still gets us only halfway there. But since I conceded ALL defense spending, I'd now like the chorus to sing the next verse.

[hornadylnl]

Originally Posted by dross

But since I conceded ALL defense spending, I'd now like the chorus to sing the next verse.

Our country doesn't have the stones to do it.

[machete]

Originally Posted by dross

Let's cut all of defense:

Now our budget looks like this:

no

Defense Spending Is Much Greater than You Think | The Beacon

[Pocketman]

You guys are doing a good job with this. dross, your analogy using household income is quite helpful. The one positive aspect to all this is people and politicians are at least talking about it.

Any thoughts on overseas manufacturing? Our spending is making it's way to China and other "developing" countries. Add to that what goes to the Arabs for oil. Perhaps we should stop the bleeding first?

[dross]

Originally Posted by machete

no

Defense Spending Is Much Greater than You Think | The Beacon

Okay, you win.

Assuming I agree with this article, which I don't, I concede that we would only have a small deficit (it wouldn't take care of the whole thing) if we took every penny used on anything this article defines as defense, including the State Department, any expenditures on security, the portion of the FBI that goes to external threats, AND we renege on Veterans Benefits already earned, AND we reneged on the interest we owe on previous expenditures that can in any way be linked to defense, if we did ALL of that, leaving our country with no defenses whatsoever AND no State Department, we would almost get to 0 deficit.

Of course the entitlement requirements increase every year, so in just a few years the deficit would be back to where it is now.

You win.

[machete]

Originally Posted by dross

Okay, you win.

Assuming I agree with this article, which I don't, I concede that we would only have a small deficit (it wouldn't take care of the whole thing) if we took every penny used on anything this article defines as defense, including the State Department, any expenditures on security, the portion of the FBI that goes to external threats, AND we renege on Veterans Benefits already earned, AND we reneged on the interest we owe on previous expenditures that can in any way be linked to defense, if we did ALL of that, leaving our country with no defenses whatsoever AND no State Department, we would almost get to 0 deficit.

Of course the entitlement requirements increase every year, so in just a few years the deficit would be back to where it is now.

You win.

this is what Ron Paul is talking about... the total cost of us meddling overseas is bankrupting the country... when you talk budget***defense is the elephant in the room***nothing else comes close... if we didnt spend the last 65 years with massive pointless overseas involvement***we wouldnt be in anywhere near the dire straits were in today...

lets say that we did spend just as much***blowing it all on demestic spending*** imagine how awesome america would be if every decent size city had a rail or subway system***if every city were connected by high speed rail***if we were all driving electric cars***and if every bridge was sound...

if we defaulted on our debt then***who cares??? we still got all that really awesome stuff... instead***our pointless military spending gives us only an obligation for more spending and nothing to show for it***except a world that pretty much hates us...

[hornadylnl]

OK, Dross, you're the coach and we're in the locker room at half time. We're down 13 trillion to nothing. The Washington Deficits are killing us, the American Citizens. What's your coaching strategy for the second half? We have to score more points than the other team? Ok, I think that was the first rule we learned the first time we put our pads on. How do we execute that?

All this talk about what needs to happen if pointless if we are unwilling to do the work to make it happen. How are we going to make it happen? Our strategy for the last 100 years of standing on the sidelines with our pom poms has proven to be a failure. Put me in Coach, I'm ready to play. What do I do?

YouTube - John Fogerty - Centerfield

YouTube - John Fogerty - Centerfield