All of them? Granted we’ve made commitments which should be honored so the changes can be phased in to reduce disruption, but if I were king we’d phase out social security other than perhaps survivor and disability portions, shrink the military, reduce medicare, and generally a haircut across the board by some %.
The debt ceiling is meaningless. If you want to decrease the deficit, then you do that by writing and passing a budget with a lower deficit. And if that’s too difficult for you, then you have no business being in Congress.
(A) To what ends? (B) Social Security and Medicare aren’t on the budget anyway.
Of course you didn’t. Despite what I’ve said repeatedly in this thread I have never said that the only solution is to cut spending. Sure you can raise taxes to pay for your spending but the problem is that Congress tends to spend MORE than it makes in increased revenue.
I never said the only solution is to cut spending so STOP MISREPRESENTING MY POSITION! My position is that revenue and spending should be tied to a hard debt ceiling. If you cut taxes then yous you have to reduce spending, but if you want to raise spending you need to raise revenue an equivalent amount. What do you not understand about that?
I’m going to ignore the rest of your post since you’re arguing against the strawman you set up.
You honestly don’t understand it?
Let me simplify it for you. The government takes in $100T. Under law the government can only run a $10T deficit this year. You honestly don’t see how the government - if it followed the law - is limited in spending $110T?
That’s how it is supposed to happen. Now Congress votes for $115T in spending. Rather than raise taxes it instead says “Fuck the debt ceiling.”
septimus this is for you so read closely: the solution is to combine spending cuts (too late in most cases) or raise revenue to cover $5T of the deficit.
No connection? So spending = revenue + deficit isn’t a thing?
I’d have to find the numbers I downloaded but IIRC in the last 40 years the deficit has increase around 70% of those years.
If you care to suggest someone who knows what they are talking about, who clearly isn’t you, then I would.
Social security has its own budget and has a surplus that it is currently spending down. It can remain viable with a few small tweaks. Killing SS will not save the budget.
I’m all in for reducing the military. Your party is the one that thinks the Pentagon needs to spend as much as the rest of the world combined.
Reduce Medicare/Medicaid? Who loses it? The poor, so they can reduce the surplus population, like Scrooge put it? Are we going to kick Grandpa out of the nursing home? People who have Medicare like it. Want to save money, let them negotiate drug prices.
A haircut across the board sounds so easy. Every politician runs on the promise of cutting waste and fraud. Then the get to DC and find out there isn’t any fat to trim, it’s all bone.
The goal is a smaller government - not necessarily deficit reduction. A balanced budget that results in a huge government would be bad, though arguably better than a budget deficit with a huge government.
I don’t expect my proposals would ever come to fruition with regards to the size of the government. Not all at once certainly.
A smaller government to what ends?
Smaller government at all levels? Or smaller federal government, with the slack picked up by the states?
And, Bone, what do you propose society do to replace the functions that get eliminated in the process of achieving that smaller government?
Probably wrong thread. :dubious:
Exactly. Why a smaller government?
Personally, I’m for cutting military spending by 50% or so, with veteran’s benefits/health care, etc. being exempt from the cuts. Then jack up the marginal tax rates back to the Eisenhower era, with a 91% top end. Then tack on some really confiscatory taxes on Wall Street, close all their loopholes like Carried Interest, raise the Estate Tax to 75% and a few other tweaks.
I have begun to suspect that the reason the Republican party is not more appalled by the Trump-Russia thing is that Putin and the Libertoonian wing of the party agree on some fundamental points.
- They don’t like black/brown people
- They think the world would be a better place if the US government were smaller, poorer and weaker.
Of course you didn’t. Despite what I’ve said repeatedly in this thread I have never said that the only solution is to cut spending. Sure you can raise taxes to pay for your spending but the problem is that Congress tends to spend MORE than it makes in increased revenue.
I never said the only solution is to cut spending so STOP MISREPRESENTING MY POSITION! My position is that revenue and spending should be tied to a hard debt ceiling. If you cut taxes then yous you have to reduce spending, but if you want to raise spending you need to raise revenue an equivalent amount. What do you not understand about that?
[/QUOTE]
I am sincerely curious: What do you see as the salient difference between the position you describe for yourself, and my streamlined synopsis of it? (Clearly my synopsis has no implied injunction against tax hikes.)
In reality, Congress doesn’t vote in any year on $115 trillion in spending in anything in relation to this scenario as you’ve laid it out. Roughly two-thirds of all Federal expenditures are direct spending programs not subject to annual votes. So as people get older and Medicare and Social Security spending goes up, Congress doesn’t vote to allow those expenditures – they never have and never will.
And more fundamentally, the scenario you posit seems to also embrace a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference of a deficit and the debt. There is no law that defines how much of a deficit the government is “allowed” to run in a particular year, and that imaginary law certainly isn’t the debt limit.
Congress doesn’t vote on bills that deal with revenue, borrowing, and spending in a single go. Like I said, most government spending is on autopilot, tax legislation is pretty rare, and borrowing legislation happens every couple of years.
That does’t show what you asserted. You said when revenue goes up, spending goes up by more. First of all, it’s been a long time since an actual tax increase that raises revenue beyond the fluctuations caused by a changing economy, so asserting that spending has gone up over time doesn’t shine any light on Congress deciding, “We raised $1 of new taxes… let’s spend $5!!!”
Whatever. When one of us appears to be confused at basic things like what is the debt and what is the deficit, I take such criticism for what it is worth.
I hate to nitpick an otherwise superb post, but writing the clause I’ve reddened, am I correct that you consider 1993 to be “a long time” ago? (That’s the exception which proves your point, of course, since the 1993 tax hikes led to rapid deficit reduction, rising employment, and rising profits!)
Ravenman touched on this, but not sufficiently. This is not at all what the debt ceiling means.
The debt ceiling does not limit spending. It is instead a limit on borrowing. That is totally different.
It’s not pay as you go, but be able to pay for what you’ve already promised to pay.
There is no reason to have a debt ceiling at all in the modern world. It can be eliminated or set at infinity. It exists solely so there can be political theater around it.
If you want a discussion on whether we should eliminate budget deficits, go ahead. But the debt ceiling has zero relevance to that issue.
Yes, I consider 24 years to be a long time. And I agree that the 1990 and 1993 tax increases were a very substantial (but not the only) reason why we balanced the budget in the late 1990s.
No. The debt ceiling isn’t a commitment to not let the debt go beyond a certain point. Congress can’t “follow” the debt ceiling law because it doesn’t bind, and isn’t intended to bind, the Congress. All the debt ceiling does is authorize the Treasury to issue a certain amount of debt. It’s agnostic on what should be done in the future.
It lets the government pay the credit card bills it’s already run up. But tell Cruz and his lemming followers that.
I remain curious. Saint Cad wrote “STOP MISREPRESENTING MY POSITION!” but I truly fail to understand what misrepresentation I made. Help! Others?
I always find it amazing that the people who talk about smaller government usually advocate for crippling small government and enlarging large government. Some of them even create even larger governments for themselves.
In the US system, the federal government is small government. Large government is what you get at the state and local levels, with the largest being HOAs. The federal government doesn’t give a damn what color the siding is on my house or how tall my hedge is. It’s only a very large government indeed that noses into such things.