I love how she said “why would I give a circular answer” and then immediately proceeded to give a circular answer.
Apparently you have your own personal definition?
Can I join the fun?
You are not interested in why the country has a deficit but are interested in why we keep going further into debt. Please tell me if I’ve got that much right.
Anyway, you seem to agree that wars we can’t afford are part of the problem.
But you don’t want to go further into debt. One of the issues separating the two political parties is whether the “rich people” should do more to pay for “the wars they created.” Which party do you vote for?
Taxes have gone down recently, no?. I’d focus on complaining about taxes or government debt; doing both at once gets confused.
You have resisted the patient explanations of reasonable and correct people for a few pages now. I thought I would try another strategy since that one was clearly not working. Your questions have become doggedly obtuse and it should make you feel a little inadequate. That will motivate progress.
My example applies perfectly to the federal government. It’s easier to see because the action is less complicated. The basic problem is how to get a group of people to agree to do something painful but good for everyone in the long run, especially when some of the people aren’t going to be around for the long run and will only experience the pain.
For instance, consider my solution to balance the budget. Let’s cut all Social Security, SSDI, and Medicare payouts by 90% until we have a surplus. That will balance the federal budget quicker than boiled asparagus, and I will probably save buckets on taxes, too. After all, we shouldn’t spend what we don’t have, right? I’m an able-bodied, 34-year old breadwinning information worker, it would be awesome for me and my family.
You want to balance the budget so badly? How about you pay for it. No? The benefits of a balanced budget aren’t high enough for you to offset the 90% reduction to your income? How much of your income would you be willing to sacrifice to balance the budget and what benefit would you actually receive from it? How much is the warm, fuzzy feeling that the government is a well-managed household worth to you when it starts to come out of your pocket? Do you have an idea of how to balance the pain across a population of 300 million so that people benefit from a balanced budget exactly in proportion to how much they endure the cost?
I don’t, and I don’t think you or anyone else does, either.
Instead you would rather renovate your house on government assistance than relinquish your income to repair the public trust. You have such moral commitment as far as other peoples’ entitlements are concerned. What are you willing to do without?
Not really. I am not interested in the specifics - this war cost $X, that social program costs $X. What I want to know is why we cannot stick to a budget.
Yes, I think we should clean up our own house before we do any more policing of the rest of the world.
Obviously you misunderstood what I said, which is I am tired of paying for things, such as wars, that rich people think we should have but don’t want to pay for.
I have never voted for any particular party.
Here taxes have gone up, so if they have gone down much federally we haven’t really noticed it. However, one could complain about taxes and debt at the same time if one is focused on getting the rich to pay more.
Does it ever occur to you that there are reasons my questions appear obtuse to you other than they actually are obtuse? Such as you misunderstood what I said, and/or I know so little on the subject that my questions are simple and/or you know so little about the subject that you don’t understand what I’m saying? No, just jump right to asshole and have fun!
Except that most people living in the US will be here for the long run.
So you have no problem with starving a bunch of old people? Nice. How about we cut the credits that people get for having produced more mouths to feed and educate? Better yet, lets raise even more money by taxing people who have more than one kids - win/win!
Cutting SSDI will not result in a 90% reduction of my income, and it won’t have anything to do with balancing the budget if the government continues to do business as usual. They need to be held accountable for what they do with the money before we give them even more to waste.
All of my income goes to the IRS at the end of the year, due to how much we pay as a married couple. Is that enough? As for what benefit I’d actually receive from it, zero as even if the feds suddenly became and stayed fiscally responsible, I won’t live long enough to see any real benefit.
You keep saying that as if it’s a fact, yet you offer no proof. What “pain” would the upper 10% feel by having their taxes raised? What “pain” will result from the feds holding to the budget they draw up?
I don’t get government assistance no matter what you want to think. Regarding what I’m willing to do without, I’m already doing it because we are middle class. We pay a ton of taxes every year because my husband makes a good salary, so we cannot afford smartphones, hi speed internet, anything more than basic cable, new cars, vacations or any of the other luxuries that you probably have.
Which of course has nothing to do with anything. All I asked was “why can’t we expect the government to stay on budget”. You’ve been flailing around making wrong assumptions and blaming me for things I haven’t said, and just generally being a jerk. If you are raising children, I hope you have far more patience for their “stupid” questions.
Ok curlcoat, let’s try this another way.
There are two problems with worrying two much about a balanced budget, strategic budget-setting and the free rider problem. Both of these problems have profound strategic and electoral consequences.
Budgetary risk is more straightforward. When you set a household budget, you don’t need anyone else’s approval to release your funds. You can estimate the revenue and expense sides and budget accordingly.
Take the budget for a state agency. The New York State Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (yes, that is what it is really called) provides in-home Early Intervention to children with a variety of disabilities up until age 3. So the DOHMH has to estimate the number of new diagnoses who enter the system, the size of the tranches of children who move or age out of Early Intervention, and the labor supply & wage of the EI therapists. The DOHMH mandate is to provide some level of service to all eligible children, so there is huge downside risk to the state budget. If the DOHMH goes over budget, someone is going to get into trouble. So the DOHMH anticipates this and asks for more money to compensate for some of the downside risk. So the legislature, wanting to control expenses, refuses to grant the entire requested budget and perhaps cuts it more. So we have some political theatre and kids don’t get services.
Zoom out. No agency submits honest budgets because no one wants to be wrong. This creates a lot of noise in the system and it means that budgets in and of themselves have little integrity. They are just numbers to manage to, not a realistic assessment of the size of the commitment the state is actually making to do stuff. They are only vaguely connected to reality. They are a rough guideline, not articles of faith.
But this is still all expense-side stuff. Other people estimate the revenue side. If too much revenue comes in, it is promptly returned to the taxpayers. Politicians have strong incentives not to raise taxes under any circumstances because they want to be re-elected, so it follows that they would overstate the amount of revenue they expect will come in. The revenue does not materialize, agencies blow past budgets because they have a mandate to provide services to everyone eligible, and the state borrows money.
So now that we have borrowed money, what happens? That money has already been spent, so worrying about financial discipline now is fighting the wrong fight. The shit is out of the horse. So what do we do about it? The easiest answer is to make interest payments on the debt and keep restructuring it as we go along. US government debt is the safest investment in the world, so there are lots of people willing to lend the state money at low levels of interest because they are guaranteed to make a little profit.
And now we are already into planning for next year’s budget. The state made existing commitments that voters want, so those have to be funded else politicians lose their jobs. We have to make interest payments on existing debt. And there is risk that this year will be over budget for exactly the same reasons as the previous year.
But some people want to do more than kick the can down the road. They want to balance the budget and pay off the debt. This would be a good thing collectively. Enter the free rider problem. Everyone needs to contribute towards paying down the debt and balancing the budget. Either they have to endure reduced state commitments or they have to pay more in taxes. But if magic does happen, no one can be excluded from sharing its social benefits any more than individuals can be singled out to not benefit from national defense. And any individual contribution will not make the difference between success and failure. So the rational response for everyone is to try to foist the cost of paying down the debt and balancing the budget on someone else. Some people are not even going to benefit from this public good for very long at all, like the elderly. And children, who have not had much chance to enjoy the cornucopia of public goods that baby boomers have, will bear the cost of reduced services for their entire lives. So there’s two populations already who would question the wisdom of trying to balance the budget and pay down the debt.
Managing this is our representatives’ job description. They don’t get electoral benefits from providing broad, universal public goods. They delight their constituents not for voting for national defense in general but for bringing a military base into their districts.
So suppose you are elected to congress on a no-nonsense, budget-balancing, debt-paying platform. I am elected on a bribe the shit out of my constituents platform. You want to get your budget balancing amendment passed. If you want my vote, then you are going to have to earn it. If you want to do the deal, then it will be your constituents who lose out on services to pay for it, not mine. Otherwise I will just refuse and carry on doing what I’m doing. So imagine that every congressperson is like this. No one wants to put her constituents’ collective neck on the block for paying for something that benefits absolutely everyone, including people who will never vote for her.
So budgetary risk/strategic budget setting, uneven distribution of the costs and benefits, and the free rider problem all stand in the way of trying too hard to balance the budget and pay down what we owe. Household economics are dogma for households. They reflect the preferences of the people who live in the household directly. But the government is not one big household; it reflects the preferences of its citizens indirectly through representatives. Representatives don’t handle the money themselves. they delegate the execution to self-interested agencies. With all of this aggregation and delegation, weird things happen that violate the common sense of what happens when you deal directly with only a small number of individuals. Not taking this weirdness into account is how we end up with bad laws and unintended consequences.
You write that you can’t afford luxuries because your husband makes a good salary.
Now you may object that I’m taking this out of context, but it is what you wrote. My advice is that you will get a better reception here if you make a deliberate effort to make your comments more logical.
Thems the breaks. You’re free to make a counterproposal. You’ve obviously never gone to lunch with a group of friends, or if you do you’re the one who’s all “Burger King? I HATE That!” “Ewww, not Red Lobster again!” “So, where DO you want to go” “I don’t CARE!” “Pizza Hut?” “No! Their pepperoni stinks!”
I’ll look at this later and decide if I feel like engaging your again, as right now I’m exhausted and need a bath. A quick scan tho looks like you are saying what I said about a page ago - that we cannot expect the government to hold to a budget because they are irresponsible and lie.
Nothing is logical about the taxes we pay in the state of California, as well as the fed. Now, technically we could afford those luxuries if we wanted to go into debt to continue to fix up our house, or if I’d bought my car with little or nothing down. But we pay cash for almost everything and I’m not willing to take on the monthly expense of things like service for a smartphone or hi speed internet, and I won’t put vacations on a credit card, so we mostly just take long weekends to Vegas and stuff like that. It’s not that we have no luxuries, we just don’t have the number that it seems that people making over $100K a year should.
Nothing you say here as anything to do with the portion of my post that you quoted. And no, when a bunch of us go to lunch, I’m the one that says I can go anywhere except places that only serve highly spicy foods.
No, that’s not it at all. Now I am thinking I should have just stayed mean and patronizing with you.
Of course it does. You said that you don’t see why the government can’t stick to a budget immediately. Multiple people requested examples as to how you suggest doing so. You refuse, despite the fact it should be really easy if it’s as simple as you claim. Other people, myself included, throw out examples, and you refuse to acknowledge them other than to attack the one that will cut the welfare you are receiving from the government by 90%. So, if that one’s no good, give us an example of one that is.
Yea, I do feel very sorry for your kids. God forbid they not know everything about everything, and they had better never misunderstand you.
All I said was cutting Social Security by 90% (which of course was not a serious suggestion by whoever said it) wouldn’t cut my income by 90%, which is what was threatened by that poster. You responded with “Thems the breaks. You’re free to make a counterproposal.” and then went on a weird rant about fast food places.
As for my having suggestions on how to make cuts so the government can stay on budget, I don’t recall seeing anyone actually asking me that but I could certainly make all kinds of suggestions regarding unnecessary expenses like that intervention program for kids with disabilities. Welfare (the real thing, not SS pensions) would be completely redone so no one but the person/child the benefit is for can benefit from it. Medicaid would be handed over to the private sector. Since the feds have spent the SS money on other things, I’d look at cutting benefits to those who have other income. I’d definitely raise taxes on the rich, which I’ve said before, and I’ve also said I’d quit spending money on wars. Perhaps if you read what I’ve posted, you would see these things and make more intelligent posts yourself?
The difference between you and my autistic 2 year old son is that he makes a real effort. He does not obtrude with half-baked opinions while claiming, totally disingenuously, to be seeking knowledge. He’s easy to correct by comparison, and he can’t even talk or intuit the meaning of facial expressions.
I don’t know why you think I talk to my child like I talk to you. After all, I’m guessing you are at least fifteen years older than me.
I’m not even trying to say anything really complicated here. There is a conflict sometimes between what is good for the country and what is good for individual electorates. Forecasting budgets for organizations is noisy, strategic, and full of crap. Consider that your deeply-held belief that budgets just ought to be balanced is not only wrong but might not be the best starting point for even thinking about this problem. Individuals and organizations have different goals, different strategies, and different incentives. Expecting one to act like the other creates no end of confusion and bad policy.
Perhaps if you read what I’ve posted, you would see that I asked you for specific proposals, because specific proposals are what are needed in order to simply balance the budget without raising the debt ceiling. I never accused you of not wanting to raise taxes on the rich, but that is simply impossible in the next 3 weeks. If it is just as easy as simply not spending more than you’re taking in, certainly you have a very obvious plan that we will all see, and the heavens will open up and choirs start to sing and we will slap our foreheads and say “wow, why didn’t I think of that?”
Or you could continue to post generalities. Other people in here have at least gotten more specific with plans that will actually balance the budget, even though they are also politically impossible.
Depends on what you mean for ‘cared for’. One reading of what I’m quoting from you is that being ‘cared for’ is exactly what you are asking for. Our system is designed to be one of self-governance. If you don’t participate in it yet have expectations for what you think it should or should not do, you are effectively asking to be ‘cared for’.
As for ‘serving the state with the person instead of the purse’, well again we have a system of (representative) self-governance. If all you do is pay taxes, your representatives have no way of knowing what it is you actually want. You can tell me, but I am powerless to do much about it, and there is no guarantee I will be inclined to do anything about it. If you aren’t going to vote you should at least send a letter to your local and federal representatives once in a while.
At the far end of the wealth spectrum we get another problem, better expressed in the Lapham’s article:
Well, admitting your shortcomings is a wonderful start to things. A person who thinks they know everything is never going to learn jack shit and will usually be a pain in the rear.
But look, it isn’t really necessary that you be a top expert on everything to participate. The idea of representative government is that, overall, ~50% or more of the people will have the right idea of what’s best. You know your own world better than anyone, so you register your preferences and toss it in the hopper with everyone else’s. Of course acquiring more knowledge is always going to help. It isn’t easy, but who says it should be? This is the most powerful nation in history; running it properly is devilishly difficult. Strap yourself in and don’t give up.
Maeglin does a good job explaining the theoretical framework of why budgets are a tricky prospect. You really ought to send him a friend request and hope he shares more of his understanding with you in the future. Anyway, in practice things are even more complicated than in theory. People can’t all be trusted, some have horrible motives and then, to repeat, no one in the government even knows what you want since you don’t participate. You are the government, curlcoat, so you shouldn’t be surprised at its dereliction in light of your absenteeism.
Other than ‘not bothering’, I’d say you are seeing things clearly. Let me bring up still more quotes from the Lapham’s article (damn, it’s good):
Surely you’ve heard of the third rail? My link is to the literal meaning of the term. If you wander out onto the tracks and touch the electrified third rail, you will get a fatal shock. Social Security is referred to as the ‘third rail of politics’ because any politician that touches it is going to get zapped out of office. But, in the context of the Lapham’s article, doing away with Social Security is exactly what our plutocratic leaders want to do. So, how to accomplish this?
I think the answer is by deliberately driving up the debt, year by year, decade by decade, then standing back and waiting for people to exclaim, “Holy shit! We cannot afford this anymore and it has to be cut!” From the POV of a wealthy and uncaring person, this path is better than their taxes going up. It is up to we, the more moral nobodies who would prefer that the majority of people not get thrown under the national bus, to stop them.
Thanks. I think you are, at heart, an idealist. Doing the hard work of deciphering what is really going on is going to give you a cognitive-dissonance headache, but I strongly recommend you do exactly that. Look at what you’re saying: you make $100k, take long weekends in Vegas, have a home and a car, but want more more more while expecting the government to run smoothly without your participation. But it won’t run smoothly without your participation. Raise your mind out of your mundane existence to the bigger picture. There are some powerful forces out there who would benefit from driving the whole cart into the ditch. Our task is to seize the reins and steer it properly. Maybe that will prove impossible to accomplish, but we should all know what will happen if we don’t even try. Maybe you are content to sit on your sofa and deliver bitchy commentary to no one in particular while the world falls apart around you. Me, I’d rather die fighting, even if I lose. Ok, I’d rather fight 'till I’m worn out, then smoke a few joints, then die- pretty much the same thing though.
Because people who are rude and impatient for little reason to anyone tend to be rude and impatient overall.
Which apparently is the opinion of those running the governments. Since it isn’t working, I fail to see why you are so adamantly in favor of it. Nor do I understand why anyone in the government bothers to even write a budget if they are so screwed up and easily ignored.
I am not speaking to anything to do with whether or not the debt ceiling is raised in the next three weeks, I am focused on why it is the government cannot be bothered to hold to the budgets they themselves draw up.
As for choirs singing, no one here as explained why it cannot be as easy as not spending more than is brought in, other than political issues. So I say the government could hold to a budget, it just chooses not to and we let it, but then you say that’s not it either.
So, the things I listed out in my last post were too “general” for you? If you are expecting me to go look for the budgets of those agencies and then tell you exactly how much I’d cut from what programs, you are out of luck as I’m not going to spend the time on someone who is just looking to find fault.
Don’t you think the boat has sailed long ago on the self-governance? What my city, county, state and federal governments do seems to have very little with what we want, and corruption is rampant.
The reason I no longer vote is because we have told our representatives for decades what we want, and it falls on deaf ears. The only way to get their attention is when some crisis is looming and we all band together and threaten to vote them out of office if they don’t do something.
I literally had no choice between the two presidential candidates - the Reps have been taken over by the whack job religious people and the Dems are determined to make as many people as possible dependent on the government. In reading comments from people who did make a choice, they voted for one or the other based on one special interest of theirs - most of the Romney folks were religious and most of the Obama folks want free/cheap healthcare, or in reaction to Romney’s anti-women stance. Our leaders are voted in by people who ignore all but their own special interests, so we are lead by people with interests in only a few things - just doesn’t seem like a good idea that they are so narrowly focused.
I’m not sure that’s true of all or even most rich people. They may lose touch with how the other half lives, but OTOH those who actually worked for their money should have the right to reap the rewards of their labors.
I’d have thought simply asking my original question would have indicated my shortcoming in this area! 
So you are saying that more than 50% of the government thinks it’s a good idea to keep adding to the deficit?
Maeglin is being an asshole, so I cannot ask questions or for elaboration on what he posts.
It is not even close to just me who feels that we should not continue to keep going further and further into debt - if the government feels that a majority of the taxpaying public wants more financial burden, they are completely out of touch.
Now that I agree with, but it seems he is blaming just Reagan, or just the rich people for our spiral into turning into Mexico. On one hand, the rich people do tend to throw lots of money at any Rep candidate, but OTOH the Dems all want more and more social programs on the backs of the middle class. Both the rich and the poor are working hard at destroying us.
Actually, I’ve never heard of the third rail, since we don’t tend to have subways or els out here. But regarding Social Security, it seems to have been done away with already in that the funds we all naively sent to it for decades have been used for other things. All they have to do is throw up their hands and say - ‘money’s all gone, no new retirees are going to get anything’. It’s what many people are expecting already. And since, once again the government has proven that it cannot be trusted to do anything as well as the private sector, it’s probably just as well that they get out of the retirement business. My only hope with SS is that they phase it out gradually, such as I suggested earlier in cutting benefits to those who have other income. Otherwise, there will be people who are nearing retirement who are counting on their SS to be able to make ends meet and will have no other pension available.
I suppose I have idealist desires, but I’m realistic about whether or not they are going to happen.
Well, everyone wants more but that wasn’t the point of what I said. I meant that despite the level of household income, the only reason we can afford a few luxuries is because I am otherwise extremely cheap. It’s just the two of us, our house payment and property taxes are relatively low for the area, we don’t have a bunch of credit card payments to make, etc. Yet in 19 years of marriage, we’ve only had one real vacation (I finally got to see Hawaii) and we live within a budget. It just seems to me that well paid professionals should be a little more relaxed about money, but due to the level of taxes we pay on everything, a major portion of the paycheck just doesn’t make it home. What I’d like is for the government to either quit coming up with more and more handouts, or for them to tax the rich people to pay for them. Or both. It would be nice if our incomes were only supporting this household.
Been there, done that and am totally over it. I used to be involved in local politics, but no more because I will never get any where near the reins and I simply cannot play the game the way it needs to be in order to succeed. Like you say, politics is now the forum of the wealthy and the cheat, and I am neither.
If you haven’t looked at the numbers, how do you know that it’s easy?
I said this waaaaaay back in this thread, but even with a modest tax increase, the only way you will keep your welfare check is if we almost entirely shut down the rest of the government except that needed to wind things down. Plus a whole lot of the military as well. Plus a tax increase, all to keep your precious entitlement programs from being reduced.
No, really, it’s just you.
Individuals try to write their own budgets and blow past them all the time. Individuals also try to read more books, lose weight, and implement all sorts of new year-style resolutions. Most of them fail. The alternative is not to live a life of complete undiscipline but to be realistic about all of the factors that can confound our goals.
We can also restrict spending by government for perfectly political reasons. I don’t want the government to spend a dime on “faith-based initiatives” so I will hold my representative accountable for votes he makes in support of these. Electoral pressure affects individual agency budgets, not the realities of the services the agencies are supposed to provide and the commitments they make.
-
Legislature tasks Agency X with providing service Y.
-
Agency forecasts annual expenses Z. This forecast is probably wrong because predicting the future is difficult and is subject to the internal politics of the agency. The Legislature anticipates that the Agency will pad the budget with bullshit, so it just decides how much to give based on how much its constituents want to spend. This may have no connection to the reality of the costs of providing the actual service.
-
Agency spends money. Legislature is not responsible for the internal management of the Agency. The Agency itself reports to the executive. It does not work for Congress. It tries to provide the service it was originally assigned to do. In some cases, the Agency would rather overspend and succeed in providing the service than spend at budget and fail. Failure is a problem for the Executive, so people in the Agency can get fired. Overspending is just something the Legislature has to explain to its constituents, so hey, who cares.
-
Next year, dissatisfied voters punish the Legislature for going over budget. New, cost-conscious Legislature punishes the Agency by crushing its budget to score electoral points.
-
Agency can no longer deliver services the public from 1) wants. Voters hold Legislature accountable and punish it. New legislators are elected with a broad mandate to solve our most pressing social problems…
And around and around and around. It is not that the government cannot be bothered to spend what it takes in. The government and the agencies are people, not abstractions. They have their own motivations and lines of accountability. The legislature is responsible to voters, who themselves tend to make shitty financial decisions and want to spend lots of money that benefits their parochial interests. The agencies are staffed by people who may be actually committed to public service but are certainly as self-motivated as anyone in private industry. They don’t want to be fired. The people who forecast budgets are not the people held accountable by voters when they fail. The legislature that punishes agencies is not necessarily the same as the one that gave the agencies their social mandates in the first place.
This is how modern representative government works. This is why institutions are so important.
The political issues are fucking huge. That’s like saying, “flying with paper fairy wings cannot be more complicated than just making them out of construction paper and flapping them, other than gravity issues.” What you dismiss as just “political issues” is the entire environment in which this stuff happens.
Actually, I rather doubt I said it was easy.
I don’t support any of the entitlement or welfare programs, which you should know by now.
Extremely difficult to believe, since you came out asshole right off the bat.
And suffer the consequences. Or not, since the taxpayers are expected to pick up the shortfall of many of those people. One would hope and expect the government to be far more responsible.
(snip stuff I’m not going to respond to because I am tired of you being an asshole.)
Exactly. So the statement I made way back when is correct - the government could stay on budget but it chooses not to for various, political reasons.