How to reduce the deficit

[Ugmo]

well essentially you are saying that the top 5 things - those that make up the grand majority of the budget - can't be touched anyway. so this isn't much of an exercise.

That is kind of what I'm saying, except for defense. They can be touched, but it's a herculean task, and it would be REALLY unpopular. Cutting Medicare, Medicaid, social security, unemployment benefits (in this economy, ouch!). You gotta get those cuts through Congress, and the House members face reelection every two years...

Yeah, kinda the point of my exercise (and it was loaded from the start), is that I don't think it's fair to blame Obama for these huge deficits when his hands are tied on them in many ways.

I'll sidestep the cuts vs breaks debate and offer a few specific spending cuts:

1. Defense: End the wars, both of em. They're quagmires in which nothing meaningful is being accomplished. We can stay in Afghanistan another 15 years and the situation won't be much different than it is today. We should increase CIA and black ops type activities as well as select bombing missions when necessary to combat terrorism, but deploying troops is a waste of time, money, and man power. Doing that alone would save billions.

2. New spending: That big healthcare package that the dems want? Now isn't the time. You don't tackle a new expensive program while the country is broke and unemployment is 10%. A more modest approach would be more prudent at this juncture.

3. Increase revenue: Let the Bush cuts (excuse me, I meant, breaks) expire and look at a modest increase on the extremely wealthy. Do NOT however institute any more "hidden" taxes, like sin and luxery taxes. They're the result of politicians trying to weasle their way around being honest with the public, and they piss me off.


That's a start.

- There is definitely some savings potential there.

- The CBO estimates that the government would save money over the long term (ten years) with a public option, not incur new costs.

- Yeah.

[vanitybinge]

A lot of good points have been made, but Ugmo, I gotta disagree about entitlements.


Look, the fact is, if you really want to fix a debt this big, you've got to make big changes. That means stop asking the government to fund your lifestyle!

So go down the line with a pair of shears and listen to the screams of agony as you fix the deficit with ruthless surgery:

Social Security is dead. It's been twisted, raped, pillaged and broken. Pay off what's been paid into it and end the program altogether.

End the wars, pull out of that dirty middle eastern pussyhole, and cut the defense budget in half. Keeping our troops here means more defense on our shores where we need it.

Cut the unemplyment/welfare program down, but not out, because at this point, it would only send more people into the street. Once we're stable again, we can get rid of it and encourage people to get jobs! But first, we need to create them. Re-allocate the money to job creation and the small business administration.

I agree that this is the wrong time for the health care bill that's been handed out. Yes we need reform, but not by the lobbyists themselves! This bill is only going to fuck us harder. So in a situation where tough decisions need to be made, Medicare and Medicaid need to be cut down.

The interest on the Natl Debt can and must be excused.

I don't know enough about what goes into the Health & Human Services spending to comment on it.

We could definitely cut down on the Transportation spending. I mean, what is it for besides politician's helicopter rides and first class plane tickets?

Veteran services surprises me with it's slice of the pie considering how much veterans say they don't get the benefits they were promised. Where's the money going?

The biggest slices are the size they are because people take them for granted and refuse to be the devil who would dare cut down on grandma's bills. I mean I love my grandma more than anyone, and I know the shit she goes thru, but there's gotta be other ways, like capping the cost of meds.

By tearing out the IRS and ending the federal income tax, a BIG BIG difference would surely be made.

[thejuggernaut]

People's rage about cutting social programs will slowly vanish if results can be proven.

Perhaps the administration should contact Jean Chretien and Paul Martin on how they did it after Mulroney's Reagan/Bush joyride.

First parliament as Prime Minister

On November 4, 1993, Chrétien was appointed by Governor General Ray Hnatyshyn as prime minister. While Trudeau, Joe Clark and Mulroney had been relative political outsiders prior to becoming prime minister, Chrétien had served in every Liberal cabinet since 1965. This experience gave him knowledge of the Canadian parliamentary system, and allowed Chrétien to establish a very centralized government that, although highly efficient, was also lambasted by critics as being a "friendly dictatorship" and intolerant of internal dissent.

Chrétien turned most of his attention to reducing the large national debt he had inherited from the Trudeau and Mulroney eras. He was assisted by Martin. The government began a program of deep cuts to provincial transfers and other areas of government finance. During his tenure as Prime Minister, a $42 billion deficit was eliminated, five consecutive budget surpluses were recorded, $36 billion in debt was paid down, and taxes were cut by $100 billion (cumulatively) over five years.[5] There were, however, undeniable costs associated with this endeavour. The cuts resulted in fewer government services, most noticeably in the health care sector, as major reductions in federal funding to the provinces meant significant cuts in service delivery. Moreover, the across-the-board cuts affected the operations and achievement of the mandate of most federal departments. Many of the cuts were restored in later years of Chrétien's period in office.

One of Chrétien's main focuses in office was preventing the separation of the province of Quebec, which was ruled by the sovereigntist Parti Québécois for nearly the Prime Minister's entire term. After the 1995 referendum very narrowly defeated a proposal on Quebec sovereignty, the government passed what became known as the Clarity Act, which said that no Canadian Government would acknowledge any province's declaration of independence unless a "clear majority" supported a "clear question" about sovereignty in a referendum, as defined by the Parliament of Canada, and a constitutional amendment was passed. The size of a "clear majority" was left unspecified.

On November 5, 1995, Chrétien and his wife escaped injury when André Dallaire, armed with a knife, broke in the Prime Minister's official residence at 24 Sussex Drive. Aline Chrétien shut and locked the bedroom door until security came. It is said Jean was ready to defend himself with a sharp-edged Inuit carving.

[SeminiferousButtNoid]

Very simple:

1) Cut the defense budget in half

2) Cut bureaus that do nothing or are extraneous or corrupt like the Department of Education and the ATF

3) Establish and/or raise tariffs on imported goods.

4) Increase corporate income tax

Okay Vinnie, here's the deal: I maintain that the current budgetary woes are largely Dubya's fault, and I'm sticking with it.

That sounds good in a speech but when Obama submits a military budget greater than anything during the Bush years, and ran on a campaign of ending the wars, it kind of tough to spin that. Actually it's impossible. If I were you I would be dissappointed in your hero.

[Ugmo]

Very simple:

1) Cut the defense budget in half

2) Cut bureaus that do nothing or are extraneous or corrupt like the Department of Education and the ATF

3) Establish and/or raise tariffs on imported goods.

4) Increase corporate income tax

That sounds good in a speech but when Obama submits a military budget greater than anything during the Bush years, and ran on a campaign of ending the wars, it kind of tough to spin that. Actually it's impossible. If I were you I would be dissappointed in your hero.

I submit that you didn't actually look at the budget numbers in the first post, because you could eliminate all non-mandatory spending entirely and you still wouldn't balance the budget. Education and the ATF are a pittance. The big items besides defense are entitlements.

Obama isn't now, and never was my "hero" (kudos for not using the word messiah though - that one is sure played out). And he is demonstrably doing exactly what he promised during the campaign, which was to draw down the war effort in Iraq and increase it in Afghanistan. No spin necessary.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... r-in-iraq/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... from-iraq/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... ghanistan/

[vanitybinge]

Very simple:

1) Cut the defense budget in half

2) Cut bureaus that do nothing or are extraneous or corrupt like the Department of Education and the ATF

While you're on point two, how about the FDA? That whole department is a fucking joke.

[Hames Jetfield]

How to reduce the deficit? How about we cut spending and start implementing a more libertarian-form of minimal but necessary government?

How about we move back to the traditional federalist-style, constitutional Republic that our Founders envisioned? Now, there's an idea...

There is a problem with that though, as even Ron Paul has admitted that people want more government. I really don't think that people would be fine with doing away with Medicare and Social Security. Any party that tries to cut these programs is going to meet lots of resistance. As I've said before I'm all for it, let's do away with all the entitlement programs and repeal the Bush tax cuts. If that was done the budget would be balanced and the principle on the National Debt could start to be paid down to a tolerable degree.

However, the only thing I am interested in from the Right is Fiscal Responsibility, and, from what I've seen, the Tea Party activists are fully supportive of social conservatism too--something I am vehemently against. I watched Palin's speech tonight and there was plenty of Social Conservative talking points being thrown out--not for me. Until then, I'll remain an independent liberal.

[SkyDog112046]

Roughly 33% of the budget goes to retirees. $1.25 Trillion. The system was put in place to have 10 workers supporting 1 retiree for 5 years, not 3 workers supporting 1 retiree for 10+ years. That's not how the formula was supposed to work, and it can't continue to work that way.

As uncomfortable as it is to deal with the problem and despite the great fear politicians have of the AARP they are going to have to change SSI & Medicare to reflect the change in life expectancy.

Something along the line of raising retirement age to 70, limiting procedures covered by medicare, and bringing in low-cost prescription drugs from places such as Canada could go a long way towards lowering costs.

This is the single biggest area where spending cuts need to be made. It's 1/3 of the overall budget. Even completely eliminating other spending areas that are only 1-2% of the overall budget will have minimum impact. This is where the spending cuts should start.

[chickenona]

Oh, Lickety, why don't you just come right out and admit you want to put your mom down like an old dog.

[vanitybinge]

Oh, Lickety, why don't you just come right out and admit you want to put your mom down like an old dog.

As right as Lickety is, that's exactly what I find myself thinking when I agree with him. Old people are sucking up the services, but man do I love my grandmas!

Still, the question was not "how to reduce the deficit while pleasing the voters and not looking like an asshole", it was how to reduce the deficit period.

The only way to really do it is to do things the voters and pundits don't want to do. Maybe having-cake-and-eating-it-too fits in here?