Congressional Supercommittee

When I look at 1970 vs. 1988, defense spending other than interest, was about equal. But the interest looks like it compounded-and keeps compounding-growing faster than increase in actual non-interest expenditures. anyone tell me how that works? since we've already adjusted for inflation?
 
To All: Use Real Numbers

To All,

1. Don't use budget projections - especially when they are for past years. Do you use projected budget numbers for 2008 or actual expenditures for 2008 when setting your budget for 2009. Just asking.

Instead, use the Monthly Treasury Statement. The September statement is the FY total.


2. The CBO has nicely summarized all the costs incurred in the 'Global War on Terror'. The CBO documents that we have spent about $1.3 Trillion on the GWOT from FY2001 through FY2011. So, on average we spent $130 Billion per year on the GWOT. This year (FY2012) we are projected to spend about $131 BIllion. These numbers are not inflation adjusted and the spending ranges from a low of $34 Billion (FY2001) to a high of $186 Billion (FY2008 surge). But, take ALL THE YEARS of GWOT spending, add them up, and you MATCH the current Administrations ANNUAL deficit. Yowser:embarrest:


3. FWM, we have to cut monthly spending by the entire FY2012 Global War On Terror expenditures to balance the budget. This is a joke. Spending has bloated tremendously and we taxpayers do not see the benefit of it. While it may be impossible to slice $100 Billion a month out of spending RIGHT NOW, I want to see a decent percentage of that bloat cut before I volunteer more of my families assets. I have NO FAITH in these goobers. Your $100 Billion a year is a 2.8% cut. I need to see a bit more than that before I will entertain a tax increase. And, I don't accept a reduction in growth.


I can watch these goobers. And, you can too!!!
 
FireWeatherMet said:
I mentioned 1 Trillion in cuts over 10 years across the board to go along with 1999 tax rates.
If thats not enough...we can hit CSRS and FERS harder along with of course Military & Social Security, (that's where most of the $$ is) but would want to avoid that for now. :rolleyes:

Still waiting for that detailed independent study that show true deficit reduction of at least 4-5 trillion over 10 years that doesn't raise taxes from our current historically low levels.
rolleyes.gif
Click to expand...
Thank you for mentioning spending cuts; although your quote implied you were slamming us for mentioning spending cuts, not proposing them yourself.

Now, 1 Trillion in spending cuts over 10 years wouldn't solve this year's deficit... seriously, we need 1.8 trillion next year, not over the next 10...
 
FWM,

Comment:
First..since GWBush didn't want the deficit to look as bad as it really was during his term, he never included the Iraq/Afghan military spending in his budget. So those 2007 spending numbers are MUCH HIGHER than shown.
Click to expand...
I am NOT using budget numbers, I am using actual expenditures. They are covered in the Monthly Treasury Statement. Budget numbers are garbage.

Comment
Going back to 1999?
Unfortunately the inflation rate year after year makes the average price off all goods and services bought in 1999 now 36% higher. And some things like Health Care costs are 100% higher than 12 years ago.
Click to expand...
I used inflation adjusted numbers (that is, 2011 dollars). When you inflation adjust the FY1999 spending of $1,704,545 million you get $2,316,595 million. I used the Bureau of Labor Inflation Calculator, but your calculator provides the exact same inflation adjustment.

By the way, the war (or wars as some seem to think) have cost about $120 Billion a year. Very soon we will only have about 400 folks in Iraq. The Afghan theater will be drawn down next year. And, the DOD is not exactly 'Growing the Force' anymore. In fact, we are 'Shrinking the Force'.

The reason this Administration's expenditures are $700 Billion more (inflation adjusted) than Bush's Iraq surge budget is because the 'stimulus' spending is now structural. It (and other Obama initiatives) structurally increase spending. And, the FY2011 expenditures DO NOT include ObamaCare.

We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
 
FireWeatherMet said:
Is everyone so ideologically blind that they can't see the only viable solution on the table?
Click to expand...
Ideology has nothing to do with it, unless you were referring to yourself. More taxes is your only solution. I only said that we should move our tax system to be fair for everyone (simple, abolish the IRS). I didn't specifically mention spending cuts as I was only commenting on taxes. Our spending is out of control, period... we will be the next Greece, Italy, Spain, Ireland, et al if we don't control our spending on social programs.

Your definition of fair tax rate is a 99% on the 1%... see if those numbers work.

Nevermind. I agree that we disagree. I will never want more taxes without a MORE than comparable spending cuts, and you will never want spending cuts but more taxes. done
 
FireWeatherMet said:
Thats why spending cuts alone, with just closing some tax loopholes can't fix this problem anymore.

Whether anyone cares to admit it or not...the only way to fix this now is to go back to the 1999 tax rates.

At this point, not just for the top 1-2%...but for all. That would cover 3-4 trillion over 10 years by itself.
Add another 100 billion of cuts across the board per year (another 1 trillion over 10 years...and you have 4-5 trillion in cuts over 10 years.

Some might not like the solution...but at this point that is the only viable solution.
Click to expand...

FWM,

How about this. We cut spending to 1999 inflation adjusted!!! I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that we will NOT HAVE TO RAISE TAXES.

Oh, that's right, I know these answers before I post. Here are the numbers FWM:
FY2011:
  • Revenue: $2,302,495 Million
  • Spending: $3,601,109 Million

FY1999 (in 2011 dollars):
  • Revenue: $2,483,407 Million
  • Spending: $2,316,595 Million
So, if we cut spending to FY1999 levels than our deficit will be about $14 Billion dollars. If we cut spending to FY1999 (inflation adjusted) I will accept a tax increase.


If that seems too draconian, lets cut spending to FY2007:
FY2011:
  • Revenue: $2,302,495 Million
  • Spending: $3,601,109 Million

FY2007 (in 2011 dollars):
  • Revenue: $2,803,940 Million
  • Spending: $2,981,758 Million
That leaves a deficit of $679 Billion. I would probably accept some revenue increase to deal with that. I'm a reasonable man.

Would it not seem reasonable to demand the spending reductions first - based on past history. Just being reasonable here. Just reasonable. And reasonable folks can watch the revenue and spending on a monthly basis. Gotta keep watching these politicians!!!
 
At least I didn't use REVENUE and BALANCED. Which means TAXES and a combination of TAXES and CUTS. They are instructed to use those two words at the direction of the leaders, GAMES.
 
I can go along with a little more taxes IF we widen the base to include everyone but the truly sick and destitute. 51% is really stupid, let's use the FAIR word here!
 
FireWeatherMet said:
Whether anyone cares to admit it or not...the only way to fix this now is to go back to the 1999 tax rates.
Click to expand...
Wrong again...

So, spend more, then raise taxes to cover spending; spend more, then raise taxes to cover spending; spend more, then raise taxes to cover spending; etc... really :rolleyes:

uh, no...

Flat tax (flat income tax OR flat sales tax), control spending; simple as that.

FireWeatherMet said:
but at this point that is the only viable solution.
Click to expand...
Viable for who?
 
Worse, we still use base-line budgeting, so we are really only cutting into the automatic increases... any private/public business would have failed by now...
 
What kills me is they are talking about reducing the projected gains in the debt, NOT the current debt!
Fool me once shame on you!:nuts:​
 
Oh, this can be fixed...

A little pain now, or a lot of pain later... I am thinking they will push the decision off and we will be in a world of hurt come 2014-15...
 
I think its funny how we seem to know what's best for everyone else in the world but we can't seem to even agree on cutting one and a half trillion of our debt, much less the 15 trillion were in the hole for!

Which brings me to my next point, if our leaders can't get 1.5 witled down then we are going to hit the wall here soon. Looks like Europe might be hitting it as we speak. It reminds me of the titanic as it sunk, just alot slower. This is the price that decades of bad financial decisions pays, and now it looks like there is no undoing it. This is going to play out slowly and tragically but it will start getting dire very soon. Those who scoff won't for much longer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top