Congressional Supercommittee

[RealMoneyIssues]

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!

Had to use the "fair" word... couldn't you use, hmmm, equitable?

 

[nnuut]

Synonym

 

[nnuut]

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.

 

[Boghie]

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.

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!!!

 

[RealMoneyIssues]

Is everyone so ideologically blind that they can't see the only viable solution on the table?

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

 

[RealMoneyIssues]

FWM, still don't see any spending cuts in your discussion... did I miss it?

 

[Boghie]

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.

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.

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.

 

[RealMoneyIssues]

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.

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.

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...

 

[nnuut]

CORRECTO! Show me the MONEY!

 

[Boghie]

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!!!

 

[ILoveTDs]

I'm glad we've been able to agree to cutting out NASA portion of that budget, it really helped.

 

[alevin]

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?

 

[Boghie]

Too Funny...

Adding in 'DOD related' spending from other departments. Kinda washy. But I'm game. Hack from all those departments as well. However, we can't do much about the debt spending till we get things in balance. Hack, hack, hack.

This is the skinny. We are spending $700 Billion more inflation adjusted that we did in FY2007. Some of that is DOD spending. Hack it out. All of it. That will save $99 Billion. FWM, let us round that to $100 Billion. A 14% slash from actual FY2011 expenditures. I like it. Hack, hack, hack.

Now, where are you going to come up with another $600 Billion. Hack, hack, hack. I am game...

Let us make a deal. Cut DOD by 7% and the rest of the Federal Gubmint by an equal 7% and we'll see what happens next year. That will be a real $250 Billion. Not on an increase, a real cut from the FY2011 baseline. Anyone can cut 7% from their spending. That will be less than half of what we absolutely need - but it is a start.

If we don't do it the Bond Vigilantes will. And, their starting number will be a bit deeper.

 

[Boghie]

I think you are correct Alevin.

I think the chart (or FWM) conflates the annual deficit with the accumulated debt.

We cannot deal with the accumulated debt till we run a surplus. I will gladly accept increased taxes to pay off the ACCUMULATED debt.

 

[Boghie]

Alevin,

Very strange chart.

Our FY2011 interest payment was $450 Billion. This chart puts $350 Billion of that spending on DOD, Homeland Security, Veteran Affairs, and the odd ball 'DOD related' expenditures from other odd ball departments. Very odd, very strange.

So 78% of the annual deficit ($350 Billion of $450 Billion) is the result of 38% of the expenditures (~1,350 Billion of $3,600 Billion). Very odd, very strange...

 

[Boghie]

FWM,

We were last at around $400 Billion in FY2001.

Anyone remember the military personnel and materiel issues at the beginning of the WOT. Our military was too small to deter, too small to quickly fight, too small to accomplish the mission.

I'm not saying that the military has to be as bloated as it is now.

Cut it and every other expenditure by a meaningful amount. An actual cut of $100 Billion Gubmint wide will not even be felt. Cut the DOD to FY2007 as a starting point - that is a $150 Billion dollar cut to DOD. Cut everything else to FY2007 as well. We do it now or the Bond Vigilantes will do it for us!!!

Otherwise, watch Europe.

 

[James48843]

So...now what happens?

Wonkbook: The GOP's dual-trigger nightmare

by Ezra Klein

Imagine if the Democrats offered Republicans a deficit deal that had more than $3 in tax increases for every $1 in spending cuts, assigned most of those spending cuts to the Pentagon, and didn't take a dime from Social Security, Medicaid or Medicare beneficiaries.

Republicans would laugh at them. But without quite realizing it, that's the deal Republicans have now offered to the Democrats.

<,snip--..>

So now there are two triggers.

One is an extremely progressive spending trigger --half from the DoD--and worth $1.2 trillion-- that goes off on January 1, 2013.

The other is an extremely progressive Bush tax cut expiration- atax trigger worth $3.8 trillion that goes off on...January 1, 2013.

If you count reduced interest payments, the two policies alone would reduce future deficits by about $6 trillion. That's far more than anything the supercommittee came close to discussing. It's distributed far more progressively than anything the Democrats have even considered proposing. And all that needs to happen for it to pass is, well, nothing. Republicans can't stop these triggers on their own. They need Senate Democrats and President Obama to join them in passing an alternative, or they need House and Senate Democrats to join them in overturning President Obama's veto of their alternative. So the only way for Republicans to avoid this dual-trigger nightmare is to somehow convince Democrats to bail them out.

A very interesting read. We'll have to wait to see what happens. Read it here:

More:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/won...

 

[Warrenlm]

I continue to find it interesting that no one wonders why protecting the Nation is the province of Republicans and taking from Sam to give to Mary is the province of the Democrats. One would have thought Democrats would object to being omitted by the Media from being concerned about Defense cuts. The One has already shown he cares not for the tax paying members of the former middle class' access to quality physicians when he cuts from Medicare payments in order to create a new entitlement. But this whole Republicans=Defense and Democrats=Medicare/Medicaid is unseemly.

 

[nnuut]

I think cutting Social Security Premiums in 2011 and wanting to do it AGAIN in 2012 is a NO BRAINER! I thought we we were going to try and make it solvent? Who is doing that and why?

 

[Khotso]

Yup. ... You have to wonder if behind closed doors the GOP and Dems have quietly agreed to posture to their respective bases all while secretly agreeing to each other that letting the automatic budget cuts take effect, along with expiration of all Bush tax rates by January 2013 is their only way out of this mess, before we turn into Greece.

Politics sometimes make for strange bedfellows.

Nah, that would mean they were being responsible.