Obama creates bipartisan fiscal commission on national debt

[dragon04]

Then, just...cut spending. It's not politically risky, the mood of the public is to lower deficits. So, just stop spending so much. Instead, the Administration is talking about another stimulus package and an expensive health care deal.

But even that is really a specious move on the part of the Administration. It's like you or me maxxing out our credit cards and then telling our wives it's time to quit buying on credit.

Certainly, reducing spending is EXACTLY what the Administration and Congress need to do. But on the same token, they shouldn't be hailed as heroes for being prudent with Taxpayer money after $4 trillion of binge spending. I'm still trying to figure out exactly HOW this President thinks he can reduce the Debt when prior to him taking Office we were already spending 25% of the annual Federal Budget just paying the interest on that Debt.

 

[R1]

...
It's like you or me maxxing out our credit cards and then telling our wives it's time to quit buying on credit.
...
I'm still trying to figure out exactly HOW this President thinks he can reduce the Debt when prior to him taking Office we were already spending 25% of the annual Federal Budget just paying the interest on that Debt.

It's a little bit different, you need to consider that you and he are able to print credit cards. There is no
such thing as you and he maxing out on credit cards, because every four to eight years you can be sure
to have printed more credit cards. As long as you and he can afford the interest, I just hope your wives
understand all of this, but they probably know it already. And interest rates are low right now, also.

 

[bearack]

No. It's not stupid.

What IS stupid, is to toss out throwaway lines indicating that Obama's spending is somehow unrelated to previous policies....

Evalute what he is spending the money. Bring out actual numbers.

Man up.

Evalute his spending and tell us what is a waste. What doesn't return value for the $. If things are so outrageous, you should be able to knock 30... 40... 50% off of his budget with little to no consequence.

I bet you won't.

Let me just start with one! Capping government raises (estimated increase for 2010 of 2.9%) could save a mere 5 billion dollars. Reducing salaries down to market standards could save the government another 100 billion annually.

 

[R1]

Capping government raises

:lol:

Knock yourself out. Tell that to republicans. I have a feeling that republicans already succumb to bribing
lobbyists way too much. Maybe they need a raise to get competent republicans in office. I think even Palin
must have felt that republicans don't make decent money these decades.

Clinton raised the presidential salary prior to leaving office, did he not? I wonder why Bush didn't revoke his
raise and set a cap on government raises. :?

 

[MasterComposter]

It would be interesting to hear some Republican ideas on how to deal with the deficit and debt. Oh, yeah --- a bipartisan congressional commission WAS the Republican idea! Too bad they voted against their own idea. Well now the president has GUARANTEED them a seat at the table on this bipartisan commission, so now we can be treated to more Republican ideas that they themselves can later vote against if they want to.

My comments were not about the Republicans. My comments were in response to the (hilarious) title to the thread. The Great Spender Creates Commission On How To Save Money!

Perhaps the notion would have more credibility and less laughability had the Administration formed such a commission prior to and instead of spending TRILLIONS of Taxpayer Dollars.

That's always your response though. Rather than defend the President on the merits of....oh. wait. Mr Spendy preaching how to not spend money and reduce debt..... nevermind. Resume trying to shift this to a Republican bash.

And FWIW, the Republicans did only a slightly less abysmal job of being prudent with Taxpayer money.

You may find the title ironic, but it IS accurate: "Obama creates bipartisan fiscal commission on national debt." That is exactly what is happening. Are you disputing that?

If the Republicans had voted FOR their own bill instead of blocking it, the title would have been: "Republicans and Democrats vote together to create bipartisan fiscal commission on national debt."

But they voted against their own bill, so you get TWO titles: "Republicans block bipartisan fiscal commission on national debt." And "Obama creates bipartisan fiscal commission on national debt."

 

[Kerberos]

But even that is really a specious move on the part of the Administration. It's like you or me maxxing out our credit cards and then telling our wives it's time to quit buying on credit.

Certainly, reducing spending is EXACTLY what the Administration and Congress need to do. But on the same token, they shouldn't be hailed as heroes for being prudent with Taxpayer money after $4 trillion of binge spending. I'm still trying to figure out exactly HOW this President thinks he can reduce the Debt when prior to him taking Office we were already spending 25% of the annual Federal Budget just paying the interest on that Debt.

Exactly! They raised the bar way high, then lower it slightly from the record high and call it a spending cut.

 

[Kerberos]

Lets see here:

Government jobs have grown by nearly 2 million
Government salaries have grown by nearly 30% in the last 5 years
Average government salary is 46% greater than avg private sector salary
Continual bail outs
Pork spending on stuff such as tunnels for turtels
The non-stop White house parties that are costing taxpayers millions
Cap n Trade
Military spending
Farm subsidies
Acorn subsidies
FIXING medicare and eliminating the corruption

And many, MANY others that could be listed!

But I can't live without the tunnels for turtles!

 

[dragon04]

But they voted against their own bill, so you get TWO titles: "Republicans block bipartisan fiscal commission on national debt." And "Obama creates bipartisan fiscal commission on national debt."

And what led them to vote against it, MC? Without knowing THAT, we can't have further informed discourse on the subject.

Certainly you'd agree that it defies all logic to offer up a Bill and then vote against it for no apparent reason?

Just to be clear, because apparently I wasn't clear enough in prior posts, I'm not defending the Republicans because during the Bush Administration, they did only a slightlybetter job of not screwing the pooch in terms of spending Taxpayer dollars.

 

[dragon04]

Exactly! They raised the bar way high, then lower it slightly from the record high and call it a spending cut.

Whew. Good to know at least SOMEONE around here "gets it". Now. Any ideas on how to swing about 150 Million more people to understanding this most simple of principles?

 

[MasterComposter]

Then, just...cut spending. It's not politically risky, the mood of the public is to lower deficits. So, just stop spending so much.

I'm sure you know this is actually not true. It is NOT a politically safe thing to do, and that is why it needs to be bipartisan. In addition, not everyne agrees with your simple prescription, which is another reason it needs to be bipartisan.

But let's assume it is as simple as just cutting. If either party singlehandedly proposed that to cut the deficits what we need to do is cut Social Security $300 billion a year, cut Medicare $300 billion a year, and cut defense $300 billion a year, the other party would slaughter them with that. Same thing would happen if either party proposed we need to raise taxes a trillion a year. The truth is no sinlge party can stick its neck out on either side of the equation without the other party doing likewise. The solution is probably a compromise between spending cuts and tax increases, and that needs to be done in a bipartisan way.

 

[MasterComposter]

But they voted against their own bill, so you get TWO titles: "Republicans block bipartisan fiscal commission on national debt." And "Obama creates bipartisan fiscal commission on national debt."

And what led them to vote against it, MC? Without knowing THAT, we can't have further informed discourse on the subject.

Certainly you'd agree that it defies all logic to offer up a Bill and then vote against it for no apparent reason?

I abslolutely DO agree that it defies all logic to offer up a Bill and then vote against it for no apparent reason!

I started a thread that dealt with that issue specifically, and my conclusion was that it was purely out of political spite and obstructionism. But I also asked the same question you did: if it wasn't spite and politics, then what led them to vote against it? In my opinion no one ever offered another realistic explanation. If you can offer one, then please do, either in that thread or this one.

Here is the other thread:

viewtopic.php?f=43&t=22581

 

[dragon04]

Once again...




If you don't agree with Obama's spending - please list what elements you don't agree with:


Cut spending in half. Tell me which taxes you will raise and which services you will cut.




Put your money where your mouth is.

The United States spends as much on Defense as the next 13 industrialized nations combined. I can find $300 billion there. I also bet I can find another $300 Billion in streamlining, eliminating and privatizing all other Federally funded programs.

We also could drastically reduce or eliminate all entitlement programs in a generation including Welfare, Social Security and Medicare.

 

[ZenGalacticore]

Clinton raised the presidential salary prior to leaving office, did he not? I wonder why Bush didn't revoke his
raise and set a cap on government raises. :?

Only Congress can raise the presidential salary. Congress can and does, however, raise its own salaries.

 

[ZenGalacticore]

Then, just...cut spending. It's not politically risky, the mood of the public is to lower deficits. So, just stop spending so much.

I'm sure you know this is actually not true. It is NOT a politically safe thing to do, and that is why it needs to be bipartisan. In addition, not everyne agrees with your simple prescription, which is another reason it needs to be bipartisan.

But let's assume it is as simple as just cutting. If either party singlehandedly proposed that to cut the deficits what we need to do is cut Social Security $300 billion a year, cut Medicare $300 billion a year, and cut defense $300 billion a year, the other party would slaughter them with that. Same thing would happen if either party proposed we need to raise taxes a trillion a year. The truth is no sinlge party can stick its neck out on either side of the equation without the other party doing likewise. The solution is probably a compromise between spending cuts and tax increases, and that needs to be done in a bipartisan way.

An informed voice of reason. How very true.

People will say, "Cut this and cut that. But don't subtract from MY piece of the pie!"

 

[dragon04]

People will say, "Cut this and cut that. But don't subtract from MY piece of the pie!"

And that is precisely the failed logic of our Government and political system.

 

[MannyPim]

Then, just...cut spending. It's not politically risky, the mood of the public is to lower deficits. So, just stop spending so much.

I'm sure you know this is actually not true. It is NOT a politically safe thing to do, and that is why it needs to be bipartisan. In addition, not everyne agrees with your simple prescription, which is another reason it needs to be bipartisan.

But let's assume it is as simple as just cutting. If either party singlehandedly proposed that to cut the deficits what we need to do is cut Social Security $300 billion a year, cut Medicare $300 billion a year, and cut defense $300 billion a year, the other party would slaughter them with that. Same thing would happen if either party proposed we need to raise taxes a trillion a year. The truth is no sinlge party can stick its neck out on either side of the equation without the other party doing likewise. The solution is probably a compromise between spending cuts and tax increases, and that needs to be done in a bipartisan way.

An informed voice of reason. How very true.

People will say, "Cut this and cut that. But don't subtract from MY piece of the pie!"

Here is the thing: If the Federal Government wasn't in the pie business at all (which means it would always stay within its proper Constitutional role) , not only would it cost no more than 20% or 30% of what it actually costs us now to run it, but there wouldn't be any pie to fight over.

So the only real and long term, sustainable solution is to get the government OUT of the pie business.
It can;t be done all at once. There are many people around (like you and I) who were FORCED to buy a piece of the pie and who were PROMISED that we would eventually get our piece. Past commitments must be honored. However, the new generations coming up MUST be given the choice to OPT OUT so that we can wean people away from the government and teach them to stand on their own.... (it's called individual responsibility and all that stuff...)

 

[MasterComposter]

The United States spends as much on Defense as the next 13 industrialized nations combined. I can find $300 billion there. I also bet I can find another $300 Billion in streamlining, eliminating and privatizing all other Federally funded programs.

We also could drastically reduce or eliminate all entitlement programs in a generation including Welfare, Social Security and Medicare.

This may or may not be a reasonable suggestion, but if either party single-handedly offerred this solution here is how it would be recieved by they other:

THEY want to cut funding for our troops!
THEY want to balance the budget on the backs of our poor, elderly and sick!
No party can propose these kinds of ideas withotu the support of the other party --- that's why a bipartisan apporach that looks at the whole budget is necessary.

BTW, if the president or any other politician suggested we could save $300 billion by simply "streamlining, eliminating and privatizing" he would be universally mocked. That is not in any way specific and is basically a throwaway soundbite that sounds great but has no value.
What specifically is invloved with "streamlining?"
What specifically gets "eliminated?"
What specifically gets "privatized?"
How much does each specific proposal save?

The commission is tasked with coming up with real SPECIFIC recommendations, not vague soundbites. If you are going to mock it, then come up with something specific, and demonstrate how it is going to be achieved politically.

 

[ZenGalacticore]

People will say, "Cut this and cut that. But don't subtract from MY piece of the pie!"

And that is precisely the failed logic of our Government and political system.

Yeah, but no one's thought of a better one, TMK. But I'll agree that our current way of doing things seems to be a perversion of the system's intended functions and processes.

Cutting spending and raising taxes has always been a political conundrum, as exemplified by the common quote above. It's no wonder people often times are willing to consider such things as national socialism under dictatorial directive for the sake of getting things done, at the expense of their freedom and liberties.

Our system is the best of all the worst, but we can't force the people or government to do anything it doesn't really want to do.

 

[MasterComposter]

People will say, "Cut this and cut that. But don't subtract from MY piece of the pie!"

And that is precisely the failed logic of our Government and political system.

And that is precisely why the original bill that would have created a bipartisan commission with the force of law would have been valuable. Then members of both parties could have sat down and reasonably said, "Look we each need to loses a bite of the pie, and in addition we each need to take a bite of turd sandwich. Lets figure out how to do it together, and then bring it to the rest of congress for a vote."

 

[ZenGalacticore]

Here is the thing: If the Federal Government wasn't in the pie business at all (which means it would always stay within its proper Constitutional role) , not only would it cost no more than 20% or 30% of what it actually costs us now to run it, but there wouldn't be any pie to fight over.

So the only real and long term, sustainable solution is to get the government OUT of the pie business...)

Within its proper Constitutional role, the Congress IS in the pie business. The military-industrial complex is a FINE example. If you try to take away $300 billion from the $700 billion dollar allocated budget for the military in 2010, the Air Force will say, "Yeah. Do it. Cut the Navy. But not the F-22. Don't take from our pie."

And the Army, Navy, and Marines will say the same thing.

 

[Kerberos]

I'm sure you know this is actually not true. It is NOT a politically safe thing to do, and that is why it needs to be bipartisan. In addition, not everyne agrees with your simple prescription, which is another reason it needs to be bipartisan.

But let's assume it is as simple as just cutting. If either party singlehandedly proposed that to cut the deficits what we need to do is cut Social Security $300 billion a year, cut Medicare $300 billion a year, and cut defense $300 billion a year, the other party would slaughter them with that. Same thing would happen if either party proposed we need to raise taxes a trillion a year. The truth is no sinlge party can stick its neck out on either side of the equation without the other party doing likewise. The solution is probably a compromise between spending cuts and tax increases, and that needs to be done in a bipartisan way.

Political self-preservation is a pretty pitiful excuse for recklessly spending billions and running up huge debts.

I agree with you that we have a big problem and it's going to take many years to deal with, that's just the nature of the disaster we've created these last couple of years. But the easy part is to stop making it worse. It's no secret that the first step to getting out of debt is to stop digging the hole deeper. There's still a lot of money from the failed stimulus package not yet spent that could be canceled and saved. And the Administration and Congress are talking about spending billions more in another package. What's the point of calling for a commission to study ways to cut the deficit when the people calling for it can't even stop spending more money?

 

[phaze]

No. It's not stupid.

What IS stupid, is to toss out throwaway lines indicating that Obama's spending is somehow unrelated to previous policies....

Evalute what he is spending the money. Bring out actual numbers.

Man up.

Evalute his spending and tell us what is a waste. What doesn't return value for the $. If things are so outrageous, you should be able to knock 30... 40... 50% off of his budget with little to no consequence.

I bet you won't.

Let me just start with one! Capping government raises (estimated increase for 2010 of 2.9%) could save a mere 5 billion dollars. Reducing salaries down to market standards could save the government another 100 billion annually.

OK. Let's assume all of that is true and I won't even argue the merits of your figures.

Since I bet the vast majority of that $100 billion is going to non-wealthy people... you've just taken $5 or $100 billion of very volatile cash out of our economy. How many small businesses did you just put out of business? How much of that money was coming back to the US government in tax revenue anyway?

 

[Kerberos]

Since I bet the vast majority of that $100 billion is going to non-wealthy people... you've just taken $5 or $100 billion of very volatile cash out of our economy. How many small businesses did you just put out of business?

None. I'm not suggesting that federal workers should take a paycut, that's a different argument, but the idea that paying them less is bad for small business is about on a level with the old argument that spending billions on a war is good for business because it employs workers. What both fail to take into account is what could have been done with the money if it had not been spent on over-paying workers or paying for weapons, for example, tax cuts for small businesses.

 

[phaze]

I'm sure you know this is actually not true. It is NOT a politically safe thing to do, and that is why it needs to be bipartisan. In addition, not everyne agrees with your simple prescription, which is another reason it needs to be bipartisan.

But let's assume it is as simple as just cutting. If either party singlehandedly proposed that to cut the deficits what we need to do is cut Social Security $300 billion a year, cut Medicare $300 billion a year, and cut defense $300 billion a year, the other party would slaughter them with that. Same thing would happen if either party proposed we need to raise taxes a trillion a year. The truth is no sinlge party can stick its neck out on either side of the equation without the other party doing likewise. The solution is probably a compromise between spending cuts and tax increases, and that needs to be done in a bipartisan way.

Political self-preservation is a pretty pitiful excuse for recklessly spending billions and running up huge debts.

I agree with you that we have a big problem and it's going to take many years to deal with, that's just the nature of the disaster we've created these last couple of years. But the easy part is to stop making it worse. It's no secret that the first step to getting out of debt is to stop digging the hole deeper. There's still a lot of money from the failed stimulus package not yet spent that could be canceled and saved. And the Administration and Congress are talking about spending billions more in another package. What's the point of calling for a commission to study ways to cut the deficit when the people calling for it can't even stop spending more money?

Sure.

I've been hoping one of you would do what I asked... actually cut the budget.

We could do it tomorrow. I could do it in 5 minutes. With a reasonable computer simulation - it wouldn't be too hard to figure out how to get this country back to running budget surpluses... even in these tough times.

BUT AT WHAT COST? This is what I wanted you to own.

We can do it... and in a short-time the USA may look like southern Slovakia... but at least our debt ratio will improve (yay!). That debt has a huge impact on what makes this nation the safe, modern, judicious, and generally pleasant place.

 

[Kerberos]

Interesting. I was unaware that only huge deficit spending had prevented the US from becoming a third world country.