View original post
With no significant change to the tax code, federal receipts have completely recovered from the recession, but the spending levels have remained elevated by the 700 billion "one time" stimulus spending. Put a stop to that gravy train of pork and 3/4th of the budget problems vanish immediately.
With no significant change to the tax code, federal receipts have completely recovered from the recession, but the spending levels have remained elevated by the 700 billion "one time" stimulus spending. Put a stop to that gravy train of pork and 3/4th of the budget problems vanish immediately.
Federal receipts in 2012 are at the same dollar amount they were prior to the recession (2008 ) .
Federal receipts are not at the same percent of gdp they were prior to the recession.
Federal expenses are also higher for we are at 8% percent unemployment (and a discouraged worker base) instead of a 4 to 5% percent unemployment.
Linked below is a chart from the fed showing government federal revenue as percent of gdp of the last 65 years as well as the years and length of recessions.
Once that is done I am very willing to look at revenue increases (preferably by eliminating deductions, expanding the tax base, and lowering rates so that EVERYONE feels the pinch) in conjunction with additional spending cuts. However, until at least some semblance of financial sanity appears in DC, I am against giving them one single additional penny to play with.
This is why a theory a grand bargain or a collection of smaller bargains over an extended period of time would work. No spending cuts unless you get tax increases (or broadening the tax base, eliminate loopholes, deductions, etc); same thing in reverse no tax increases unless you get spending cuts.
It is in theory how Washington is supposed to work, neither party is going away so the only way to get something is for both sides to win or both sides to lose. Problem is due to the threat of primary challenge is more politically feasible to "lose" for it doesn't matter how much your team lose just as long as you made sure you stick it in the other team.
As for Social Security and Medicare, they should (again) be completely removed form the federal budget calculations and handled as a completely separate self-sufficient fund. They spend their money, and nobody else's, and nobody can touch theirs under the requirement that they must show a projected 20 year solvency (no more "scare the grannies" as an election tool), Congress should have oversight, but not direct control.
While social security and medicare are self sufficient currently, they won't be in the near future due to the baby boomers bump.
President Obama and Defense Secretary Hagel take pay cuts to lessen impact of sequester
- 03/04/2013 09:47:45 PM
723 Views
Well, it's more of a CYA-against-bad-press symbolic gesture than an impressive one.
- 03/04/2013 10:15:40 PM
613 Views
considering that nobody in Congress is losing pay or their job, it's a good precedent IMHO
- 03/04/2013 10:43:45 PM
466 Views
I don't care about any quantities under a million
- 04/04/2013 03:40:25 AM
490 Views
the president can't pass a budget you know.... 
- 04/04/2013 04:45:38 AM
502 Views
- 04/04/2013 04:45:38 AM
502 Views
No, but he is required by law to submit one, and he has not.
- 05/04/2013 06:10:24 PM
525 Views
good job getting your analysis from right wing media and pushing the lies they tell you
- 05/04/2013 07:04:05 PM
651 Views
good job on displaying more of your ignorance or willful blindness
- 06/04/2013 03:34:27 PM
511 Views
They need to cut hundreds of billions, not millions; and not over a fake 10 year period either. *NM*
- 05/04/2013 06:13:37 PM
249 Views
yes, because everyone knows the way out of recession is to prevent job creation 
*NM*
- 05/04/2013 07:04:49 PM
260 Views
*NM*
- 05/04/2013 07:04:49 PM
260 Views
Federal spending can not create real, sustainable, job growth. *NM*
- 06/04/2013 03:39:52 PM
287 Views
it doesn't have to, that's why they call it "stimulus" *NM*
- 06/04/2013 04:08:04 PM
275 Views
Yeah, and I can call your mama, your daddy, but it don't change who they are. *NM*
- 07/04/2013 01:15:05 AM
258 Views
Yes we need to cut hundreds of billions of dollars
- 06/04/2013 03:17:01 AM
484 Views
Not really
- 06/04/2013 03:54:56 PM
485 Views
as long as debt and/or deficit is less than GDP they are manageable
- 06/04/2013 04:30:42 PM
616 Views
Re: Not really
- 07/04/2013 03:29:59 AM
766 Views
You do know why we use 10 year time periods with cbo numbers right? *NM*
- 06/04/2013 03:17:41 AM
267 Views
Yeah, so they can claim a dime of imaginary savings is a dollar. *NM*
- 06/04/2013 03:37:39 PM
246 Views
No anything past 10 years in projections are a joke.
- 07/04/2013 03:02:32 AM
545 Views
Anything past 1 year is a joke/lie becuase the next Congrees will do what it wants regardless. *NM*
- 07/04/2013 03:08:39 PM
278 Views
Ya know, semi-tangent but I just had an amusing notion about elected official pay
- 10/04/2013 07:12:56 PM
552 Views
it would require a constitutional amendment, but i think we could get it to pass.... *NM*
- 10/04/2013 11:24:26 PM
265 Views