[Big Mac]

And I tell you that as surely as water is wet, you priorities are wacky. Europe isn't in a crisis that's dragging the whole world economy down because their governments spent too little on "investments." Europe followed exactly your priorities model, besson. All sorts of lavish free services, overabundance of cushy government jobs, stifling of the free market sector. They should rename Greece to besson3c because if you ran a country it would undoubtedly look like Greece.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

And I tell you that as surely as water is wet, you priorities are wacky. Europe isn't in a crisis that's dragging the whole world economy down because their governments spent too little on "investments." Europe followed exactly your priorities model, besson. All sorts of lavish free services, overabundance of cushy government jobs, stifling of the free market sector. They should rename Greece to besson3c because if you ran a country it would undoubtedly look like Greece.

You're making a lot of assumptions about my priorities.

I think you are just being reactionary and pigeonholing me as your evil liberal boogeyman you love to use as fuel for your fires of erotic political Big Mac passion.

[Big Mac]

I am merely explaining the consequences of your stated positions. Nothing more. I think you're a very well meaning, smart guy, but I also know that you're ignorant in this sphere and have a child-like belief that more and more government is the solution to every problem man faces. You must rate the current president very highly because you seem to agree with him completely, at least on these matters. Heck, you could probably run his campaign.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

That's such an ignorant claim. Tax cuts have repeatedly demonstrated their worth throughout history as facilitators of higher economic growth and higher government tax revenue. Another thing that mentally challenged lefties don't understand is that the Bush tax cuts were highly successful, resulting in very low unemployment, strong growth and even a higher level of tax revenue collection than other recent presidents, including your beloved Clinton (who, btw, would have had large deficits himself if he had not been dragged kicking and screaming by Newt to balanced budgets and thus receives a portion of unmerited praise).

I think it was Uncle Skeleton, but I may be wrong, who wrote a while back that history will judge President W. much more favorably than everyone else has. I'm beginning to think that may be true.

Show me.

[turtle777]

Unfortunately, besson exemplifies what's wrong with the Western World. Their idiology and dreams of what *should* be are completely clouding any perception of reality.

Reality is a bitch. And so is mathematics. The Western World's financial problems are mathematically already impossible to solve. Math doesn't give a rat's ass if we think we should have student loans funded by the government or not. Math doesn't give a f*ck about the constitution either. The debt load is bound to crush and collapse us.

It's pretty clear why reducing debt to avoid the inevitable is never going to happen: because most people completely fail to recognize that the debt is a severe problem. You won't fix what you don't think is broken.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I am merely explaining the consequences of your stated positions. Nothing more. I think you're a very well meaning, smart guy, but I also know that you're ignorant in this sphere and have a child-like belief that more and more government is the solution to every problem man faces. You must rate the current president very highly because you seem to agree with him completely, at least on these matters. Heck, you could probably run his campaign.

What are my stated positions?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Unfortunately, besson exemplifies what's wrong with the Western World. Their idiology and dreams of what *should* be are completely clouding any perception of reality.

Reality is a bitch. And so is mathematics. The Western World's financial problems are mathematically already impossible to solve. Math doesn't give a rat's ass if we think we should have student loans funded by the government or not. Math doesn't give a f*ck about the constitution either. The debt load is bound to crush and collapse us.

It's pretty clear why reducing debt to avoid the inevitable is never going to happen: because most people completely fail to recognize that the debt is a severe problem. You won't fix what you don't think is broken.

-t

Realizing that the debt is a severe problem is absolutely the first step to fixing the problem, but the second step is agreeing upon what should make the first round of cuts, and again, since my point still hasn't been recognized, this involves assessing the value of the programs we have so that we can determine what should be in this list.

I'm waiting for somebody to acknowledge this point, which is really the crux of what I've been trying to say for several posts and threads now.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

but the second step is agreeing upon what should make the first round of cuts, and again, since my point still hasn't been recognized, this involves assessing the value of the programs we have so that we can determine what should be in this list.

This is a pipe dream. NOTHING in the realm of government is doen based on merits and value alone.
All decisions about money spending are highly influenced by personal interestes and crony relationships.
Therefore, any approach to determine cuts will be torpedoed and vetoed to no end. It's absolutely futile, as the discussions about the debt limit last year showed.

The only "practical" solution to achieve budget cuts is a wholesale cut of EVERYTHING by 50%.
This won't happen.

That's why I said: the markets and math will decide out fate, because the clowns in Washington will NEVER do what's right.
And yes, this will mean that good programs get cut too much, and bad programs not cut enough. You can thank the clown car brigade in DC for that.

-t

[The Final Shortcut]

What's most interesting about this thread is that it symbolizes in a nutshell what is actually happening in your country:

One group is saying "let's make severe cuts to everything, no if ands or buts!"...

...the other group is saying "hey wait a minute we don't need to cut everything, so let's all do nothing until we sit down and fully discuss and talk about it and maybe make a few committees and perhaps come to an agreeable solution"...

...and in the meantime, while all that squabbling is going on and no solution is being reached, nothing at all is being done and the problem gets larger and larger.

Your country needs someone who will actually do something, which means make tough choices. It doesn't look too promising for you from where I'm sitting, though.

[turtle777]

Exactly right. It's pretty clear that in the current political environment, nothing will be done.
Btw, this is not only symptomatic for the US, the EU is in a similar boat.

-t

[The Final Shortcut]

Again, isn't that limited to countries within the EU, though? Some of those countries have taken specific steps to address identified debt problems.

Canada has recently committed to a whole raft of spendthrift measures. They aren't necessarily popular, but they're still government spending cuts, popularity be damned.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut 

What's most interesting about this thread is that it symbolizes in a nutshell what is actually happening in your country:

One group is saying "let's make severe cuts to everything, no if ands or buts!"...

...the other group is saying "hey wait a minute we don't need to cut everything, so let's all do nothing until we sit down and fully discuss and talk about it and maybe make a few committees and perhaps come to an agreeable solution"...

...and in the meantime, while all that squabbling is going on and no solution is being reached, nothing at all is being done and the problem gets larger and larger.

Your country needs someone who will actually do something, which means make tough choices. It doesn't look too promising for you from where I'm sitting, though.

Exactly right!

And to Turtle, I agree that value is not often/usually/always the deciding factor with this stuff, but this too also needs to start happening in order to reduce the deficit, although I'm not at all hopeful that it will. Otherwise, it will just be about siphoning money from one area to another without it actually being removed altogether. No non-constructive political interest is interested in having their money taken away.

There are probably some politicians that are interested in being constructive, but also some that can't get themselves elected because they do not pass ideological litmus tests, do not have the money, or both.

All of this needs changing.

This is why I've been saying that it doesn't matter who is elected in 2012, it really doesn't, because until all of this changes the net change will be relatively inconsequential in relation to what is actually needed.

[Big Mac]

Ummmm, besson, do you realize that The Final Shortcut was largely bashing your position?

the other group is saying "hey wait a minute we don't need to cut everything, so let's all do nothing until we sit down and fully discuss and talk about it and maybe make a few committees and perhaps come to an agreeable solution"...

He's referring to you, besson. And that's another symptom of your problem. You think you're non-partisan, but you're one of the most partisan participants in this thread. You're like Barack Obama in that regard as well because he has the same disorder.

Hey besson, name one area of government spending and tell me how much you would cut it by, approximately. Is there one example you can give me like that?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Ummmm, besson, do you realize that The Final Shortcut was largely bashing your position?

He's referring to you, besson.

Not really. I've never said that we should committee everything to death to this extent, I've just said that the amount of discussion about value shouldn't be zero.

If he's bashing my position, he's also bashing yours.

[The Final Shortcut]

Absolutely.

Someone just needs to start making reasonable cuts, period. The beauty of cutting things that already exist is that you can reinstate them if it turns out to be a bad idea. For now, it's the cutting that counts, but it has to be in a reasonable manner.

[Big Mac]

I bet besson can't propose a single reasonable cut. And Shortcut isn't bashing my position because I'm not taking an absolutist position in this argument. Do you want to see what my argument would be if I were an absolutist and made no compromises?

[besson3c]

Haven't you already stated that everything that is not explicitly in the Constitution would be cut? Is this an accurate paraphrase?

Cut out the baiting me too, it's unnecessary. Keep your emotions in check.

[besson3c]

Shortcut: I envy your ability to come up with pithy yet poignant arguments, I suck at the pithy part, I'm way too wordy.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Haven't you already stated that everything that is not explicitly in the Constitution would be cut? Is this an accurate paraphrase?

Of my absolutist position. That's not what I'm advocating as an immediate response.

So what would you cut, besson?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut 

Again, isn't that limited to countries within the EU, though? Some of those countries have taken specific steps to address identified debt problems.

Canada has recently committed to a whole raft of spendthrift measures. They aren't necessarily popular, but they're still government spending cuts, popularity be damned.

Except Harper has also introduced Tax cuts along with it slowing progress. And is spending billions on prisons, war on drugs while at the same time cutting the coast guard and important services. It is all smoke and mirrors, everything Harper is doing is out of the Bush Jr play book. Going to wreak the country while he cashes in.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I bet besson can't propose a single reasonable cut. And Shortcut isn't bashing my position because I'm not taking an absolutist position in this argument. Do you want to see what my argument would be if I were an absolutist and made no compromises?

I can, cut every single program related to welfare services out of the picture. The food stamp program, housing programs, training programs, education programs, Sports programs, transportation programs, child care programs. And just give recipients double or triple what they get now as a living wage. Let them source out what they need with money in there pocket with out any bureaucratic restrictions. They will get more bang for each buck out of it and will feel empowered and in control which will lead to success. Save a ton of wasted money to all the organizations that feed off the system

Second Cut, dump medicare and medicad and VA Health Care. Close down all Medicare and VA hospitals, agencies, support services and source out medical through the private sector allowing private companies to bid for coverage of medicare and medicad and VA recipients with special contractual requirements that prevent ineligibility.

Third Cut, reduce the armed forces by 250 000 personal

Raise contribution requirements for Social Security, reduce pay outs of social security, increase retirement age.

Hows that to a start?

[The Final Shortcut]

deleted

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Of my absolutist position. That's not what I'm advocating as an immediate response.

I thought you said you're not taking an absolutist position? I'm not trying to fuel your erotic fires, I'm just honestly confused at this point where you're at.

So what would you cut, besson?

Tell me what my position is first. I'm tired of invoking your reactionary responses based on whatever liberal boogeyman pissed on your corn flakes, if we are to have this conversation I'm not interested in starting from a place of complete mutual misunderstanding.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Athens 

I can, cut every single program related to welfare services out of the picture. The food stamp program, housing programs, training programs, education programs, Sports programs, transportation programs, child care programs. And just give recipients double or triple what they get now as a living wage.

So increase the minimum wage? The problem is, this could potentially kill the very jobs that your plan would be dependent upon existing.

Second Cut, dump medicare and medicad and VA Health Care. Close down all Medicare and VA hospitals, agencies, support services and source out medical through the private sector allowing private companies to bid for coverage of medicare and medicad and VA recipients with special contractual requirements that prevent ineligibility.

Why would a private company want to cater to people with no money to pay for stuff at razor thin margins at the scale that would be needed to deliver medical services to the entire population of people currently eligible for these services?

Sorry, don't like this idea either.

Third Cut, reduce the armed forces by 250 000 personal

Where did this number come from? Just wondering...

[Athens]

Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut 

Unfortunately for you, no one takes seriously the political opinion of someone who either
a) cannot spell "wreck", or
b) cannot properly use "wreak" in a sentence.

C'est la vie, bud.

Fortunately for me most if not every one knows I'm dyslexic and ignore those little mistakes. Thank you.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Not really. I've never said that we should committee everything to death to this extent, I've just said that the amount of discussion about value shouldn't be zero.

But Big Mac just tried to raise the question of value, by asking which programs you thought had the least value and therefore be first in line to be cut. And you shot him down. So it's hard to accept that you're really open to the idea of raising the discussion about value above zero, when you reject someone who tries to do exactly that.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I think it was Uncle Skeleton, but I may be wrong, who wrote a while back that history will judge President W. much more favorably than everyone else has. I'm beginning to think that may be true.

I don't think that was me, but I would be interested to read what was said (I don't remember reading that before)

[Athens]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So increase the minimum wage? The problem is, this could potentially kill the very jobs that your plan would be dependent upon existing.

Where did minimum wage come into this? I'm talking about welfare recipients

Why would a private company want to cater to people with no money to pay for stuff at razor thin margins at the scale that would be needed to deliver medical services to the entire population of people currently eligible for these services?

Doesn't matter how much money these people have. Medicare is still footing the bill for the policy. Would be no different then a group policy of a work place except the one paying for the policy is medicare vs medicare trying to run its own insurance and service system.

Where did this number come from? Just wondering...

My Head.... With 1.5 million Active personnel it could easily lose 250 000 making for a large saving. If the average yearly wage of some one in the military is 35k (I really have no idea how much is paid out to military personal, and support staff) 250 000 personal reduction would be 8,750,000,000. Even if it represents a small sliver of the total defense spending, that's still more money to go pay off the debt.

Why haven't you offered any, Bigmac has asked you to?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

But Big Mac just tried to raise the question of value, by asking which programs you thought had the least value and therefore be first in line to be cut. And you shot him down. So it's hard to accept that you're really open to the idea of raising the discussion about value above zero, when you reject someone who tries to do exactly that.

If most anybody asked I would have answered the question. I just felt like it would have been counter productive to engage him in this particular conversation at this time for the reasons I've already stated.

[besson3c]

Fine, some of my thoughts on cuts... In no particular order, and with no specific details at this time:

- Military. I just don't see the upside to having a military as massive as we do in today's world of small terrorist cells, even if we didn't have debt issues. Naive? Maybe...

- Proper health care reform, you probably know by now how I feel about what we have now. What we have now is flat-out out of control though.

- Electronic health care records. My wife had to make an emergency visit to the eye doctor just a few days ago while in a different state, I can't begin to describe how woefully inefficient and needlessly expensive this process was for all involved.

- I don't really see as much of a need for the post office, although I recognize the problem of cutting all of these jobs

- Social security reform so that it is sustainable, or replaced by something that is whether in the private or public sector

- I'm not convinced that federal involvement in public education has really made a positive impact, so I'd probably be okay with cutting this unless I can be convinced otherwise

- Don't understand why we subsidize corn unless it is for ethanol, potential cut here

- Financial sector reform so that we never have to bail out a major financial institution again, idealistically

- As much as I really like the premise of NPR and PBS, I'm sure they can be transitioned to being lower cost websites

[Big Mac]

Okay. Thank you for that besson. I think you've made some solid progress there.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

- I don't really see as much of a need for the post office, although I recognize the problem of cutting all of these jobs

FYI ...

The Postal Service has absolutely ZERO impact of the national debt as it is in no shape, form, or fashion financed by taxpayer dollars. With that being said, carry on ...

OAW

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Okay. Thank you for that besson. I think you've made some solid progress there.

So what are my positions on reducing the deficit?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by OAW 

FYI ...

The Postal Service has absolutely ZERO impact of the national debt as it is in no shape, form, or fashion financed by taxpayer dollars. With that being said, carry on ...

OAW

Fair enough!

[Athens]

My larger list, cherry picked from the web what would amount to 900 Billion a year in savings and a increase of revenue to not only flat line the deficit but to tackle the debt itself.

End subsidies for energy efficiency
End subsidies for vehicle technologies
End the technology loan program
End electricity research subsidies
End fossil energy research
Increase Medicare premiums
Cut non-Medicaid state/local grants
Cut Medicare payment error rate by 50%
Increase Medicare deductibles
End public housing subsidies
End housing finance and all other programs
End rental assistance
End community development subsidies
Department of Justice End state and local grants
End employment and training services
End Job Corps
End trade adjustment assistance
End farm subsidies
Cut food subsidies
End rural subsidies
End telecom subsidies
End economic development subsidies
End K-12 education subsidies
End student aid and all other programs
Social Security, Price index initial benefits
Raise the normal retirement age
End urban transit grants (federal fund savings)
Cut earned income tax credit by 50%
End refundable part of child tax credit
Cut federal civilian compensation costs
Cut foreign development aid by 50%
Cut NASA spending by 50%
End EPA state and local grants
End foreign military financing
End subsidies for the Corp. for Nat. Comm. Srv.
End subsidies to the Corp. for Public Broadcasting
End the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corp.
Cut the Bush tax cuts
Increase Taxes slightly
Tax fuel more
Cut the Pentagon's civilian workforce
Reform military compensation
Reform maintenance and supply systems
Cut military construction and housing
Reform command, support, and infrastructure
Reduce intelligence spending
Reduce the nuclear weapons arsenal
Reduce the size of the Army
Reduce the size of the Marine Corps
Reduce Marine Corps expeditionary strike groups
Build/operate fewer aircraft carriers and naval aircraft
Build/operate fewer tactical submarines
Build/operate fewer destroyers
Terminate the Littoral Combat Ship
Build/operate fewer Air Force fighters
Realign the missile defense program

and the negative income tax
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax

A negative income tax is intended to create a single system that would not only pay for government, but would also fulfill the social goal of making sure that there was a minimum level of income for all. It is theorized that, with an NIT, the need for minimum wage, food stamps, welfare, social security programs and other government assistance programs could be eliminated, thus reducing the administrative effort and cost to a fraction of what it is under the current system, as well as eliminating the perverse incentives created by these overlapping aid programs, e.g. when a minimum wage worker who earns a little more nets out with less income because he is newly ineligible for aid. The worker is stuck in a welfare trap and has no incentive to seek higher wages.

[hyteckit]

Bush tax cut works.

2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.

June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Your graph ends about 6T short of where we are today.

Yes, from the bailouts, the millions of job lost, and the extension of Bush tax cuts. Another graph below showing how the moronic Reagan policies cause the national debt to skyrocketed after 1981 and then again after Bush tax cuts.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Fine, some of my thoughts on cuts... In no particular order, and with no specific details at this time:

- Military. I just don't see the upside to having a military as massive as we do in today's world of small terrorist cells, even if we didn't have debt issues. Naive? Maybe...

- Proper health care reform, you probably know by now how I feel about what we have now. What we have now is flat-out out of control though.

- Electronic health care records. My wife had to make an emergency visit to the eye doctor just a few days ago while in a different state, I can't begin to describe how woefully inefficient and needlessly expensive this process was for all involved.

- I don't really see as much of a need for the post office, although I recognize the problem of cutting all of these jobs

- Social security reform so that it is sustainable, or replaced by something that is whether in the private or public sector

- I'm not convinced that federal involvement in public education has really made a positive impact, so I'd probably be okay with cutting this unless I can be convinced otherwise

- Don't understand why we subsidize corn unless it is for ethanol, potential cut here

- Financial sector reform so that we never have to bail out a major financial institution again, idealistically

- As much as I really like the premise of NPR and PBS, I'm sure they can be transitioned to being lower cost websites

Shockingly, I agree with all of these.

I'm pretty sure we would have different opinions on WHAT exactly to do with health care, social security and financial sector reform. But at least the targets are clear.

-t

[hyteckit]

Mitt Romney says big spending cuts would lead to a depression.

Romney Argues Big Spending Cuts Would Cause 'Depression,' Contrary To Tea Party Activists

See. Mitt Romney might not have a moral core, but at least he is not an idiot.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So what are my positions on reducing the deficit?

Big Mac?

[mduell]

Originally Posted by OAW 

The Postal Service has absolutely ZERO impact of the national debt as it is in no shape, form, or fashion financed by taxpayer dollars. With that being said, carry on ...

Except for the money they take every year for subsidized services.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Bush tax cut works.

2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.

June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed

What baseline scenario are you comparing this to? 5 million jobs created? 0 jobs created? 5 million jobs lost?
Could there have been any other contributing factors?

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Yes, from the bailouts, the millions of job lost, and the extension of Bush tax cuts. Another graph below showing how the moronic Reagan policies cause the national debt to skyrocketed after 1981 and then again after Bush tax cuts.

Wow, that's quite the upturn in the last couple years! The steepest slope on both graphs.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by mduell 

What baseline scenario are you comparing this to? 5 million jobs created? 0 jobs created? 5 million jobs lost?
Could there have been any other contributing factors?

What baseline?

Um... it's the number of Americans employed. What's so hard to understand?

There were 2.21 million less people employed 2 years after Bush tax cuts.

[hyteckit]

Not only does Reaganomics suck, Reagan was among the worst deficit spenders. Reagan increase spending way more than Pres. Obama.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Mitt Romney says big spending cuts would lead to a depression.

Romney Argues Big Spending Cuts Would Cause 'Depression,' Contrary To Tea Party Activists

See. Mitt Romney might not have a moral core, but at least he is not an idiot.

So, according to Romney, it wouldn't make a difference If the numbers presented by Big Mac made anyone reconsider anything about this election.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Do those numbers surprise? Do they make you reconsider anything about this election?

[The Final Shortcut]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Except Harper has also introduced Tax cuts along with it slowing progress. And is spending billions on prisons, war on drugs while at the same time cutting the coast guard and important services. It is all smoke and mirrors, everything Harper is doing is out of the Bush Jr play book. Going to wreak the country while he cashes in.

Originally Posted by Athens 

Fortunately for me most if not every one knows I'm dyslexic and ignore those little mistakes. So by all means STFU.

I didn't know about the dyslexia. Sorry for my comments and they have been removed.

I still disagree entirely with you on the rest. And a few weeks ago you were proclaiming Harper was "Bush Sr"; now it's "Bush Jr". It's pretty clear you have no rigorous comparison on hand, and are simply coming up with the easiest negative stereotype you can think of.

I certainly don't agree with all of Harper's policies, but I like the broad themes we are starting to see. That is all.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

What baseline?

Um... it's the number of Americans employed. What's so hard to understand?

There were 2.21 million less people employed 2 years after Bush tax cuts.

What's the point of your comment if you're not comparing to any baseline assumptions? Are you asserting any causation?

In other words... so?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by mduell 

What's the point of your comment if you're not comparing to any baseline assumptions? Are you asserting any causation?

In other words... so?

What don't you get?

2 years after Bush tax cuts, 2.21 million fewer people employed in the US?

Are you still making the argument that tax cuts work in creating jobs?

Tax cuts don't create jobs. Tax cuts creates huge deficits.

[hyteckit]

Another graph showing that federal spending increase has been the lowest in decades under Pres. Obama.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by mduell 

What's the point of your comment if you're not comparing to any baseline assumptions? Are you asserting any causation?

In other words... so?

Why are you even arguing with lowcheckit ? Just ignore that dud.

-t