US "Default" is Inevitable

[billvon 2,434]

>Here is a thought.
>Lets cut fraud and unessential paychecks.

Done! You've saved a few million and made . . . no difference at all.

[turtlespeed 212]

billvon

>Here is a thought.
>Lets cut fraud and unessential paychecks.

Done! You've saved a few million and made . . . no difference at all.

Along with those we should make things more efficient, and eliminate waste.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 2,434]

>Along with those we should make things more efficient, and eliminate waste.

Also done. Now you've saved a few more million. Just $1100 billion left to go.

[turtlespeed 212]

billvon

>Along with those we should make things more efficient, and eliminate waste.

Also done. Now you've saved a few more million. Just $1100 billion left to go.

Yes, yes, we should absolutely borrow more because any cuts we make are meaningless, right?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 2,434]

>Yes, yes, we should absolutely borrow more because any cuts we make are meaningless, right?

No. We should make real cuts. That means cutting things that ARE useful and valuable.

Or you can just borrow more and make a lot of meaningless feel-good cuts. Up to you.

[turtlespeed 212]

billvon

>Yes, yes, we should absolutely borrow more because any cuts we make are meaningless, right?

No. We should make real cuts. That means cutting things that ARE useful and valuable.

Or you can just borrow more and make a lot of meaningless feel-good cuts. Up to you.

Nope I'm good with making Govt Much MUCH smaller and less "Hand-out-ee"

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 2,434]

>Nope I'm good with making Govt Much MUCH smaller

OK, then we agree.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

I disagree about the IRS. The tax code is bloated. The IRS is in fact insufficiently staffed to be able to deal with it effectively which is why the estimate is some $300Billion lost to tax cheats.

The tax code needs to be simplified before the IRS is downsized.

Because the tax code is silly, the IRS is bloated. Just because it is the way it is because of x does not mean y is not true.

I agree BTW. The Tax laws are insane. It should be very simple. You pay "X%" of your income to taxes. No deductions after a basic deduction for poverty that everyone gets. You could twist my arm to allow for IRA's pretax. But that's about it.

So say poverty level is 15K. No one pays a dime till15K from their income and then X% is sent from their employer to Uncle Sam after that. 90% of people would not have to send in a tax return.

Business returns would be a bit more difficult, but getting rid of a majority of personal returns would make the IRS much smaller. Plus we would not have the IRS going after individuals as much either.

Quote

And other similar examples are Medicare and Social Security. The regulations are so arcane that almost no-one understands them and cottage industries have grown up to help people navigate the rules. Simplify the rules, then the bureaucracies can be downsized too

Agreed... this is the direction we should be trying to go.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

The idea that there is useless fat to cut is a pleasant one to consider, but we've been doing that for 200 years now, and there's no more fat to cut. You have to cut working programs that do good things for people and the US.

Nonsense, we have created more programs in the last 100 years than we have cut.

Social Security
EPA
Medicare
Medicaid


We have spent more on wars since WW2 than we spent on WW2

WW2 - 296B (Adjusted)
Iraq - 715B
Afghanistan - 297B

Claiming there is no fat to cut is just another way to defend your spending lifestyle. People who run up credit cards to live without cutting the cable bill and still eating out do that. (not saying you personally do that, but it is what happens).

We need to make spending cuts. Claiming we can't is just pouring more coal into the burners of the Titanic.

[champu 1]

DaVinci

Quote

The idea that there is useless fat to cut is a pleasant one to consider, but we've been doing that for 200 years now, and there's no more fat to cut. You have to cut working programs that do good things for people and the US.

Claiming there is no fat to cut is just another way to defend your spending lifestyle. People who run up credit cards to live without cutting the cable bill and still eating out do that. (not saying you personally do that, but it is what happens).

We need to make spending cuts. Claiming we can't is just pouring more coal into the burners of the Titanic.

You guys seem to be in violent agreement. His point is that having cable/high-speed internet or going out to eat isn't "useless fat" it's simply something you learn to live without if it means running up the creidt card. If it was "useless fat" you'd get rid of it regardless of how you were doing financially.

Similarly, if you approach the federal budget with an "I'm gonna cut the fat" attitude, that means every cut you try to make is going to result in someone flying out of the woodwork with all sorts of justification as to why their program isn't "useless fat," rinse, repeat, and you've gotten nowhere. In contrast, if you approach the federal budget with a "Hey, some of this stuff is great, if we were made of money, but we're not so it has to go" attitude, then you set the correct tone for the discussion.

If it sounds stupid and like it's a silly distinction, that's because it is, and that's how politics works.

[billvon 2,434]

>Nonsense, we have created more programs in the last 100 years than we have cut.

Right. We created programs, not useless fat.

>We have spent more on wars since WW2 than we spent on WW2

Right - but I assume you would not claim our military is "useless fat."

>Claiming there is no fat to cut is just another way to defend your spending lifestyle.
>People who run up credit cards to live without cutting the cable bill and still eating out
>do that. (not saying you personally do that, but it is what happens).

You just listed programs that are meat (military support of wars, the EPA, Medicare etc.) You can cut them - and indeed they do need to be cut - but claiming they are "useless fat" is meaningless political rhetoric. They are real programs and people will see real harm when they are cut.

There's this meme floating around out there that government wastes so much money that you could "trim the fat" by a trillion or so and not affect anyone. Just ain't so. You will affect people. Want to cut Medicare? People will die. Want to cut Social Security? Hardworking people who paid into the system all their lives will be thrown into the street.

And that likely has to happen. Be honest about it upfront; it will work out better in the long run.

[DaVinci 0]

billvon

>Nonsense, we have created more programs in the last 100 years than we have cut.

Right. We created programs, not useless fat.

Many of those programs are in fact, useless fat. Many of those programs also contain useless fat.

Quote

>We have spent more on wars since WW2 than we spent on WW2

Right - but I assume you would not claim our military is "useless fat."

Many of those programs are in fact, useless fat. Many of those programs also contain useless fat.

Quote

>Claiming there is no fat to cut is just another way to defend your spending lifestyle.
>People who run up credit cards to live without cutting the cable bill and still eating out
>do that. (not saying you personally do that, but it is what happens).

You just listed programs that are meat (military support of wars, the EPA, Medicare etc.) You can cut them - and indeed they do need to be cut - but claiming they are "useless fat" is meaningless political rhetoric. They are real programs and people will see real harm when they are cut.

There's this meme floating around out there that government wastes so much money that you could "trim the fat" by a trillion or so and not affect anyone. Just ain't so. You will affect people. Want to cut Medicare? People will die. Want to cut Social Security? Hardworking people who paid into the system all their lives will be thrown into the street.

And that likely has to happen. Be honest about it upfront; it will work out better in the long run.

Some people might be hurt, that does not mean the programs are not useless fat.

Some people depend on cocaine... That does not mean it is healthy. Some people depend on alcohol, that does not mean that abstaining from drinking is a bad idea.

[SkyDekker 1,145]

weekender

***When you live within your means, you don't need great credit or much credit at all. Moreover, if you live within your means and pay your bills on time, your credit tends to take care of itself. I am told I have a great credit rating. I don't check it. I have no need for it.

What I said was, "You don't need a great credit rating if you stop using credit. If you balance the budget and start paying back your debts, I'm pretty sure that will go well for your credit rating."

So...quit using credit and your credit rating is not as important. Get your house in order and pay your creditors; your credit rating will do better. And you take issue with this?

I'm starting to see why we have a problem in the US. People think living in a budget deficit year after year is good.

I don't think even John Maynard Keynes would have agreed his theories were perpetually applicable.

the gov't is not like a person, more like a large corporation. they cannot operate without credit. do you think there is a vault at Ford with cash to pay employees? or their suppliers? there is not. they use a combination of short and long term fixed income(bonds and notes) instruments to function. so does the the US gov't. it is not realistic to believe you can run a company or a nation on cash.

Thank you. Indeed, or if the US needs to repond to a natural disaster and needs access to cash. The notion that with a balanced budget (additional) access to credit is not required is silly.

[DaVinci 0]

SkyDekker

******When you live within your means, you don't need great credit or much credit at all. Moreover, if you live within your means and pay your bills on time, your credit tends to take care of itself. I am told I have a great credit rating. I don't check it. I have no need for it.

What I said was, "You don't need a great credit rating if you stop using credit. If you balance the budget and start paying back your debts, I'm pretty sure that will go well for your credit rating."

So...quit using credit and your credit rating is not as important. Get your house in order and pay your creditors; your credit rating will do better. And you take issue with this?

I'm starting to see why we have a problem in the US. People think living in a budget deficit year after year is good.

I don't think even John Maynard Keynes would have agreed his theories were perpetually applicable.

the gov't is not like a person, more like a large corporation. they cannot operate without credit. do you think there is a vault at Ford with cash to pay employees? or their suppliers? there is not. they use a combination of short and long term fixed income(bonds and notes) instruments to function. so does the the US gov't. it is not realistic to believe you can run a company or a nation on cash.

Thank you. Indeed, or if the US needs to repond to a natural disaster and needs access to cash. The notion that with a balanced budget (additional) access to credit is not required is silly.

There is significant difference between short term credit and living on credit as a way of life.

[billvon 2,434]

>Many of those programs are in fact, useless fat.

OK. You can't let go of the political rhetoric. One of many reasons we will never see meaningful cuts.

>Some people depend on cocaine... That does not mean it is healthy.

Right. Cocaine is like Medicare.

[kallend 1,648]

turtlespeed

******************
I'd be fine with some raises in taxes.... Provided it was not just going to be pissed away like it currently is. We pretty much HAVE to raise taxes to get out of the mess we are in. But raising taxes before we get ahead of spending stupidly will just mean we continue losing money.

What you want is a guarantee of sorts that the added revenue won't be used to fund pet projects of legislators. I think a considerable percentage of people (of those paying these taxes in the first place) would agree to pay more, but for their sense that Congress will always spend every dollar plus another dime or two.

Kind of... What I really want is the Federal Govt to be limited to the powers that the Constitution granted it. I want reckless spending cut and ridiculous programs dropped.

Like the F35 program, and the Ford class carriers?

Why? Are you suggesting that the U.S. Military goes back to Horses and Bayonets? How Mitt Romney of you...

False dichotomy fallacy.

I think he learned that from you.

I wasn't aware that you thought at all.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Iago

Here's ten more, and this is just the tip.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/20/top-ten-wasteful-government-programs/

tip is the word alright - 7 of them add up to 4.3 million, which is not helpful in a trillion dollar problem. Two were a bit vague - mistakes has costs. And #10, another whopping million dollar study, was highly relevant science that the author didn't understand (big shocker!).

Fruit flies lead to agricultural quarantines and lost of export capability, can force a lot of pesticide spraying. A key attack against infestations relies on sterile fruit flies to disrupt breeding rates. So no, this study will not extend to use on humans. But it may improve our ability to combat this problem, one whose costs is better measured in billions.

from CBP (Customs)
"Infestation
The first U.S. mainland infestation occurred in Florida in 1929. Several infestations have occurred on the mainland since then. The latest sighting of this brightly colored adult fly and its larvae in September, 2004 in Tijuana, Mexico, has led to the implementation of emergency response measures to protect U.S. agricultural resources from this destructive and costly pest. In California, Med fly battles have cost taxpayers nearly $500 million during the past 25 years. A 1997 attack on Med fly in Florida's Tampa Bay region lasted nine months and cost $25 million.

In 1993, APHIS estimated that annual losses attributable to the Med fly in the continental United States would be about $1.5 billion annually if this exotic pest were to become established. These losses would come in the form of export sanctions, lost markets, treatment costs, reduced crop yields, deformities, and premature fruit drop. "

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

OK. You can't let go of the political rhetoric

Irony score... Off the chart!!!!!

[DaVinci 0]

kallend

*********************
I'd be fine with some raises in taxes.... Provided it was not just going to be pissed away like it currently is. We pretty much HAVE to raise taxes to get out of the mess we are in. But raising taxes before we get ahead of spending stupidly will just mean we continue losing money.

What you want is a guarantee of sorts that the added revenue won't be used to fund pet projects of legislators. I think a considerable percentage of people (of those paying these taxes in the first place) would agree to pay more, but for their sense that Congress will always spend every dollar plus another dime or two.

Kind of... What I really want is the Federal Govt to be limited to the powers that the Constitution granted it. I want reckless spending cut and ridiculous programs dropped.

Like the F35 program, and the Ford class carriers?

Why? Are you suggesting that the U.S. Military goes back to Horses and Bayonets? How Mitt Romney of you...

False dichotomy fallacy.

I think he learned that from you.

I wasn't aware that you thought at all.

A pure personal attack.

[kelpdiver 2]

Iago

So you don't want any spending cuts at all.

We'll keep that in mind.

it doesn't serve you well to speak for me. Particularly as a petty response to me schooling you.

My first cut would be a 70% reduction in military spending over the next decade. If other western powers feel they will miss something in our shift to a defensive posture, they can pony up. Corn subsidies would be cut #2, but take effect in 2 years.

BTW, to those referring to the EPA as fat, I'll cite this:
http://www.sfgate.com/news/science/article/Super-smog-hits-north-China-city-flights-canceled-4912236.php#photo-5351553

[davjohns 1]

billvon

>There are plenty of places to cut the fat.... Some military expenditures. Handouts to
>other Countries. Two wars. Welfare programs that seem to never end.

No, we really don't. We have to cut meat. We have to cut programs that give disabled veterans new legs, and programs that feed people who will otherwise starve, and military programs that will leave us weaker. The idea that there is useless fat to cut is a pleasant one to consider, but we've been doing that for 200 years now, and there's no more fat to cut. You have to cut working programs that do good things for people and the US.

I have to disagree with you. I have a small degree of personal knowledge in this area. There is plenty of waste in the government. I've seen a great deal of it personally.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[jgoose71 0]

davjohns

***>There are plenty of places to cut the fat.... Some military expenditures. Handouts to
>other Countries. Two wars. Welfare programs that seem to never end.

No, we really don't. We have to cut meat. We have to cut programs that give disabled veterans new legs, and programs that feed people who will otherwise starve, and military programs that will leave us weaker. The idea that there is useless fat to cut is a pleasant one to consider, but we've been doing that for 200 years now, and there's no more fat to cut. You have to cut working programs that do good things for people and the US.

I have to disagree with you. I have a small degree of personal knowledge in this area. There is plenty of waste in the government. I've seen a great deal of it personally.

I have to agree with you. Billvon has obviously never dealt with government contracts or the government/military supply system.

I'm willing to bet we could cut government costs in half just by fixing the way government makes it's purchases...

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[Remster 24]

Quote

I have to agree with you. Billvon has obviously never dealt with government contracts or the government/military supply system.

You've been around long enough here.. You should know better

Remster

[SkyDekker 1,145]

Iago

******
So you don't want any spending cuts at all.

We'll keep that in mind.

it doesn't serve you well to speak for me. Particularly as a petty response to me schooling you.

My first cut would be a 70% reduction in military spending over the next decade. If other western powers feel they will miss something in our shift to a defensive posture, they can pony up. Corn subsidies would be cut #2, but take effect in 2 years.

BTW, to those referring to the EPA as fat, I'll cite this:
http://www.sfgate.com/news/science/article/Super-smog-hits-north-China-city-flights-canceled-4912236.php#photo-5351553

Everyone wants to go after the big money pots. It's easy and doesn't take any brainpower. There's a lot of nickles and dimes out there to dig out as well.

Would you tell someone who owed a $50000 loan that blowing $200 a year on something frivolous (like Sat Radio for a ten mile daily commute) was insignificant so go ahead?

It's not insignificant to me. Find a few more small 'insignificant' bits and they become very significant.

That's how you get a budget under control and out of debt, regardless of being in personal finance or government finance. Every nickle, every cup of coffee, every newspaper counts.

I know that because I've done it before.

Actually to put your example in roughly the correct scale it is somebody who owes $40,000,000 and you are solving this with cutting the $200 Sat radio bill.

Now all you have to do is find another 200,000 of such cuts.

[kelpdiver 2]

Iago

Everyone wants to go after the big money pots. It's easy and doesn't take any brainpower. There's a lot of nickles and dimes out there to dig out as well.

Actually, brainless is focusing on the .0001% issues, rather than tackling the politically popular big items that have lots of fans, not to mention lots of people with financial interests. Those 10 scientists are easy pickings. It's a good way to stir up outrage and look like you're doing something, while really leaving things alone.

You make big cuts, those departments will naturally cut out the riff raff.