Driftr
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 10, 2011 13:08:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,478
|
Post by Driftr on Aug 9, 2011 12:34:13 GMT -5
Got it - I was reading to fast. I thought you said 'last year's receipts' - which I would be okay with in theory, but like fairlycrazy said - that first year would be a doozy! I just replied to fairlycrazy, ut just in case you missed it due to post timing and page change, we keep running deficits for several years. Granted it takes longer to get rid of the debt, but the shock to the system would be less.
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Aug 9, 2011 12:36:32 GMT -5
True, i just meant it was a balanced budget amendment with a way to get there. It is a real 3% cut each year. However, I don't think it would work, I think it would take way too long to pay off the 15 trillion in debt, and since you couldn't borrow any more money, the first year would really be like 40-50% cut and that is NOT going to happen. I think it would be better to reduce spending by 3% a year until we got to a balanced budget, that is a real 3% reduction not baseline. Sorry. I meant to include that we eliminate the debt ceiling as part of the ammendment. I expect we will need to continue borrowing for several years. Go play with excel and our current expenditures versus our current tax receipts. See how quickly our current 1.5 trillion deficit becomes a surplus if receipts don't increase but expenditures decrease 3% every year. The compounding is remarkable when it works for you rather than against you. This is true even a very small real reduction would reap big rewards, the problem is that normally because of baseline budgeting when politicians talk about 3% reduction they are almost certainly still talking about a true increase.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,446
Member is Online
|
Post by thyme4change on Aug 9, 2011 12:38:29 GMT -5
How does SS and Medicare play into that. They make up so much of the budget - so would you have to cut them eventually? The should self-fund (theoretically) so, could we put them off to the side and use the 97% figure on everything else?
|
|
Driftr
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 10, 2011 13:08:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,478
|
Post by Driftr on Aug 9, 2011 13:01:48 GMT -5
How does SS and Medicare play into that. They make up so much of the budget - so would you have to cut them eventually? The should self-fund (theoretically) so, could we put them off to the side and use the 97% figure on everything else? They would need to be included in the base line expenditures figure and would be included in the 97% of prior year expenditures calculation. It would be great if we hadn't spent all those withholdings and the money was set aside somewhere, but unfortunately we have and it isn't. Delayed qualification for SS & Medicare would be the most likely result IMO.
|
|
Driftr
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 10, 2011 13:08:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,478
|
Post by Driftr on Aug 9, 2011 13:04:59 GMT -5
Sorry. I meant to include that we eliminate the debt ceiling as part of the ammendment. I expect we will need to continue borrowing for several years. Go play with excel and our current expenditures versus our current tax receipts. See how quickly our current 1.5 trillion deficit becomes a surplus if receipts don't increase but expenditures decrease 3% every year. The compounding is remarkable when it works for you rather than against you. This is true even a very small real reduction would reap big rewards, the problem is that normally because of baseline budgeting when politicians talk about 3% reduction they are almost certainly still talking about a true increase. I agree with you. That's why I'd like to make it an ammendment to the constitution and force Treasury to abide by it. They issue all the payments right? Once they hit that 97% of prior year total, no more checks get sent until 10/01/xx.
|
|
Trongersoll
Junior Member
former Software Engineer
Joined: Jul 1, 2011 11:51:53 GMT -5
Posts: 178
|
Post by Trongersoll on Aug 9, 2011 13:23:56 GMT -5
hmmm... first i'd lower the minimum wage to something lower than any other country in the world. Then i'd increase production in the USA, and start exporting goods like no tomorrow instead of know how. Then I'd insist on a balanced budget and make it harder to raise the Debt Ceiling, maybe make it raisable once every 5 - 10 years.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,446
Member is Online
|
Post by thyme4change on Aug 9, 2011 13:26:16 GMT -5
I would also like to create a non-dischargeable small business loan that would stimulate spending in the business market. The amount of the loan would not exceed $50k or $75k. More people working and more people paying taxes always helps.
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Aug 9, 2011 13:38:43 GMT -5
A balanced budget amendedment at the federal level will not work in my opinion... What happens when we have a natural disaster that was not "budgeted" for.... do we tell our fellow citizens fend for yourself.... I don't believe emergency spending is part of the budget. I don't have time to read the whole thing, but feel free to have a look at this PDF..... Control of the process for initiating, considering, and enacting appropriations for unanticipated or emergency purposes has been a longstanding concern within the federal budget process. For example, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 included a requirement that the budget resolution include an allowance for “contingencies”;1 similarly, the President’s budget was required to include an allowance for additional estimated expenditures and proposed appropriations for the ensuing fiscal year, and an allowance for unanticipated uncontrollable expenditures for the ensuing fiscal year.2 No explicit limitations, however, were placed on either branch with regard to their prerogative to request or enact spending for any purpose, including supplemental appropriations. As part of presidential-congressional budget summit agreements in 1987and 1989, appropriations caps were enacted, and the two branches agreed not to initiate supplemental spending above these amounts “except in the case of a dire emergency.” In neither agreement was there a definition for a dire emergency, or a requirement that any supplemental spending be offset.3 democrats.rules.house.gov/archives/RS21035.pdf
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Aug 9, 2011 13:41:42 GMT -5
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Aug 9, 2011 14:33:26 GMT -5
A balanced budget amendedment at the federal level will not work in my opinion... What happens when we have a natural disaster that was not "budgeted" for.... do we tell our fellow citizens fend for yourself.... I don't believe emergency spending is part of the budget. I don't have time to read the whole thing, but feel free to have a look at this PDF..... Control of the process for initiating, considering, and enacting appropriations for unanticipated or emergency purposes has been a longstanding concern within the federal budget process. For example, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 included a requirement that the budget resolution include an allowance for “contingencies”;1 similarly, the President’s budget was required to include an allowance for additional estimated expenditures and proposed appropriations for the ensuing fiscal year, and an allowance for unanticipated uncontrollable expenditures for the ensuing fiscal year.2 No explicit limitations, however, were placed on either branch with regard to their prerogative to request or enact spending for any purpose, including supplemental appropriations. As part of presidential-congressional budget summit agreements in 1987and 1989, appropriations caps were enacted, and the two branches agreed not to initiate supplemental spending above these amounts “except in the case of a dire emergency.” In neither agreement was there a definition for a dire emergency, or a requirement that any supplemental spending be offset.3 democrats.rules.house.gov/archives/RS21035.pdfI think most people would agree that war (as declared by congress) or major natural disasters would have some kind of exception measure, but it would have to be worded carefully so it wouldn't be abused.
|
|
|
Post by bubblyandblue on Aug 10, 2011 14:32:08 GMT -5
Dylan Ratigan makes some pretty good points in his rant - link below. As I have been saying here, we have an economy that produces wealth, on the one hand and, an economy that siphones wealth out of the country - until we solve the problem with monopoly, special privalege, predetory lending, predetory finances and Wall Streets fetish with gambling outside the wealth producing economy - we wont solve our problems util we are critical - we get closer to critical every day. Another post from someone a long time ago and the link after - please revue video. Credit is seen as necessary; but what of credit derivatives, the financial sector’s arcane “small print”? How intrinsic are financial gambles on collateralized debt obligations (CDOs, “weapons of mass financial destruction” in Warren Buffett’s terminology) – not retail banking or even business banking and insurance, but financial bets on the economy’s zigzagging measures. Without casino capitalism, could industrial capitalism survive? Or had the superstructure become rotten and best left to “free markets” to wipe out in mutually offsetting bankruptcy claims? and "Getting something for nothing The great sore spot in our modern commercial life is found on the speculative side. Under present laws, which foster and encourage speculation, business life is largely a gamble, and to “get something for nothing” is too often considered the keynote to “success”. The great fortunes of today are nearly all speculative fortunes; and the ambitious young man just starting out in life thinks far less of producing or rendering service than he does of “putting it over” on the other fellow. This may seem a broad statement to some: but thirty years of business life in the heart of American commercial activity convinces me that it is absolutely true. If, however, the speculative incentive in modern commercial life were eliminated, and no man could become rich or successful unless he gave “value received” and rendered service for service, then indeed a profound change would have been brought in our whole commercial system, and it would be a change which no honest man would regret.- John Moody, Wall Street Publisher, and President of Moody’s Investors’ Service. Dated 1924" www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/08/dylan-ratigans-mad-as-hell-moment.html
|
|
Bluerobin
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:24:30 GMT -5
Posts: 17,345
Location: NEPA
|
Post by Bluerobin on Aug 10, 2011 14:55:28 GMT -5
Let's see, we do buy our own debt, so couldn't we just forgive that portion?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 10, 2011 15:30:44 GMT -5
means testing of medicare and SS, index age to life expectancy (or some fraction thereof) lift the ceiling on SS taxable income let the Bush Tax Cuts lapse freeze all spending at current levels until we have a 2% budget surplus
it wouldn't take that long to go to surpluses. 5-10 years.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 10, 2011 15:31:38 GMT -5
Let's see, we do buy our own debt, so couldn't we just forgive that portion? the bondholders are major institutions which have them as retirement funds or secured assets. i don't think that would fly very well.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Aug 10, 2011 15:36:05 GMT -5
Very good thread! Since I cannot karma everyone who has responded, consider you were!
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Aug 10, 2011 15:43:54 GMT -5
First of all, not re electing our president would help a great deal.
Just a few other things off the top of my head for starters.
1. increase SS eligability to 70 for full retirement and 65 for early retirement. This reflects the increase in life expectancy. 2. Eliminate or severely reduce farm subsidies. 3. Eliminate the Department of Education, education should be a state issue. 4. All federal agencies have to return to 2008 budget levels. 5. Crack down on fraud, particularly in medicare. Even if it means hiring more people.
I'm not in favor of a balenced budget amendment. I think it's a good idea in theory, but I don't think we should back ourselves into a corner in case we need to borrow to fund a war or national crisis.
|
|
Bluerobin
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:24:30 GMT -5
Posts: 17,345
Location: NEPA
|
Post by Bluerobin on Aug 10, 2011 16:04:46 GMT -5
2. Eliminate or severely reduce all subsidies and foreign aid.
|
|
skweet
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 13:49:27 GMT -5
Posts: 1,061
|
Post by skweet on Aug 10, 2011 16:18:38 GMT -5
1. Eliminate all new regulation on business from the Dodd Frank bill, on. (this may be all it takes, really) 2. Reward repatriation of offshore cash. (no cost to us, $0 in tax revenues on capital that doesn't come back is no more than $0 in tax revenues that are foregiven on capital that does return, and the economy could use that capital) 3. Amnesty for all illegal immigrants, Fees for guest workers that prefer to remain aliens, but they get to come out of hiding. They are paid our $$ but don't spend them again, except for essentials, and are concerned about getting caught in using those $$s. This will encourage them to keep the money here, and spend the money here. Welcom out of the shadows, neighbor. 4. End wars, grant amnesty for those assets that would be in perril if left in their home countries, lay-off new, excess (volantary basis first) service-men and women with 3 years pay as severance. Let's reward those that helped us, and give them enough money to start a new life on our soil. 5. Fair tax to a level that is "deficit reduction", instead of revenue neutral. Once the general public realizes how much of the cost of their daily life is (and has always been) taxes, they will start demanding the tough choices our represtation in DC is afraid of.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Aug 10, 2011 16:32:02 GMT -5
Stop spending more than the government takes in- immediately. Reform entitlements. Repeal every bit of legislation that has passed Congress going back to TARP. Scrap the tax code, repeal the 16th amendment.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Aug 10, 2011 16:53:11 GMT -5
And btw- there are two paths to doing it my way- the easy path, and the hard path. But we ARE going to do it my way.
|
|
mwcpa
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 7, 2011 6:35:43 GMT -5
Posts: 2,425
|
Post by mwcpa on Aug 10, 2011 18:22:37 GMT -5
"I don't believe emergency spending is part of the budget" "I think most people would agree that war (as declared by congress) or major natural disasters would have some kind of exception measure, but it would have to be worded carefully so it wouldn't be abused."
So, balanced budget amendment * (aster ix).... would it be like the one next to Roger Maris.... he had the most homers in a season (until the steroid era) but not really, we still want to give the credit to Babe Ruth....
.... a balanced budget amendment is purely a political move from some Rs to get the support of certain Tea Party extremists and the fringe Rush Limbaugh extremist fan base .... it has no ability to ever see the light of day, no way would the House or the Senate ever want to really give up the ability to spend at will (no matter which party of drunken sailors is in charge, no offense to sailors, just playing on the classic line... "spending like a drunken sailor")...
|
|
humok
Established Member
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 9:33:39 GMT -5
Posts: 265
|
Post by humok on Aug 10, 2011 20:45:37 GMT -5
hmmm...some pretty good ideas....first cut all overseas grants, aid ect down two thirds, close all unnecessary military bases overseas, outlaw all lobbying, outlaw all donations, gifts etc to any one holding public office punishable by imprisonment, do away with the "buy American act" that only limits using Chinese goods on govt projects and replace it with the " buy America act" that only allows goods made in America to be used, cut all subsidies to people to not grow food on their farm land , cut out all retirement for politicians whether they have served one term or ten and make them use the SS system like the rest of us and also make them stay in their own state and not provide them a home in Washington, Make the district of Columbia part of the United States again (never should have allowed it to not be since they are not under our laws when in session but maritime law) you did not know that did you?), Outlaw nation building like we are doing in the middle east(do you really believe they are over there dying to protect us), make it harder for other countries to sell their goods here while their govt is subsidizing their prices, drop our membership in the united nations, outlaw the CPR, DIS BAN the Homeland defense dept created by Bush(hell they spend most of their time snooping on us), get rid of the Patriot act (unconstitutional anyway), outlaw the Fed Reserve when it is controlled by the same owners of the Bank of England and charging us interest on every dollar they print for us when our constitution only gives that right to print and coin money to our govt, Promote growth and business in our own country up front and foremost above all others, make the fed govt go by the Constitution and only use the power the constitution gives them and the rest goes to the states, dis ban the New super committee(just another way to circumvent the constitution anyway), drop the NAFTA agreement, Protect our borders, stop the fed govt from suing states stand on illegal immigration (hell the fed govt is suppose to do it but refuses to so the states have to), go back to the gold and silver standard. If this happens then I will gladly give another 5% in taxes to help pay off our debt and once again become the strongest Nation in the world. there is more but that would do for a start.
|
|