Logic

[Gipper]

The US government spends $4 Trillion, but only takes in $2 Trillion give or take BILLIONS.

Now, anyone with a functioning brain can see this will not work. The rest of the world is not going to fund our deficit spending for perpetuity.

Yet, we have many on the left who refuse to accept this reality. Why? Is it as simple as the wealthy need to pay more? Do they really believe the wealthy can come up with $2 trillion? Do they fail to see the consequences of confiscating more the rich's wealth?

Are they really that simple?

 

[ProudLefty]

The US government spends $4 Trillion, but only takes in $2 Trillion give or take BILLIONS.

Now, anyone with a functioning brain can see this will not work. The rest of the world is not going to fund our deficit spending for perpetuity.

Yet, we have many on the left who refuse to accept this reality. Why? Is it as simple as the wealthy need to pay more? Do they really believe the wealthy can come up with $2 trillion? Do they fail to see the consequences of confiscating more the rich's wealth?

Are they really that simple?

Is it your position that the solution lays in cutting spending to levels below $2 trillion dollars? Really?

How about telling us, by %, where you'd you'd lop 50% off this chart.

 

[steveox]

Your Logic Mr Spock?

On my planet "to rest" is to rest, to cease using energy. To me it is quite illogical to run up and down on green grass using energy instead of saving it.

No No Mr Spock,,I mean your logic thoughts on Obama?

I have no comment on the matter.

 

[ProudLefty]

Just what I suspected. Grand ideas, fantastic solutions, the answers to all the problems, but when it comes to the rubber hitting the road we get Dr Spock.

 

[Dr.Who]

Is it your position that the solution lays in cutting spending to levels below $2 trillion dollars? Really?

How about telling us, by %, where you'd you'd lop 50% off this chart.

Cutting close to half could be done easily.

cut defense down to 12
cut remainder down to 5
cut welfare down to 5
pensions were contracted but future pensions could be cut. for now leave it
health 18

The new total is 61 %

Then reduce other government interference in the market to stopping fraud and the revenues will increase by huge huge amounts

End result spending at slightly more than 2 trillion and revenues at above 3 trillion.

Do you doubt that it could be cut to about 61? It wasn't that long ago that it actually was at 61% Just do what we did a few years ago.

 

[Dr.Who]

After those initial cuts more could be made in suquential years.

Welfare should be the domain of the states so that could be 0
health should be the domain of the states so that could be 0
With a smaller federal workforce and future retirement benefits being smaller then pensions could be half or less in the future
reminder can stay at 5

New total:

27%

 

[Pandora]

After those initial cuts more could be made in suquential years.

Welfare should be the domain of the states so that could be 0
health should be the domain of the states so that could be 0
With a smaller federal workforce and future retirement benefits being smaller then pensions could be half or less in the future
reminder can stay at 5

New total:

27%

You got my vote

 

[Hobo1]

These cuts match my philosophy of the role of central government 100%. Social programs should be run by the States. That was a primary concept in writing the Constitution. People in Texas and Nevada want much different levels of social programs than Massachusetts and Connecticut. They should be able to choose what services they want from a government.

The military is fat as a pig! As a veteran who suckled off VA benefits (school, house, health), I can say that with a degree of standing on the issue.

I heard an interview recently about the budget. A point that rang true with me was the government politicians are incapable of thinking in multiple trillions of dollars. Huge sky scrapers and big companies are worth hundreds of million dollars, maybe even a few billion. The total value of all residential housing in the US is about $18 Trillion. Such numbers are virtually impossible for most humans to comprehend. It will take a draconian moves to significantly cut our federal budget, not to mention pay off our $14.5 trillion debt.

Even more disconcerting... for a debt this large, with no one in Washington even able to conceive how we are going to pay it off. That is more than $125,000 per household. Make cuts to Medicare, raise taxes for the rich? You still aren't even close to paying it off. The future is not bright for the US economy.. in fact it looks disastrous!

 

[Dr.Who]

T

The military is fat as a pig! As a veteran who suckled off VA benefits (school, house, health), I can say that with a degree of standing on the issue.

Do these benefits come from the military budget or from other budgets?

 

[Openmind]

These cuts match my philosophy of the role of central government 100%. Social programs should be run by the States. That was a primary concept in writing the Constitution. People in Texas and Nevada want much different levels of social programs than Massachusetts and Connecticut. They should be able to choose what services they want from a government.

The military is fat as a pig! As a veteran who suckled off VA benefits (school, house, health), I can say that with a degree of standing on the issue.

I heard an interview recently about the budget. A point that rang true with me was the government politicians are incapable of thinking in multiple trillions of dollars. Huge sky scrapers and big companies are worth hundreds of million dollars, maybe even a few billion. The total value of all residential housing in the US is about $18 Trillion. Such numbers are virtually impossible for most humans to comprehend. It will take a draconian moves to significantly cut our federal budget, not to mention pay off our $14.5 trillion debt.

Even more disconcerting... for a debt this large, with no one in Washington even able to conceive how we are going to pay it off. That is more than $125,000 per household. Make cuts to Medicare, raise taxes for the rich? You still aren't even close to paying it off. The future is not bright for the US economy.. in fact it looks disastrous!

I don't disagree in principle. However, the problem is that, States who provide more welfare benefits or a more generous "safety net" will be invaded by the poor and the needy. And this is totally unfair, since we are suppose to be, not just 50 separate states, but the UNITED STATES!

HOw would you resole that.

By the way, there is NO reason to ever pay our debt off totally, although I agree with should trim it through BOTH spending cut and revenue increase.

But, let me ask you. . .if you have a credit card debt and the interest you are paying on that debt is 1.99%, and you have an investment account, or somesort of interest bearing account that gives you 2.99% in interest. . .why would you pay off the 1.99% credit card, while you could get 2.99% with that money?

Cutting the deficit is great. . .cutting our nose to spite our face is ridiculous!

 

[Hobo1]

Do these benefits come from the military budget or from other budgets?

Those pie charts are drawn up by people who usually have an agenda. So you can visit many web pages and never the same number twice. For example, is the President's expenses pro-rated among the other categories? Usually not, but then who pays for the C-in-C?

 

[Hobo1]

I don't disagree in principle. However, the problem is that, States who provide more welfare benefits or a more generous "safety net" will be invaded by the poor and the needy. And this is totally unfair, since we are suppose to be, not just 50 separate states, but the UNITED STATES!

HOw would you resole that.

The United States is for things that the States cannot do individually, like defense, control interstate commerce and interact with other foreign countries. Domestic issues are supposed to be left to the States.

With regard to a migrant shift of poor people, I have two answers. One is the matter can be handled through legislation and regulation. Just like moving to another State to get a cheap price on University tuition, you must be a resident for one year first. An aggressive "get to work" program (such as applied to welfare during the Clinton administration) is one of the disincentives that can be used to make people jump through some hoops to use your generous social benefits.

The second answers is poor people don't move. I watch on TV when poor people are huddled around sewage manholes to stay warm in New York City. I think, "Why don't these people move south to Florida or So.California to get out of the cold weather?" Poor people aren't necessarily logical.

But, let me ask you. . .if you have a credit card debt and the interest you are paying on that debt is 1.99%, and you have an investment account, or somesort of interest bearing account that gives you 2.99% in interest. . .why would you pay off the 1.99% credit card, while you could get 2.99% with that money?

Cutting the deficit is great. . .cutting our nose to spite our face is ridiculous!

Hey, when your credit card debt is 7 times your annual income, even 2% interest is going to take a big bite out of your budget. Having a credit card bill that large is ridiculous. Plus, the government doesn't invest its money anywhere. It continues to spend like a drunken sailor; charging more money on that bloated credit card. In other words, when your nose is 7 times the size of your face, the situation calls for plastic surgery. You are certainly not trying to spite spite your face, you are trying to make your face look better.

 

[Dr.Who]

I don't disagree in principle. However, the problem is that, States who provide more welfare benefits or a more generous "safety net" will be invaded by the poor and the needy. And this is totally unfair, since we are suppose to be, not just 50 separate states, but the UNITED STATES!

HOw would you resole that.

And then countries that provide anything at all (not just welfare) that is wanted by someone will be invaded by immigrants from other countries. If you logic stands then the US cannot provide welfare unless all the other countries do too.

The differences between the states is exactly what we need. Then when one state provides welfare and another state provides jobs and another state provides freedoms and another provides whatever is desirable what we have is a great experiment to determine what works and what does not.

By the way, there is NO reason to ever pay our debt off totally, although I agree with should trim it through BOTH spending cut and revenue increase.

Debt always reduces future spending power and whatever part of it is owed to other countries is income they earn at our expense.

But, let me ask you. . .if you have a credit card debt and the interest you are paying on that debt is 1.99%, and you have an investment account, or somesort of interest bearing account that gives you 2.99% in interest. . .why would you pay off the 1.99% credit card, while you could get 2.99% with that money?

If I did that then I would owe the credit card companies more than I take in because my interest earned is taxed and credit cards charge various fees on top of the interest. I also have to spend time managing the credit cards and the account.

The analogy also fails because the US government does not have any such account that collect interest anywhere near large enough to balance the debt.

Cutting the deficit is great. . .cutting our nose to spite our face is ridiculous!

Cutting the deficit is just great because it is good for us.

 

[Dr.Who]

I don't disagree in principle. However, the problem is that, States who provide more welfare benefits or a more generous "safety net" will be invaded by the poor and the needy. And this is totally unfair, since we are suppose to be, not just 50 separate states, but the UNITED STATES!

But do the facts support that? is there a net gain in population in states that offer more welfare? I suspect that many more people move to states that offer work than people who move to states that offer welfare.