Completely Irresponsible

[NJCubScouter]

People don't want to pay taxes, but they do want their street repaired, or the school in their neighborhood to stay open, or a nice park (national, state or local) to go to, or for a pension or student loan to be available to the veteran or student in their family, or thousands upon thousands of other things that the government does. Certainly there is some "waste, fraud and corruption," but more often than not "waste" really means "spending that someone else benefits from instead of me." (Or, if dealing with members of Congress, "...instead of most of MY constituents.") Unfortunately, this sort of hypocrisy is inherent in a democratic system, and in OUR particular system, when there are really tough issues to deal with (as there are now), the system is basically designed to produce gridlock (as we have now.) To paraphrase someone (I'm not sure who), it's the worst system in the world, except for all the others.

[Gary_Miller]

vol_scouter "Forgot to add, stop paying off people's mortgages. Most of us who have bought homes were responsible and bought within our means. We get punished for doing so because we end up paying off the irresponsible people who borrowed more than they could afford."

 

How funny you should mention this while some of the problem is irresponsible people I feel most of the problem is irresponsible bankers and an housing market that was over inflated, and is now burst.

 

I'm one of those who was responsible and bought within my means only to have it all come crushing down due to the economy.

 

When I refinanced my rental property (previous home) to purchase the one I now live in the value was at $175K, I owed $40K (I only borrowed $140), I had my AF Retirement (with a yearly COL increase), my wife had a $20 and hour job, my Farrier business was doing well and growing, and my home had been rented out for the last 6 years.

 

Now I'm upside down on my property, now valued at $107K I owe $136K, I have an AF Retirement (with no COL increase for 3 years), my wife has no job, my farrier business is doing half as much as it was and shrinking, and my home is not rented out. All because of the irresponsible choices made by the banks and the government, which put the economy into a tail spin.

 

Now don't get me wrong I don't want the government to pay off my mortgage. I'm more than willing to pay what I owe. But I just can't do it without a renter in the house. So I hope the bank will be understanding and make adjustments to the loan so I can get through this. If not the bank will own a nice 5 Bedroom home outside an airbase in Idaho.

 

 

[Beavah]

Yah, vol_scouter, sorry but you're nowhere near there yet. 80% cuts in Medicare just from start/end of life doesn't pass the smell test, eh? Best data I could find show that 27% of Medicare costs come in the last year of life. There's room for savings there, to be sure, if you are willing to allow the government/doctors to override family wishes, but not as much as yeh claim. Especially since the family can shop docs to find one that will agree to more care (and therefore more reimbursement), so it really comes down to the government makin' the cut-off-care decision.

 

I wasn't really talkin' preventive care so much as da overuse of ERs for things that really just merit a common office visit, and early detection. This isn't my field at all, but da argument of the public health folks seems logical to me. We even teach scouts the importance of regular check-ups in required MB, eh?

 

I agree with yeh on the welfare cliff, but yeh haven't demonstrated any savings from that, eh? Replacing illegal immigrants with unemployed folks to get 'em off welfare roles sounds nice and all, but how are yeh goin' to do that, exactly? More enforcement costs more money, and they don't tend to live in da right places, eh? Yeh goin' to pay moving expenses so unemployed auto workers in Detroit can go to California to pick oranges? And remember, doin' what you're describing won't result in more people payin' taxes. You'll just be replacing someone who pays taxes but is not eligible for benefits with someone paying the same taxes who is eligible for benefits.

 

Same deal with tax increases, eh? I'm glad yeh realize they're necessary, but yeh have to specify what's goin' to generate all the remaining difference. And nope, yeh can't do the politician thing and project vague "economic growth" to get out of things by magic revenue. Especially when both your cuts to programs and your tax increases are goin' to depress the economy in the short term and therefore reduce revenues.

 

We'll give yeh credit for the savings for dropping the mortgage bailout program, though. Dropping HAMP gets yeh $30 billion in savings... but one time only. So it's a savings, but not somethin' that really helps balance da budget past year 1.

 

So you're still need over $600 billion in cuts to get to balanced. I'll even be generous and give yeh $100 billion for additional vague hand-waved savings for end-of-life / start of life care from Medicare/Medicaid. Let those defective babies die. If we abort 'em earlier we can save even more.

 

Yeh still need over $500 billion in cuts (or tax increases, but those are "off the table"). So what goes next? Eliminate Social Security? Or finish the job and just eliminate Medicare and Defense? And throw in Representative Ryan's cuts to veterans benefits.

 

You're experiencing what everybody on every commission, Democrat or Republican, has experienced, eh? There is no way to do this responsibly with just cuts. Nor can yeh do it just with "taxes on the rich". It demands a balanced, responsible, intelligent approach, eh? Not a bunch of demagoguery and hand-wavin'. Or hand raisin', or pledge-taking.

 

But I'm still game. Find the missing half a trillion if yeh can.

 

Beavah

[BrentAllen]

We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

 

In 2007 the government took in $2.568 trillion in revenues and spent $2.728 trillion, for a deficit of $160 billion. In 2011, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, the government will take in $2.230 trillion and spend $3.629 trillion, for a deficit of $1.399 trillion.

 

That's an increase of $901 billion in spending and a decrease of $338 billion in revenue. Put them together, you go from a $160 billion deficit to a $1.399 trillion deficit.

 

Of the $901 billion in new spending, $343 billion is associated with the downturn - unemployment, food stamps, Medicaid. Add that to the $338 billion in lost revenue, and you total $681 billion, which is just under half of the $1.399 trillion deficit. Spending money we don't have makes up much of the rest of it ($1 billion in Libya, alone).

[Beavah]

Yah, again, so what are yeh goin' to cut? Are we goin' to cut and run in Afghanistan and Iraq? Remember the war expenses were "off book" in your 2007 figures, eh? That's part of the reason your numbers look the way they do. Da rest is stimulus and other recession-related funding outside of Health & Welfare, as well as increased homeland security costs, increases in veteran's benefits as a result of the wars, and da usual out of control growth in Medicare and growth in Social Security.

 

So what do yeh drop?

 

B

[Tampa Turtle]

The Beev brings up a good point. Veterans Benefits are going to eat us alive. I do not see how anyone can logically approach this without a cutting spending/raising revenue approach...

[skeptic]

It appears that the Gods have now made their opinion known. By shaking up Washington, maybe some of their brains will fall into place. One can dream I suppose.

[Tampa Turtle]

But it hit central Virginia; isn't that God's Country?

[skeptic]

A warning; maybe next one is in Washington.

 

[vol_scouter]

Beavah,

 

I have read over the years several times that ~80% of the costs of medicare/medicaid occur at the beginning and end of life and I only cut 1/2 half of that cost. Your hyperbole is just that. Physicians get upset and depressed providing critical care therapies to people who will have a bad outcome anyway. It is cruel and wrong. Keep the government out.

 

Maybe the third time will be a charm. These measures will result in an upswing of the economy as heavy industry begins to return and business gets moving. That will increase the tax revenues. Also, I said that there could be an across the board modest tax increase so that the proportion of the population that pays no taxes diminishes. Both of those measures will increase tax revenues. So once again, this is not that hard. Will it affect people? Absolutely, but continuing down this path will result in a total economic collapse which historically results in wars.

[Beavah]

I have read over the years several times that ~80% of the costs of medicare/medicaid occur at the beginning and end of life

 

Yeh have a reference for that? It just doesn't pass the smell test, especially when every report and study I'm able to find says that only 27% of Medicare costs occur in then last year of life. That's huge, and show great opportunities for savings if we stop rewarding docs for procedures instead of care quality. Only a few are upset by it, eh? The rest are gettin' paid handsomely. But 80% is just poppycock.

 

These measures will result in an upswing of the economy as heavy industry begins to return and business gets moving.

 

Heavy industry never left. We're producing the same dollar amount of manufactured goods that we have for many years. What has changed is that we can do it more cost effectively without human workers. Bolting things together should pay about the same as picking oranges, eh? In fact it's easier and takes less skill. As manufacturing unions have faltered and failed, that's where it's headed. But lots of low-wage fruit picking and bolting jobs aren't goin' to add that much to the economy. We are never going back to the 1950s economy.

 

Now, it is true that our exports will increase as we devalue the dollar (or China allows its currency to rise), so long as we get our oil imports under control. That will improve revenue and provide some incentive for domestic manufacturing, provided it's automated and efficient. But that's inflation, eh? It does help yeh get out from under debt, but it won't help with current expenses.

 

So you're still stuck with more than half a trillion dollars of annual deficit with your cuts just to balance the budget (not to actually begin paying down debt).

 

Also, I said that there could be an across the board modest tax increase so that the proportion of the population that pays no taxes diminishes.

 

Yah, hmmm. Well, to make up $500+ billion, yeh need more than double what you'd get by ending the Bush tax cuts. That's not unreasonable, but are yeh sure thats whst ye mean by "modest". Its the sort of thing the courts might impose under a bslanced budget amendment I suppose.

 

I'm sympathetic to the sentiment that everybody should pay some tax, and of course everybody does in excise and non-income taxes. But if yeh take a family of 4 making $35K per year and add $3500 in additional tax (their share of your remaining debt), then the impact on that family is pretty high, eh? Enough so that they can't make the mortgage payment or choose not to send their son to college or opt not to insure their health or their car. So now you've increased their tax rate by 10%, so they're paying a much higher percentage of their income than Warren Buffett and most of the bankers who caused the crisis. And don't forget yeh cut most of the support programs for those families, eh?

 

What do yeh think is goin' to happen? You're going to increase the welfare roles, because you've dis-incentived work for low income folks. That's what conservatives have been saying for decades, eh? Income taxes on workers disincentivize work. And the resulting debt, and mortgage losses, and all the rest is goin' to be a drain on the economy, not a benefit.

 

I get how da brainless media and partisans want to think this ain't hard. But it really is, eh? Like most things it takes real expertise and very careful thought. There aren't really any easy answers, and anyone who claims there are yeh should immediately dismiss as a fool.

 

Beavah

[Tampa Turtle]

Beavah,

 

Thanks for pointing out that it is hard. For example in Florida the new guv says welfare recipients must take an annual drug test (on the assumption that the poor are all drug addicts)at $30 a pop. Now if you test positive you lose benefits for a year. Negative and the State reimburses the cost of the test. The assumption was this would save the state money by getting all the druggies off welfare.

 

Well it turns out in the first year that only 2% of the folks tested positive and the State has to reimburse everyone else their $30. So the result is a wash --almost the same amount saved by cutting benefits as spent in reimbursements.

 

So it is not always easy to save money based on "easy logic".

[BS-87]

Tampa, if it truly is a wash, think about the difference in how the money is being spent.

 

Money is being spent creating jobs surrounding a product and service instead of incentivizing drug abuse.

 

Sounds like a much wiser investment, and helps ensure that the State only helps those who help themselves.

[vol_scouter]

Beavah,

 

You got to be kidding me! We now import most of our steel. Textiles have left. The chemical industry has left. In fact, this country is incapable of building a large nuclear reactor without importing large components! We have been selling our technology for the past few decades based upon our lead in science. From World War II through the 1980's, the science journals were dominated by USA researchers. That is far from true now. Since the government is broke, it is unlikely that trend is going to change. Also, the brain drain has slowed or ceased because we are no longer a haven of democracy - we are becoming a socialist disaster like the rest of the world and the resulting decline in the standard of living coupled with improvements in their home countries mean that they no longer stay. We are left without goods to sell if we are not careful.

 

If I get a chance, I will try to find references for the medicare/medicaid beginning and end of life costs.

 

Also, I originally proposed a fair tax.

 

Also, with freeing up the jobs taken by illegal migrants and providing incentives for people to get off of welfare, we can decrease - not increase the welfare rolls.

 

This is not my area of expertise but it is not as difficult as it said to be. The politicians need to be interested in the country's welfare rather than establishing their socialist/fascist state.

[BS-87]

"Also, I originally proposed a fair tax."

 

The most realistic way to approach abolishing and replacing the current income tax code probably.

 

Either that or we should focus on a flat tax with no deductions, rebates, or incentives.