|
|
| Author |
Message |
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
 |
Akronn
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8752
|
 Posted: 11/06/03 - 11:29 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: | | However, he also warned about long-term threats posed by the soaring federal budget deficit. If that red-ink problem is not brought under control by the time Baby Boomers start retiring, it could have "notable, destabilizing effects" on future growth prospects, he said. |
Therein lies the problem. You can fudge around with rates for only so long before you have to pay the piper.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 11/06/03 - 11:31 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Akronn wrote: | | Quote: | | However, he also warned about long-term threats posed by the soaring federal budget deficit. If that red-ink problem is not brought under control by the time Baby Boomers start retiring, it could have "notable, destabilizing effects" on future growth prospects, he said. |
Therein lies the problem. You can fudge around with rates for only so long before you have to pay the piper. |
| Quote: | | In the debate over how to fix the deficit problem, Greenspan sided with President Bush and the Republicans, who argue that government spending should be cut to deal with the deficit rather than raising taxes. |
Therein lies the solution!
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Akronn
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8752
|
|
Posted: 11/06/03 - 11:33 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
Sure! We'll start cutting after we rebuild Iraq... provided the damn war ever ends.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 11/06/03 - 11:37 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Akronn wrote: | | Sure! We'll start cutting after we rebuild Iraq... provided the damn war ever ends. |
lol. Iraq and Afghanistan combined cost an additional 2.5% of a single year's federal budget...stretched over 5 years. Eliminating the completely useless department of education would pay for Iraq and Afghanistan several times over.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Akronn
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8752
|
|
Posted: 11/06/03 - 11:47 Post subject:
|
|
|
Bush approved $53.1 billion for the Department of Education in 2004. That's quite a bit less than the 'rebuilding' of Iraq will take (which we found to be in even worse shape than expected). Remember, federal contribution to national education expenditures is only 10 percent of what we spend on the state, local, and private levels.
So.... the Dept. of Education isn't going anywhere. Now where are the cuts gonna come from? It's one thing to say we should make cuts, it's another to actually make the cuts.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
lotek
RealPoor Sensei
Joined: 12 Oct 2002
Posts: 1598
|
|
Posted: 11/06/03 - 11:47 Post subject:
|
|
|
| WheresNWS wrote: | | Akronn wrote: | | Sure! We'll start cutting after we rebuild Iraq... provided the damn war ever ends. |
lol. Iraq and Afghanistan combined cost an additional 2.5% of a single year's federal budget...stretched over 5 years. Eliminating the completely useless department of education would pay for Iraq and Afghanistan several times over. |
or ending the drug war.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 11/06/03 - 12:06 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Akronn wrote: | Bush approved $53.1 billion for the Department of Education in 2004. That's quite a bit less than the 'rebuilding' of Iraq will take (which we found to be in even worse shape than expected). Remember, federal contribution to national education expenditures is only 10 percent of what we spend on the state, local, and private levels.
So.... the Dept. of Education isn't going anywhere. Now where are the cuts gonna come from? It's one thing to say we should make cuts, it's another to actually make the cuts. |
The department of education, which provides no real function other than acting as a teacher union lobby, has a budget 2003 budget of $59.5 billion (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/education.html). $50 billion + per year over 5 years = $250 billion+, which is almost 3 times the budget of Iraq reconstruction. And that's only the first thing that popped in my mind. There's probably a trillion dollars that could be eliminated from the budget.
As Lotek mentioned, the drug war which is largely ineffective, has a budget in excess of $20 billion/year. Stretched over 5 years, that more than pays for the reconstruction as well.
The US spends over $18 billion/year on farm subsidies which mostly go to wealthy farmers. Eliminating those would pay for the Iraq reconstruction.
I could go on. There's plenty of useless crap. Why eliminate the useful crap like Iraq?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Akronn
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8752
|
|
Posted: 11/06/03 - 12:20 Post subject:
|
|
|
I agree there's some slack in the budget, but what do you honestly believe our administration is going to cut? And will that be enough to offset our increased defense spending and tax cuts?
And if you think the reconstruction bill stops at this year's approved $80 billion... well, you're wrong. We're in this for years.
Btw, our 'War on Drugs' is Bush Sr.'s baby, junior isn't going to cut it. Again, an easy solution for armchair economists that isn't grounded in reality. The budget there has actually increased under George W.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
compusmack
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 15 Oct 2002
Posts: 6354
|
|
Posted: 11/06/03 - 12:53 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
This discussion could easily happen over pms.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 11/06/03 - 13:03 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Akronn wrote: | I agree there's some slack in the budget, but what do you honestly believe our administration is going to cut? And will that be enough to offset our increased defense spending and tax cuts?
And if you think the reconstruction bill stops at this year's approved $80 billion... well, you're wrong. We're in this for years.
Btw, our 'War on Drugs' is Bush Sr.'s baby, junior isn't going to cut it. Again, an easy solution for armchair economists that isn't grounded in reality. The budget there has actually increased under George W. |
Actually Reagan, who started the "war on drugs" spent more on the war on drugs than did Bush Sr.
There is a TREMENDOUS amount of slack in the budget. Whether many of the programs are cut is dependent on the success of Republicans, who want to override the liberal desires of overwhelming government. Will the department of education be eliminated? Probably not unless republicans get a 60% share of congress, since I'm sure Democrats will filibuster (as they do to every single judge) any attempt to do so. Keep in mind teacher unions heavily contribute to the Democratic party. If Republicans are successful, they could easily offset the deficit with prudent cuts. You're also forgetting the overall tax revenue that will be increasing with the economy.
I like the fact that you're calling me an armchair economist, being as you have been making predictions as or more frequently than myself. The only difference...I have been consistently right, and you have been consistently wrong.
Also note that the $87 billion is reconstruction and additional military costs over 5 years, not one year (hence my 5-year numbers for the various agencies). This year's military spending peaked in large part due to moving equipment to Iraq and spending money on amunition and combat support. More money will be spent in the future, but will largely be part of the military budget. Occupation will be more expensive than the demands of a peacetime budget, but much less expensive than war requires. Initial international financial contributions have also been very supportive, and future recontruction will not be as heavy a burden as you claim.
In addition, federal revenues are actually down about 400 billion since late 1999. Hmmm....$400 billion/year. That's the current federal budget deficit!
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 11/06/03 - 13:06 Post subject:
|
|
|
| compusmack wrote: | | This discussion could easily happen over pms. |
As could all of realpoor, really.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
compusmack
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 15 Oct 2002
Posts: 6354
|
|
Posted: 11/06/03 - 13:09 Post subject:
|
|
|
| WheresNWS wrote: | | compusmack wrote: | | This discussion could easily happen over pms. |
As could all of realpoor, really. |
not really.
You've had the same debate with akronn over more than 20 threads. Neither of you will convince the other of any argument at this point, so why bother exposing us?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
Posted: 11/06/03 - 13:18 Post subject:
|
|
|
| compusmack wrote: | | WheresNWS wrote: | | compusmack wrote: | | This discussion could easily happen over pms. |
As could all of realpoor, really. |
not really.
You've had the same debate with akronn over more than 20 threads. Neither of you will convince the other of any argument at this point, so why bother exposing us? |
I love reading it.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Akronn
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8752
|
|
Posted: 11/06/03 - 13:22 Post subject:
|
|
|
Sure, let's blame the Democrats!
There actually was a budget surplus the last time we had one in office, but our massive defecit now is, like, totally their fault! 
Yeah we could eliminate all the evil, liberal expenses like education, science, and the environment in favor of rebuilding 3rd world countries we just levelled. But again... nasty reality rears it's head. It's not going to happen. Not even Bush is bucking to eradicate the Dept. of Education, although I'll bet Ann Coulter is!
And whether it was Reagan or Bush who started the War on Drugs, the fact remains that's it's not getting cut either. In other words, cutting the War on Drugs is a bad answer. Alex Trebek would say 'sorry, that is incorrect.'
So give me a plausible solution here, where's the money gonna come from?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Rennol
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 3741
Location: Charleston, IL
|
|
Posted: 11/06/03 - 13:31 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
As if the $87 billion will be the only aid money we end up sending over there by the time we leave..
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Akronn
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8752
|
|
Posted: 11/06/03 - 13:31 Post subject:
|
|
|
OH RATS. Looks like I guessed right.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/ac2000925.shtml
| Quote: | | In theory, our areas of agreement should have included, among other things: eliminating the Department of Health and Human Services, eliminating the Department of Education, eliminating the Department of Commerce, eliminating the National Endowment of the Arts, eliminating the National Endowment for the Humanities, eliminating the Department of Agriculture, eliminating the Department of Housing and Urban Development, eliminating the Department of Transportation... |
You need to lay off that woman's column!
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 11/06/03 - 13:32 Post subject:
|
|
|
| compusmack wrote: | | WheresNWS wrote: | | compusmack wrote: | | This discussion could easily happen over pms. |
As could all of realpoor, really. |
not really.
You've had the same debate with akronn over more than 20 threads. Neither of you will convince the other of any argument at this point, so why bother exposing us? |
You could always (gasp) not read it!
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 11/06/03 - 13:42 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Akronn wrote: | Sure, let's blame the Democrats!
There actually was a budget surplus the last time we had one in office, but our massive defecit now is, like, totally their fault! :roll: |
[/quote]
lol...The reason we have a deficit right now is two-fold.
1) A lackluster economy has reduced federal revenue an amount equal to the current deficit.
2) The war on terrorism.
Clinton had neither to contend with, but control over government spending (which comes from congress...read your constitution) can be attributed to the Republicans in congress under Clinton's reign.
| Akronn wrote: | | Yeah we could eliminate all the evil, liberal expenses like education, science, and the environment in favor of rebuilding 3rd world countries we just levelled. But again... nasty reality rears it's head. It's not going to happen. Not even Bush is bucking to eradicate the Dept. of Education, although I'll bet Ann Coulter is! |
I repeat. The department of education does NOTHING! It is simply there to support teachers unions. This is only one example of many. As far as I know, the lovely Ann Coulter has said nothing about the department of education, but Republicans have been trying to get rid of it since Carter created this useless blob. Of course, whenever it comes up, liberals like yourself say "Republicans are trying to kill education! Just Look! It's the department of education!" And of course there is public outcry. Of course, liberals complain about any euphemistic programs being cut, so it's very difficult to do anything.
| Akronn wrote: | | And whether it was Reagan or Bush who started the War on Drugs, the fact remains that's it's not getting cut either. In other words, cutting the War on Drugs is a bad answer. Alex Trebek would say 'sorry, that is incorrect.' |
The war on drugs is just one of hundred of examples I could give of ineffective and/or useless government programs. Iraq is the not source of the budget problem. The government is.
| Akronn wrote: | | So give me a plausible solution here, where's the money gonna come from? |
I gave you several possible solutions. I'm not trying to predict political probabilies. Even if the government does not cut any of the programs due to support by the country's liberal faction, the deficit will likely crunch down to nearly nothing if the economy stays its current course. Remember..revenue is down $400 billion dollars right now. That is the current deficit.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 11/06/03 - 13:47 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Akronn wrote: | OH RATS. Looks like I guessed right.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/ac2000925.shtml
| Quote: | | In theory, our areas of agreement should have included, among other things: eliminating the Department of Health and Human Services, eliminating the Department of Education, eliminating the Department of Commerce, eliminating the National Endowment of the Arts, eliminating the National Endowment for the Humanities, eliminating the Department of Agriculture, eliminating the Department of Housing and Urban Development, eliminating the Department of Transportation... |
You need to lay off that woman's column! |
lol. Oh no! A conservative agrees with me! Like I said, Republicans have been trying to get rid of the department of education since Carter created it. That's a pretty basic conservative desire. Now that you mention it, though, most of those departments could probably be cut in entirety or at least slashed to a small fraction of their current size.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Akronn
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8752
|
|
Posted: 11/06/03 - 14:23 Post subject:
|
|
|
| WheresNWS wrote: | | Iraq is the not source of the budget problem. The government is. |
/sigh look who has both houses and the presidency.
Oh no... let me guess. Liberal filibusters block everything. They can do no right and consevatives can do no wrong.
I don't think I've ever met someone as brainwashed as you. It's really amazing.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 11/06/03 - 14:33 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Akronn wrote: | | WheresNWS wrote: | | Iraq is the not source of the budget problem. The government is. |
/sigh look who has both houses and the presidency.
Oh no... let me guess. Liberal filibusters block everything. They can do no right and consevatives can do no wrong.
I don't think I've ever met someone as brainwashed as you. It's really amazing. |
Republicans aren't immune from the problems of government spending, but the surplus was not the result of Clinton as you suggested. It was the result of $400 billion more in revenue than what we currently have and budget controls by the Republican congress in the late 90's. I'm concerned that conservatives are beginning to part with their controlled spending policies, but the war on terror is spending out of necessity.
The deficit is probably going to be an overemphasized political issue. But it really isn't as big of a deal as liberals will make it out to be. Of course, when conservatives try to fix it, they'll be countered with the following:
| Akronn wrote: | | Yeah we could eliminate all the evil, liberal expenses like education, science, and the environment in favor of rebuilding 3rd world countries we just levelled |
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Banzai
Guest
|
|
Posted: 11/06/03 - 14:33 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
If they called off the war on drugs where would W. get the high grade coke and amphdimines for his daughters? He's got family to think of.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 11/06/03 - 14:34 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Banzai wrote: | | If they called off the war on drugs where would W. get the high grade coke and amphdimines for his daughters? He's got family to think of. |
The worst they've been caught doing is trying to enter a bar with a fake ID.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Akronn
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8752
|
|
Posted: 11/06/03 - 14:37 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
I'm not about making the defecit a political issue in next year's election, but it is a sign of an unsustainable economy. Things must change, and I'm not confident our crew now will do what it takes.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 11/06/03 - 14:39 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Akronn wrote: | | I'm not about making the defecit a political issue in next year's election, but it is a sign of an unsustainable economy. Things must change, and I'm not confident our crew now will do what it takes. |
lol. Uh...improved economy (we have that) = more government revenue -->reduced deficit or surplus. There needs to be spending cuts, but not in the defense department. That's where we need money the most, now. I'm not concerned about the deficit, because it's not as big or as serious as Democrats claim.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Akronn
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8752
|
|
Posted: 11/06/03 - 14:47 Post subject:
|
|
|
Greenspan seems concerned, but I guess now you're the expert (or Coulter, I can hardly tell the difference).
'Notable, destabilizing effects' sound just peachy, eh?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 11/06/03 - 14:50 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Akronn wrote: | Greenspan seems concerned, but I guess now you're the expert (or Coulter, I can hardly tell the difference).
'Notable, destabilizing effects' sound just peachy, eh? |
you = brainwashed. He said if the deficit continues at current levels. I just told you that won't happen with increased government revenues. I'm willing to wait to rub it in. My guess is the deficit is less than half what it currently is bu July next year.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
lotek
RealPoor Sensei
Joined: 12 Oct 2002
Posts: 1598
|
|
Posted: 11/06/03 - 14:56 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: | | Republicans aren't immune from the problems of government spending |
unfortunatly, this is a huge understatement. We have entered the era of the big government conservative.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Akronn
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8752
|
|
Posted: 11/06/03 - 15:06 Post subject:
|
|
|
| WheresNWS wrote: | | you = brainwashed. He said if the deficit continues at current levels. I just told you that won't happen with increased government revenues. I'm willing to wait to rub it in. My guess is the deficit is less than half what it currently is bu July next year. |
Nope. Revenues will not increase anywhere near the amount needed.
| Quote: | | Greenspan said that it was critical for Congress and the administration to address this problem (deficit) and he again urged the reinstatement of budget rules that require any future tax increases to be offset by either spending cuts or increases in other taxes. He also urged reinstatement of caps on the amount that discretionary government spending could rise in any year. |
Does our administration have what it takes??? Here's another Greenspan quote from the original document (go to federalreserve.com):
| Quote: | | Recent budget deliberations are not encouraging. The current debate appears to be about how much to cut taxes or how much to increase spending. No significant constituency seems to support taking the actions that will be necessary to move toward, and one hopes achieve, budget balance. |
And again, I trust his assessment and common sense over you/Coulter.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
