SOCIAL PROGRAMS: Most rapid 5-year expansion since 1960s (1 Viewer)

[KidRocks]

Proving you have a very bad memory, but then we knew that already.

But let's test it, which provisions on the Contract With America did you oppose? Which ones did they not do as the contract stated?

Term limits for one, many republicans abandoned that one.

 

[KidRocks]

con·tract ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kntrkt)
n.

An agreement between two or more parties, especially one that is written and enforceable by law. See Synonyms at bargain.
The writing or document containing such an agreement.
The branch of law dealing with formal agreements between parties.



Seems to me that the Contract with America was a one-sided deal and a fraud. The Republicans obligation was primarily a moral one rather than a legal one and was not really enforceable.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

:spin:Not because of anything Clinton did, he consistantly requested higher spending than Congress would give him, the only modern day President to do so.

Really, if the Republicans were the only reason why we had budget surpluses during the nineties, then why is it that now that the Republicans control everything, that spending is off the charts?

Do you support the current budget which DOES have spending restraints?

No, I don’t. For example, with the long term under funding of National Parks, and with the huge maintenance backlog, why cut funding even further when its such a small federal expenditure anyway? There are numerous examples like that. There are lots of government programs that are insanely bloated. However, every single program is not. Republicans always talk about their “Moral Values”, well a budget is a moral document. So I would argue that doing things like cutting funding for impoverished children’s healthcare, while greatly increasing defense spending is an immoral thing to do.

Who on earth told you that, although it should be anyway.

Well, you could start by reading that pie chart on the back of the IRS 1040 instructions. There is a nice pie chart of federal outlays there. You will notice that the large slice of general revenue outlays is defense.

And I bet I can find another thread where you complain we don't have enough troops and we aren't giving or military what they need.

Actually, you couldn’t.

And you could supply to toliets for the B2 bombers, about 200 of them, design it from the ground up, test it, submit it and put it in production meeting the 99.999999% realiabilty for how much?

Something tells me that I could do it for less than the average big contributing defense contractor. In my job, I constantly have to justify my spending. Anyone does who works in the private sector. The reason for this is that you are spending someone else’s money whether it is the owners of a business or a shareholder. Oh how nice it would be to submit I.T. budget requests and every time any of them were questioned, who ever questioned them was called unpatriotic and anti-American. If you were an actual fiscal conservative instead of a partisan hack Republican, you would know that.

And you can design special tools of very limited quanities and supply them for how much?

In the IT department I work in, we do it all the time. We have a financial incentive to save costs anywhere we can. That’s what happens when you actually have to justify your spending.

 

[Carl]

Moreover, you can’t cut spending if you exclude defense spending. In the general budget, defense is and always has been the single largest outlay.

Oh come on, that's just wrong. Social Programs dwarf the Defense Budget.

Federal Outlays

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Oh come on, that's just wrong. Social Programs dwarf the Defense Budget.

Federal Outlays

That is an intellectually dishonest table. Social Security and Medicare are not general revenue outlaws. They are self sufficient through payroll taxes. In fact, there is a surplus in those programs right now that floats much of the deficits in general revenue. In fact, if you were to eliminate Social Security and Medicare today, the current Federal Budget Deficit would actually increase. The fact is, defense spending dwarfs spending on every other general outlay. If you want to actually cut federal spending, you have to include defense spending in those cuts. Its neither politically possible, nor economically practical to attempt to cut spending without doing so.

 

[Carl]

That is an intellectually dishonest table. Social Security and Medicare are not general revenue outlaws. They are self sufficient through payroll taxes.

Whatever are you talking about? They are both paid from current receipts, out of the federal budget. Where else does the Fed get money if not payroll taxes?

If we're having a deficit spending problem, you can't just say some parts are self-sufficient and others aren't. These are total outlays, of which defense is only 18.8%.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Whatever are you talking about? They are both paid from current receipts, out of the federal budget. Where else does the Fed get money if not payroll taxes?

If we're having a deficit spending problem, you can't just say some parts are self-sufficient and others aren't. These are total outlays, of which defense is only 18.8%.

I don’t think you are getting it. You and your employer pay payroll (FICA) taxes to finance Social Security and Medicare. There are current surpluses relative to FICA receipts and Social Security and Medicare expenditures. This results in sizable surpluses as related to those programs. General Revenue is income and capital gains revenue. That is where there are huge deficits. Of the programs that are actually financed out of general revenue, Defense is by far the largest expenditure. If we were to simply abolish the Social Security and Medicare programs, then we would of course abolish FICA taxes. If we abolished FICA taxes, then the surpluses currently generated could not be used to finance deficits in general revenue and as a result, the federal budget deficit would actually go up. In fact, it would be at such a level that it would be very difficult to sustain for even a short period of time as T-Bills would have to get very competitive against the markets to lure in enough private sector money to float our debt.

 

[Carl]

I don’t think you are getting it. You and your employer pay payroll (FICA) taxes to finance Social Security and Medicare. There are current surpluses relative to FICA receipts and Social Security and Medicare expenditures. This results in sizable surpluses as related to those programs.

No, I hear what you're trying to say, but if you stop and think about it for a minute you're going to come to the realization that it's all smoke and mirrors. All the money for all the programs comes from the same pot. It doesn't matter that it has three entries on your payroll stub.

There is no special "Social Security" fund, or "Medicaire" fund. That's all a load. The government takes in X dollars, it spends Y dollars. The difference is the Deficit. The sum of the deficit over time is the debt, financed by issuing bonds.

It is difficult to maintain the notion that a program that consumes 18.8% of the Federal budget represents the leading culprit in our need for deficit spending.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

No, I hear what you're trying to say, but if you stop and think about it for a minute you're going to come to the realization that it's all smoke and mirrors. All the money for all the programs comes from the same pot. It doesn't matter that it has three entries on your payroll stub.

There is no special "Social Security" fund, or "Medicaire" fund. That's all a load. The government takes in X dollars, it spends Y dollars. The difference is the Deficit. The sum of the deficit over time is the debt, financed by issuing bonds.

It is difficult to maintain the notion that a program that consumes 18.8% of the Federal budget represents the leading culprit in our need for deficit spending.

You would have a point, IF, it all actually went to the same pot. It doesn’t. Surpluses in the Social Security and Medicare programs don’t directly go into general revenue. What happens is they are borrowed against to fund deficits in general revenue. That’s why it is intellectually dishonest to argue that Social Security and Medicare should be compared against defense spending in regards to deficit reduction. When the president submits a budget, Social Security and Medicare outlays are not part of that budget. In borrowing against those programs, we only exacerbate future short falls when they begin to arise 20 to 30 years from now. Currently though, Social Security and Medicare actually help the budget deficit. As I pointed out earlier, if you get rid of those programs the deficits would only get much worse.

This is why it’s the pragmatic moderates who make the most sense in terms of economics, basically, the Bush Sr., Clinton types. With the liberals and the right wingers, its always: “if only………..”. Well you know, that’s not how the world works. If you want balanced budgets and deficit reduction, you have to cap discretionary spending as Bush Sr. and Clinton did, possibly marginally increase tax rates, and hold the line on defense spending growth. That is simply the only way to do it in the real world.

 

[Carl]

Surpluses in the Social Security and Medicare programs don’t directly go into general revenue.

I believe that's simply mistaken. All the money goes into the general fund, bonds are issued. It's an accounting trick. It's a game. You don't have a "surplus" if the fed is running a deficit. No private business would be legally permitted to keep such books.

It wouldn't matter that the "ball bearing department" budget has a surplus, if the "axles department" budget was millions in the tank. That company would be sucking wind.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

I believe that's simply mistaken. All the money goes into the general fund, bonds are issued. It's an accounting trick. It's a game. You don't have a "surplus" if the fed is running a deficit. No private business would be legally permitted to keep such books.

It wouldn't matter that the "ball bearing department" budget has a surplus, if the "axles department" budget was millions in the tank. That company would be sucking wind.

Actually it does matter if one wants to cut spending on the ball bearing deparment but increase spending on the axles department.

 

[Carl]

Actually it does matter if one wants to cut spending on the ball bearing deparment but increase spending on the axles department.

I think you're missing the point. Defense is 19% of the budget, but it's the only part of the budget demanded by the Consitution, as a duty of the Executive. Everything else is frivolous, and we're up to our ears in deficit spending.

And we're at war.

The Pyramid Schemes of Social Security and Medicaire are reaching exponential growth, and will soon absorb 70% of all federal outlays or more, left unchecked. The path we must take is clear.

 

[FallingPianos]

His FY2007 Budget includes across-the-board cuts in the rate of growth for all non-defense spending.

cutting the rate of growth, is not cutting the budget.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

I think you're missing the point. Defense is 19% of the budget, but it's the only part of the budget demanded by the Consitution, as a duty of the Executive. Everything else is frivolous, and we're up to our ears in deficit spending.

And we're at war.

The Pyramid Schemes of Social Security and Medicaire are reaching exponential growth, and will soon absorb 70% of all federal outlays or more, left unchecked. The path we must take is clear.

Ok, lets get rid of social security and medicare then. If you do that, you have to get rid of FICA taxes as well. Are you claiming that would not result in significantly higher current deficits?

The accounting trick is that we are financing growth in defense spending and tax cuts through surpluses in FICA.

 

[Carl]

If you do that, you have to get rid of FICA taxes as well. Are you claiming that would not result in significantly higher current deficits?

I hardly think so, turn that much money back to the private sector and I'd expect federal revenues to soar, much as they did under Reagan's tax cuts. It's a mistake to look at the economy as a static model.

 

[Carl]

cutting the rate of growth, is not cutting the budget.

Explain how cutting scheduled increases is not cutting the budget. It would grow more without the reductions.

 

[Stinger]

:spin:Not because of anything Clinton did, he consistantly requested higher spending than Congress would give him, the only modern day President to do so.

Really, if the Republicans were the only reason why we had budget surpluses during the nineties, then why is it that now that the Republicans control everything, that spending is off the charts?

One has nothing to do with the other, and BTW did you know we have had a couple of months of budget surplus lately? But the fact is Clinton was not fiscally responsbile, he was merely prevented from implimenting his spending desires and forced to sign budgets he opposed and reforms he opposed.

Quote:
Do you support the current budget which DOES have spending restraints?

No, I don’t.

Well then don't pretend to want to cut spending, these are moderate slow downs in the growth of spending, if you can't even go that far you have no standing to complain about Republican budgets.

Well, you could start by reading that pie chart on the back of the IRS 1040 instructions. There is a nice pie chart of federal outlays there. You will notice that the large slice of general revenue outlays is defense.

Post the numbers. Add up all the entitlement spending and welfare spending and compare it to Defense spending.



Actually, you couldn’t.

Something tells me that I could do it for less than the average big contributing defense contractor.

Something tells me otherwise. Ever designed and product from the ground up. Know how much stainless steel cost? Know how much making the jigs cost, the testing, all to make a product that must withstand the rigors of a military bomber and NOT fail. $500 doesn't seem much at all.

In my job, I constantly have to justify my spending. Anyone does who works in the private sector.

Boeing is the private sector and must answer to the public stockholders, but more important build aircraft with must meet demands you can only imagine and NOT fail at them.

The reason for this is that you are spending someone else’s money whether it is the owners of a business or a shareholder. Oh how nice it would be to submit I.T. budget requests and every time any of them were questioned, who ever questioned them was called unpatriotic and anti-American.

Oh how nice for you if any of that had any basis in reality.

If you were an actual fiscal conservative instead of a partisan hack Republican, you would know that.

So you are so desperate now you have to engage in name calling and use of the invective. How telling.

In the IT department I work in, we do it all the time. We have a financial incentive to save costs anywhere we can. That’s what happens when you actually have to justify your spending.

Hey I'm not going to defend wasteful spending in government, but then I'm not suggesting we let government run things as the left always wants to do. But then your IT department is not responsible for building aircraft that can fly and accomplishment thier missions under any circumstance is it.

 

[FallingPianos]

Explain how cutting scheduled increases is not cutting the budget. It would grow more without the reductions.

unless the growth is brought to less than zero, no budget cut has occured. the spending after the "cut" is still greater then the spending of the previous year.

 

[Carl]

unless the growth is brought to less than zero, no budget cut has occured. the spending after the "cut" is still greater then the spending of the previous year.

Well, yes, but I'm not aware that any budget ever submitted resulted in less spending one year than the year before in any program. I'd sure love to see that, but I'm not holding my breath.

Reductions in the rate of growth are better than anything we've seen since Newt and the gang. I'll take it.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

I hardly think so, turn that much money back to the private sector and I'd expect federal revenues to soar, much as they did under Reagan's tax cuts. It's a mistake to look at the economy as a static model.

Actually, revenue did not begin to soar until after TEFRA (a massive tax increase in the 80s) and the Bush and Clinton tax increases. For Supply Side economics to actually have any empirical support, one would have to argue that a dollar spent by the government does nothing for economic growth. This of course is not true at all. In fact, much of the GDP growth of the eighties was growth in the public sector. This is why there is not a single supply side economics class in any University in the nation. Its not economic science and you will find few if any economists who actually subscribe to it.

Like I say, all you have on the far right and left are lots of ideals, and no actual pragmatism. You have this view of how you want the world to work, but it’s just not how it does work. You get rid of FICA taxes and you will have so much public sector debt to float that it would be a miracle if we did not default on it and go the route that Argentina went a few years ago. There is a lot of capital out there to buy up our T-Bills, but not that much.

 

[Carl]

Its not economic science and you will find few if any economists who actually subscribe to it.

Thomes Sowell, Walter Williams, The Chicago School, please. The government produces no wealth, by definition it cannot contribute to the economy. There's no further profit in this conversation.

I'm well aware of the infestation of academia by Marxists. Out in the world, everyone believes in supply side, because it's what's real.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

....Something tells me otherwise. Ever designed and product from the ground up. Know how much stainless steel cost? Know how much making the jigs cost, the testing, all to make a product that must withstand the rigors of a military bomber and NOT fail. $500 doesn't seem much at all.

Boeing is the private sector and must answer to the public stockholders, but more important build aircraft with must meet demands you can only imagine and NOT fail at them.

Oh how nice for you if any of that had any basis in reality.

So you are so desperate now you have to engage in name calling and use of the invective. How telling.

Hey I'm not going to defend wasteful spending in government, but then I'm not suggesting we let government run things as the left always wants to do. But then your IT department is not responsible for building aircraft that can fly and accomplishment thier missions under any circumstance is it.

Evidently you need a simple education in how congress spends our money. Joe Blow Congressman from some Midwestern state has a company in his state that employs 5000 of his constituents. That company makes huge contributions to Joe Blow Congressman. That company also makes toilet seats for the Air Force. That company charges the Air Force $500.00 for each of those toilet seats. Several other companies in other states claim they can make the same toilet seats for $100.00. Joe Blow Congressman can’t have that though, because he wants to make sure that money comes to his state. So Joe Blow Congressman does some wheeling and dealing in Congress to make sure that his company in his state gets that contract even though that company charges 5 times what they should for those toilet seats. If you bring it, well, you’re just un-American and you don’t support the troops.

It happens regardless of whether or not Joe Blow congressman is a Democrat or a Republican. If there is no financial incentive for efficiency and lower costs, then you won’t have more efficiency or lower costs.

As to your other arguments, I think I have more that sufficiently refuted them in other posts in this thread.

 

[Carl]

As to your other arguments, I think I have more that sufficiently refuted them in other posts in this thread.

You still labor under the illusion that somebody wins in these places?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Thomes Sowell, Walter Williams, The Chicago School, please. The government produces no wealth, by definition it cannot contribute to the economy. There's no further profit in this conversation.

Are you kidding me? Over 2/3rds of the economy is consumption. The largest single consumer is the government. There is no difference between a middle class worker spending 100 dollars, the government spending 100 dollars, Bill Gates spending 100 dollars, or a crack addict spending 100 dollars. Either way, its consumption and fuel for economic growth. There is an argument that at some point, taxation could be at such a level that it impeded production. That is a basic economic principle. For example, if you are taxed at 30% and at that taxation rate, you are at 100% production, and then if your tax rate increased to 40%, you would have a disincentive to be more productive. The opposite though is not true, if you are 100% productive at a tax rate of 30%, you are not exponentially more productive if your taxes were cut to say 20%. You might consume more, but you’re not consuming any more than the government was consuming with your tax dollars. In fact, arguably, the government is quicker to spend your money than you are. My point being is that either way, its consumption and that consumption will create an incentive for investment, which combined will result in economic growth.

There is simply no empirical evidence in favor of Supply Side economic notions. For example, if the supply sidders were correct, then the nineties would have been a decade of a decline in investment and growth because of the tax increases in 1989 and 1993. However, just the opposite happened. Investment was at record levels and the nineties ended up representing the longest period of sustained prosperity in American history. Was that prosperity because of those tax increases? It was neither because of nor in spite of them. It just happened.

If the economy grows, revenue increases. If the economy contracts, revenue decreases. However, there is not one iota of historical empirical evidence to support the notion of economic growth and resulting revenue growth because of marginal tax cuts. Conversely, there is no historical empirical evidence to support the notion that tax increase result in economic growth or contraction. However, there is plenty of historical empirical evidence to support the notion that economic growth results in federal revenue growth and that increased or taxes at the same level result in greater federal revenue.

 

[Carl]

Are you kidding me? Over 2/3rds of the economy is consumption.

Demand and supply is the same thing from a different perspective. Keynes is dead, as are his theories. Wealth is goods and services. End of story.

The Silence of the Good News - Larry Kudlow

Including revisions, January employment is a huge 317,000 above the initial December level. In fact, over the past three months, non-farm payrolls have increased an average 229,000 per month. That's explosive. We're on pace for another 2 million jobs in 2006, following gains of 2 million in 2004 and 2005. Wages are also picking up steam, and with gasoline prices falling, consumer purchasing power and retail sales are climbing.
...
The latest numbers from the Congressional Budget Office show a clear supply-side effect where lower tax rates and higher after-tax rewards for work and investment have expanded the economy and created a huge surge of tax collections. Dan Clifton of the American Shareholders Association first reported that actual revenues from the lower capital-gains tax rate came in $46 billion higher over the last three fiscal years and $62 billion higher over the last three calendar years than congressional estimates. The Laffer curve is alive and well.
...
The supply-side economic growth plan is working. But the governing GOP coalition must close the circle on budget restraint. Economic growth and Republican political longevity depend on it. The president must do his part by turning up the volume on the good-news economic data.