18 trillion

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Just going back to 2006 and thinking about all the prog-lib sniveling and wailing about $250 billion dollar budget deficits, you know, back when the Federal Gov't actually had budgets.

You arent really adding anything to discussion, other than who is to blame, which is both sides. The main problem is Raising spending is much easier politically than raising taxes. We could have done alot of the spending programs on budget if we had raised taxes on the 1% or got rid of the ridiculous dividend marginal rate. But Im a tax and spend libtard, so what do I know?

Not Much.

The point is, nothing is going to happen until the Federal Gov't has a budget.

Lulz Im actually trying to have a real discussion about economic theory and not just trying to prove its the other guys fault more than my guy's fault. But whatevs, a budget is sure to solve everything!!!!

A budget would be a good starting point, dumbass. Nobody said it will solve everything. Hard choices must be made - that's what a budget is for.

[SdK]

The people who loan us money have nothing to gain by forcing us to cash in. They also can't force us to cash in. There are bigger issues that we as a country should focus on.

Also I'm loving this new Samsung charger.  Got 3 percent charged while I typed this.

[chuckjames]

Just going back to 2006 and thinking about all the prog-lib sniveling and wailing about $250 billion dollar budget deficits, you know, back when the Federal Gov't actually had budgets.

You arent really adding anything to discussion, other than who is to blame, which is both sides. The main problem is Raising spending is much easier politically than raising taxes. We could have done alot of the spending programs on budget if we had raised taxes on the 1% or got rid of the ridiculous dividend marginal rate. But Im a tax and spend libtard, so what do I know?

This isn't even remotely true. We're running deficits in excess of $500 billion a year. Jacking up rates on "the 1%" - assuming such an increase has no adverse impact on the economy - would cover about $20 billion at most.

Consider, from a historical perspective, no matter what the tax structure, you can only realistically squeeze about 14-19% of GDP in federal revenue. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205

By contrast, federal spending as a percentage of GDP over the past decade has ranged from 20 to 25%. https://ycharts.com/indicators/govt_spend_gdp

We have a spending problem, plain and simple. We cannot tax our way out of this. We must reduce spending to about 18% of GDP.

Thats actually legit argument. Ill give you that. I personally think 20% sounds about right, so where do the cuts come from?

[Institutional Control]

Just going back to 2006 and thinking about all the prog-lib sniveling and wailing about $250 billion dollar budget deficits, you know, back when the Federal Gov't actually had budgets.

You arent really adding anything to discussion, other than who is to blame, which is both sides. The main problem is Raising spending is much easier politically than raising taxes. We could have done alot of the spending programs on budget if we had raised taxes on the 1% or got rid of the ridiculous dividend marginal rate. But Im a tax and spend libtard, so what do I know?

This isn't even remotely true. We're running deficits in excess of $500 billion a year. Jacking up rates on "the 1%" - assuming such an increase has no adverse impact on the economy - would cover about $20 billion at most.

Consider, from a historical perspective, no matter what the tax structure, you can only realistically squeeze about 14-19% of GDP in federal revenue. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205

By contrast, federal spending as a percentage of GDP over the past decade has ranged from 20 to 25%. https://ycharts.com/indicators/govt_spend_gdp

We have a spending problem, plain and simple. We cannot tax our way out of this. We must reduce spending to about 18% of GDP.

Thats actually legit argument. Ill give you that. I personally think 20% sounds about right, so where do the cuts come from?

Defense
/thread

[chuckjames]

I mean it sounds cool and all to cut government spending, but that is going to cause a recession, it just will, its simple economics. So are you okay with going through a depression/recession to "right the ship" you seem to believe is so important? I mean look at Britain with all their cuts, they are still struggling.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Just going back to 2006 and thinking about all the prog-lib sniveling and wailing about $250 billion dollar budget deficits, you know, back when the Federal Gov't actually had budgets.

You arent really adding anything to discussion, other than who is to blame, which is both sides. The main problem is Raising spending is much easier politically than raising taxes. We could have done alot of the spending programs on budget if we had raised taxes on the 1% or got rid of the ridiculous dividend marginal rate. But Im a tax and spend libtard, so what do I know?

This isn't even remotely true. We're running deficits in excess of $500 billion a year. Jacking up rates on "the 1%" - assuming such an increase has no adverse impact on the economy - would cover about $20 billion at most.

Consider, from a historical perspective, no matter what the tax structure, you can only realistically squeeze about 14-19% of GDP in federal revenue. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205

By contrast, federal spending as a percentage of GDP over the past decade has ranged from 20 to 25%. https://ycharts.com/indicators/govt_spend_gdp

We have a spending problem, plain and simple. We cannot tax our way out of this. We must reduce spending to about 18% of GDP.

Thats actually legit argument. Ill give you that. I personally think 20% sounds about right, so where do the cuts come from?

Defense
/thread

Across the board. /thread

Actually, I'd prefer to focus the cuts on corporate welfare (bailouts, farm and energy subsidies, etc.) and social welfare, but across the board cuts to everyone's pet causes is the most politically feasible. And no, I don't think it's a fact that this would plunge us into a recession. I'm honestly not even sure it would be that painful. We'll still have a massive government, only slightly less so.

[Cire]

so you want an America with really expensive stuff and lots of homeless poor people?

[Rage Against the McKee]

The across the board cuts are just a terrible idea. We need to be increasing funding to some agencies like the DOI and Army Corps of Engineers. Cuts should be made to social welfare programs and defense, if anything.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Here is a list of federal departments. I think we can find 50% of them that are a complete waste of tax dollars.

[chuckjames]

Hey look guise, we are having rational discussions about issues, not just trying to shift blame. Good Stuff. I would hope if youre gonna cut, that you do it a little more precise than just broad cuts to everything. Broad cuts would be inefficient and dangerous. I just think its key to remember that cuts do have real world effects, like cutting farm subsidies would increase food prices.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Here is a list of federal departments. I think we can find 50% of them that are a complete waste of tax dollars.

Yes, we should cut the funding to the administration on aging to $0. What a waste.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Hey look guise, we are having rational discussions about issues, not just trying to shift blame. Good Stuff. I would hope if youre gonna cut, that you do it a little more precise than just broad cuts to everything. Broad cuts would be inefficient and dangerous. I just think its key to remember that cuts do have real world effects, like cutting farm subsidies would increase food prices.

You keep asking for rational discussion and then saying things that aren't true, or at least are not facts. It is not at all certain that reducing farm subsidies would increase food prices. At least some subsidies keep food prices artificially inflated.

See, for example http://theweek.com/article/index/248078/farm-subsidies-a-welfare-program-for-agribusiness

Why is the farm bill so controversial?

Critics contend that the subsidies it hands out are wasteful, illogical, and counterproductive — a welfare program for millionaires and giant agribusinesses. Over the last decade, the farm bill has cost taxpayers more than $168 billion. In theory, the program uses loans, price supports, and payments to protect family farmers from the fickle fluctuations of weather, price, and economic conditions, so that their businesses remain stable and Americans are ensured a steady supply of affordable food. In practice, the program keeps food prices high, costing consumers billions, while funneling most of its aid to giant agribusinesses and wealthy farmers. About 75 percent of total subsidies go to the biggest 10 percent of farming companies, including Riceland Foods Inc., Pilgrims Pride Corp., and Archer Daniels Midland. Among the "farmers" who get federal subsidies are oscar Springsteen (who leases land to an organic farmer), Jon Bon Jovi (who owns bee colonies), former President Jimmy Carter, and billionaire media mogul Ted Turner. "The typical farmer has literally millions of dollars of wealth," said Dan Sumner, an agricultural economist at the University of California, Davis.
 
What about the average farmer?

He's doing pretty well too. Despite droughts and high temperatures, farmers have enjoyed record crop-production levels and prices, as well as double-digit increases to the value of their land for the third year in a row in 2013. In fact, most farmers are wealthier than the average American, with a household income of $87,289 in 2011 — 29 percent higher than the $67,677 average for all U.S. households. And yet many still get taxpayer dollars to protect their incomes. In fact, the farm bill pays some farmers not to grow crops — in order to avoid oversupply that would drive food prices down for the rest of us. "Only an evil genius could have dreamed this up," said Scott Faber, vice president for governmental affairs at the Environmental Working Group.
 
Why not reform the program?

Congress tried that in 1996, with the Freedom to Farm Act, which removed price supports and grain management in an attempt to let the free market dictate prices. That reform didn't last long. As commodity prices fell and farmers began to complain, lawmakers caved in and introduced several new programs that continue today. They include the much-criticized "direct payments" to farmers — checks written regardless of market conditions or the farmer's crop yields — and the controversial crop insurance program, which critics say has encouraged widespread fraud. In that program, taxpayers pick up 62 percent of any farmer's insurance premiums and help fund payouts if a claim for crop damage is made.

[Rage Against the McKee]

I think that you can attribute the record production largely to the farm bill. Farmers also are not paid not to grow crops in order to keep food prices high. That is just ridiculous. Programs that pay farmers not to farm do so for environmental or water scarcity reasons. $168 billion over 10 years is very little in terms of the overall budget. That sounds like a highly effective program to me.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

I think that you can attribute the record production largely to the farm bill. Farmers also are not paid not to grow crops in order to keep food prices high. That is just ridiculous. Programs that pay farmers not to farm do so for environmental or water scarcity reasons. $168 billion over 10 years is very little in terms of the overall budget. That sounds like a highly effective program to me.

The total farm bill costs about a trillion dollars over 10 years. That's about $100 billion per year. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/01/28/the-950-billion-farm-bill-in-one-chart/

The bulk of this spending is food stamps, and that can certainly be trimmed, but ag subsidies should be trimmed, too.

[Rage Against the McKee]

I think that you can attribute the record production largely to the farm bill. Farmers also are not paid not to grow crops in order to keep food prices high. That is just ridiculous. Programs that pay farmers not to farm do so for environmental or water scarcity reasons. $168 billion over 10 years is very little in terms of the overall budget. That sounds like a highly effective program to me.

The total farm bill costs about a trillion dollars over 10 years. That's about $100 billion per year. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/01/28/the-950-billion-farm-bill-in-one-chart/

Yes, but only about $16 billion of that goes to farm subsidies. I'm not necessarily opposed to lowering the food stamps portion of it, but Wal Mart would definitely feel the pinch.

[Rage Against the McKee]

http://theweek.com/article/index/262049/why-americans-spend-less-of-their-income-on-food-than-any-other-country

The "farm bill increases the cost of food" talk is especially laughable when you look at just how little food costs here.

[sonofdaxjones]

This seems like a lot of message boarding for just $18 (or so) Trillion dollars.   Wasn't it already determined that is no big deal and "only money"?

Pfft, some of you people will talk your way right out of a sell.

Sad.

[Cire]

It's getting fixed as we speak.

[Benja]

So you guys are pointing out its not necessarily a good thing to have tons of debt? Wow, what a revolutionary point to make.

[puniraptor]

On topic, congress has to pass another CR by next Thursday to avoid a gov shutdown.

[Rage Against the McKee]

On topic, congress has to pass another CR by next Thursday to avoid a gov shutdown.

uh oh

[star seed 7]

republicans love shutting down the government

[Benja]

When the government shuts down I like to pretend there are no rules that day.

[puniraptor]

When the government shuts down I like to pretend there are no rules that day.

there aren't

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

republicans love shutting down the government

the government never shuts down, even when they say its shut down.