equity_analyst Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > NakedPuts…go ahead, keep doing your googling, it > won’t matter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War
Ok, thanks for killing your own argument, it means I don’t have to. Actually the strawman you put up had promise, but I digress. The bottom line is that defense spending now is about 4% of GDP, prior to 9/11 it was about 3%, the long term average over the last 40 or so years is about 5.5%. Spending on the war is not the problem, take a look at the rate of growth in mandatory spending versus discretionary spending, our entitlement programs are out of control. You can wiki those numbers if you like.
$140B annually wouldn’t help? With no reductions to other entitlement programs, views on those aside? Exactly what kind of equity do you analyze?
Look, if you give me a penny that helps my net worth, but I’m still not going to Disneyland on it. So defense spending gets paired back to the 3% of GDP, does that really move the needle in the big scheme of things from a budget perspective. No. And relative to all the pork out there and bogus projects the $140B is a drop in the bucket. So instead of raising taxes how about we cut back on spending and reduce the size of government.
Kiss liquidity goodbye.
I never once said we should raise taxes, and I think the tax on trading ideas one of the worst yet, and that’s saying something. But it’s much easier to cut spending in large chunks. Do you know how many $20M pet projects have to be axed to raise $140B? How about $200M projects? I’ll wait for you to do the math, and think about the likelihood of that ever happening.
I’m embarrassed to be a democrat. The heart is in the right place, but this tax is likely to make the problem worse, not better. I could see it as a mandatory insurance policy though (if we’re going to be the bail-out guys, you have to pay us a premium).
NakedPuts Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I never once said we should raise taxes, and I > think the tax on trading ideas one of the worst > yet, and that’s saying something. But it’s much > easier to cut spending in large chunks. Do you > know how many $20M pet projects have to be axed to > raise $140B? How about $200M projects? I’ll wait > for you to do the math, and think about the > likelihood of that ever happening. Ahh, OK, it was never my contention that you agreed with this “transaction” tax so I don’t even know why you mention it. I’ll leave you with this thought: I don’t think an incremental $150B would mean much because the government would find a way to piss it away, like they always do. If you really want to put a dent into the spending budget, cut entitlement programs and other mandatory spending BS.
I agree, my problem is that even if we cut entitlement programs and other mandatory spending BS, the government would find a way to piss it away like they always do.
So… which entitlement programs are the most important to cut? (all of them is not an acceptable answer because it doesn’t reveal any way to prioritize things)
I think you need to reform the big 3. If these continue to grow at existing rates we are headed for financial ruin. Government will either default on these obligations or raise taxes to such a degree that any hope of a strong, growing economy will be wiped out. Our country’s unfunded liabilities are much more dangerous than the Panic of 2008.
Well Repubs have had the government for better part of past 8 years. Why have they not cut the spending?
bchadwick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So… which entitlement programs are the most > important to cut? > > (all of them is not an acceptable answer because > it doesn’t reveal any way to prioritize things) This stuff seems to me to be pretty easy to figure out; it’s just politically hard. Cutting the budget: a) Interest payments - Nothing to be done about that now, but what the heck is wrong with the gov’t not issuing callable debt? b) Defense - 20% of the budget. Nearly half a trillion $. It’s simple to cut defense spending. There are tons of weapons systems and bases that are just pork. I’d kill the V-22, B-2, DDG Destroyer, National missile defense program, etc… I’d close a ton of bases and stop the wars. c) Social Security - Just make a freaking cap on payments to high net-worth people. My mother collects SS and she doesn’t need it at all. She spends it on fancy meals, nice clothes, trips around the world, etc. Not the intent of SS. d) Medicare - How about limiting the diagnoses and treatments available under Medicare? If someone wants to see a psychologist, Medicare will pay $50/visit for unlimited visits. (Private Medigap or whatever the veterans program is called pays the other $50) There are no restrictions. You know what people see psychologists (like my wife) for? Trauma because they are having extra-marital affairs, sadness due to erectile dysfunction, premature ejaculation, etc. Do we really have a national interest in funding this? Medicaid is similar, but no psychologist I know takes it and it’s vastly smaller. Tons of Medicare dollars are spent prolonging the lives of very direly ill people for a very short period of time. I know of someone who was home to die with hospice care and very terminal cancer. In a delirious state, he got out of bed and tripped and broke his wrist. Next thing you know, he was in the hospital getting all manner of treatment for the terminal cancer interacting with the broken wrist all billed to Medicare. He was on so much morphine the broken wrist didn’t matter at all. e) Other discretionary programs - Food stamps. When I was in graduate school and on a budget, I was standing in a grocery store line and this woman ahead of me was buying a pile of luxury foods that I couldn’t buy (e.g., steak, bakery foods, etc.) with food stamps. I can’t afford it, but food stamps let her afford it? Food stamps should be valid for a list of fairly unappetizing staples - meat at $3/lb or less, flour, bulk frozen vegetables,
There are no more small government people in the main two parties…that is a shame.
JoeyDVivre Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > bchadwick Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > So… which entitlement programs are the most > > important to cut? > > > > (all of them is not an acceptable answer > because > > it doesn’t reveal any way to prioritize things) > > > This stuff seems to me to be pretty easy to figure > out; it’s just politically hard. > > Cutting the budget: > > a) Interest payments - Nothing to be done about > that now, but what the heck is wrong with the > gov’t not issuing callable debt? Yes, that’s not really reducible. I’d have to think about the callable debt aspect. I guess the industry might have to rethink how it measures a risk-free rate if there are callables, especially if all treasuries become callable. What happens to financial theory if there is no risk-free asset at all. Then there’s the issue that the government might be able to manufacture low interest rates with monetary policy (yes the fed is supposed to be independent, but not when Hank and Ben are frolicking together with Ben wearing something nice and lacey). > > b) Defense - 20% of the budget. Nearly half a > trillion $. It’s simple to cut defense spending. > There are tons of weapons systems and bases that > are just pork. I’d kill the V-22, B-2, DDG > Destroyer, National missile defense program, etc… > I’d close a ton of bases and stop the wars. OK, I can see cutting defense, particularly since our defense needs to be “smarter” more than “stronger.” I just never thought of defense as an entitlement program, although I suppose you can consider pork-barrel projects as a kind of entitlement. > c) Social Security - Just make a freaking cap on > payments to high net-worth people. My mother > collects SS and she doesn’t need it at all. She > spends it on fancy meals, nice clothes, trips > around the world, etc. Not the intent of SS. That sounds sensible to me. Cutting social security in general I’d oppose, since so many people have worked a long time expecting it to be there. However caps for people who don’t need it to survive makes sense to me. After all, if you stop paying into SS if you make more than (I think $90k now), you probably should have a cap on what you receive too. > > d) Medicare - How about limiting the diagnoses and > treatments available under Medicare? If someone > wants to see a psychologist, Medicare will pay > $50/visit for unlimited visits. (Private Medigap > or whatever the veterans program is called pays > the other $50) There are no restrictions. You > know what people see psychologists (like my wife) > for? Trauma because they are having extra-marital > affairs, sadness due to erectile dysfunction, > premature ejaculation, etc. Do we really have a > national interest in funding this? Medicaid is > similar, but no psychologist I know takes it and > it’s vastly smaller. Tons of Medicare dollars are > spent prolonging the lives of very direly ill > people for a very short period of time. I know of > someone who was home to die with hospice care and > very terminal cancer. In a delirious state, he > got out of bed and tripped and broke his wrist. > Next thing you know, he was in the hospital > getting all manner of treatment for the terminal > cancer interacting with the broken wrist all > billed to Medicare. He was on so much morphine > the broken wrist didn’t matter at all. End of life issues are very tricky, because there are lots of expensive treatments that can prolong your life an extra 6 months or so. My dad lived in Canada while cancer took him and their system seemed sensible. They paid for hospice care or home palliative care, but after a certain point, there’s an end to publicly sponsored heroic measures. > e) Other discretionary programs - Food stamps. > When I was in graduate school and on a budget, I > was standing in a grocery store line and this > woman ahead of me was buying a pile of luxury > foods that I couldn’t buy (e.g., steak, bakery > foods, etc.) with food stamps. I can’t afford it, > but food stamps let her afford it? Food stamps > should be valid for a list of fairly unappetizing > staples - meat at $3/lb or less, flour, bulk > frozen vegetables, People would get off the program if they always > had to eat crap. OK, I’ll agree that the food stamp program is poorly administered, and your “minimum basket” sounds like a sensible thing. In practice, a standardized basket can be difficult to implement because families have different needs (maybe a kid can’t process lactose, is diabetic, etc.). I’m glad, though, that you’re not saying that we should let the unfortunate just rot in the street (which is the usual anti-food stamp position, an uncharacteristic position for JDV) > f) CFTC - Dirty buzzards. I hate them. I can see why you might hate them… but are you really calling them an entitlement program? 
kevinf12 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There are no more small government people in the > main two parties…that is a shame. It’s called kicking the can down the street. It’s a fun game until the can falls into a sewer grate.
"e) Other discretionary programs - Food stamps. When I was in graduate school and on a budget, I was standing in a grocery store line and this woman ahead of me was buying a pile of luxury foods that I couldn’t buy (e.g., steak, bakery foods, etc.) with food stamps. I can’t afford it, but food stamps let her afford it? Food stamps should be valid for a list of fairly unappetizing staples - meat at $3/lb or less, flour, bulk frozen vegetables,
bchadwick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > e) Other discretionary programs - Food stamps. > > When I was in graduate school and on a budget, > I > > was standing in a grocery store line and this > > woman ahead of me was buying a pile of luxury > > foods that I couldn’t buy (e.g., steak, bakery > > foods, etc.) with food stamps. I can’t afford > it, > > but food stamps let her afford it? Food stamps > > should be valid for a list of fairly > unappetizing > > staples - meat at $3/lb or less, flour, bulk > > frozen vegetables, > People would get off the program if they always > > had to eat crap. > > OK, I’ll agree that the food stamp program is > poorly administered, and your “minimum basket” > sounds like a sensible thing. In practice, a > standardized basket can be difficult to implement > because families have different needs (maybe a kid > can’t process lactose, is diabetic, etc.). I’m > glad, though, that you’re not saying that we > should let the unfortunate just rot in the street > (which is the usual anti-food stamp position, an > uncharacteristic position for JDV) > I’m fine with adding a “Special Food Stamp” program for people with medical issues. There is just nobody who needs to eat filet mignon for a medical reason. This would be such a tiny part of the budget if administered reasonably (a licensed physician signs on the computer and authorizes $x of special food stamps up to a max of $40/week). > > f) CFTC - Dirty buzzards. I hate them. > > I can see why you might hate them… but are you > really calling them an entitlement program? Not really but Chad would probably ban me if I said what I really thought.
JoeyDVivre Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You > know what people see psychologists (like my wife) > for? Trauma because they are having extra-marital > affairs, sadness due to erectile dysfunction, > premature ejaculation, etc. How did you two meet again?
sigh…the congress should just cut to the chase and start addressing each other as comrades already…