How To Tell Who's Serious About Reducing the Federal Deficit

Science Chic wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: And now SC, just one question for you. Do you think I am serious about reducing the deficit incurred by the general government?

I never doubted that you were PS, you've been an outspoken proponent of drastically reduced spending. I am confused as to why you thought the article wasn't about that though as 4 of the 5 points was about cutting spending.

I don't know why this article didn't mention other earmarks and wasteful spending, but I assumed that it was because they were discussing recurring costs more so than one-time costs, or deficits that will be added in the future as programs come on-line.

The reality of the situation is that, assuming (and you know what they say about that, right?) that the full faith and credit of the nation is maintained, Social Security is pretty much self sustaining and is, itself, generating a surplus right now that can be used in the future to address its $14 Trillion worth of unfunded liabilities. Social Security isn't part of the deficit problem (yet) and is actually, by statute, not included in any determination of surplus or deficit. Which means these folks, while making some interesting observations, might not necessarily be operating on much more than opinion.

Secondly, they said in their second point that anyone who says we can eliminate the deficit without cutting defense spending wasn't being serious. In my response I made the point that the entirety of the current DoD budget could be maintained without increasing the tax burden if we eliminated the inventions of the national Congress to address the individual welfare of the person that compromise the "mandatory" spending items that are currently part of the budget. Thus, we can eliminate deficit spending without cutting the DoD budget, or any current departmental budget, that is presently classified as "discretionary", even ones that I believe are outside of the purview of the general government such as the Dept of Education if we eliminate the "mandatory" creations cooked up by Congress that represent the totality of every single dollar collected from the people in the current budgets.

To stop the deficit spending we would either need to eliminate every function of government other than the ones invented by Congress to address the individual welfare of the person, eliminate entirely from the budget those invented purposes of the general government or raise the tax burden an additional 50% above what it is currently to fund the "discretionary" and the "mandatory" spending at their present levels. When you boil it down to where the rubber meets the road, these are the options we are talking about and there is really only one of those that comes anywhere near being an acceptable one IMNTBHO. The authors of the opinion contained in your OP still seem to cling to the fantasy that we can accomplish what needs doing without taking one of these steps, and I think that is nothing more than a pipe dream. Trimming the DoD budget by a few billion dollars a year, and trimming the Medicare budget by a few billion a year and trimming the SS "Insurance benefits" by a few billion dollars a year combined with a few billion dollars a year in additional taxation won't prevent the deficit from growing, and really would barely even slow its growth appreciably, let alone allow us to address reducing the principle amount of the public debt. We are talking about needing to reduce the budget by 1,500 Billion USD annually to simply restore it to a balance. To argue about the difference between a $300 Billion extension of income tax rates and a $370 Billion extension is really nothing more than a waste of time. Even allowing the largest single tax hike in the history of the nation to occur with no action on the part of the current Congress would address only between 20% and 25% of what needs to happen, and soon.

Trimming the DoD budget, reducing Medicare and Medicaid and increasing the age for SS benefits might bring us up to 30% or 35%. Where is the remaining 65% to 70% going to come from? There is only one place that this amount of money can reasonably come from, and that place is the invented individual welfare spending that Congress is responsible for creating as one of the areas for which it is responsible.

The Viking wrote: The person writing this article is by far anti war and anti military.

I'm against wars, too, so that makes me anti-war. Are you pro-war, Viking?

Wayne:

Have you quit beating your daughter?

There is no safe answer, is there?

Same kind of question as you just asked Viking. If that isn't baiting, I don't know what it is.

He complained the writer was anti-war. I just wanted to find out where he stood on the issue.

Since you chimed in are you anti-war or pro-war?

Yes, I quit beating my daughter some time ago.

So, why did Viking make the statement that the author of the article is "by far anti war and anti military." Is it bad to be anti-war or anti-military? I'll bet Viking thinks so.

Scruffy wrote: So, why did Viking make the statement that the author of the article is "by far anti war and anti military." Is it bad to be anti-war or anti-military? I'll bet Viking thinks so.

I believe Viking was pointing out some obvious bias that would be counter to the pure standards of journalism.

The author is an electrical engineer writing on a blog, JusSaying:

http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/writer ... n-angliss/

Thanks for the clarification, Wayne. I retract my previous post. 'Bias' may not have been accurate. 'Opinion' may.

I wouldn't want Wayne to think I evaded answering his questions like he avoids answering mine, so Wayne, I am a Hawk!!!!

I am a Dove.