Lets focus on economics and a balanced budget

[imawhosure]

geez. now you got me "started". I better get up and do something. sigh. Take good look at DEPT of Commerce? do we need all of this? there are hunders of these slushy wasteful boondoggle departments. Nice, they usually include an "other" to hide the party fund.

Department of Commerce
Bureau of Industry and Security
Bureau of the Census
Departmental Management
Economic Development Administration
Economics and Statistics Administration
International Trade Administration
Minority Business Development Agency
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Technical Information Service
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Other
Regional Development Program
Technology Administration
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
United States Travel and Tourism Administration

I agree 100% we have a bloated federal budget full of agencies that we can cut or shrink.

Again we have a $19 trillion deficit. to get that down we need everything on the table. Military, social security, education, commerce, etc etc.

View attachment 69109

Ok so roughly 33% of the federal budget is discretionary spending. To balance the budget will require more than just cuts in discretionary spending.

One of the huge drivers of medicare and social security is the baby boomer generation retirees. We have an enormous number of old people drawing benefits. I think the current stat on ratio of those paying in for those receiving is 3:1 where as it was 15:1 when we started the program.

How do we get there?
1. do we cut social security benefits?
2. do we gut medicare?
3. do we lift the cap on taxed income?

we can talk about cutting food stamps or eliminating the department of education or cutting farm subsidies or foreign aid but those are such small pieces of the pie. Everything has to be on the table

Yes, yes and yes.

Trump will eliminate it all and make America great once more. At least that is what I hope.

There is no need to balance the federal budget.

Now what LL said is fascinating! And why is balancing the budget not needed? I thought that Bill Clinton's expansion, was helped along by his at least in real terms......coming close to balancing the budget. Are you suggesting that his administrations efforts were worth nothing in economic terms?

Nope. Not cause and effect. Pointless to discuss it with those who don't wish to view he matter logically. This nation is not a business and it is not a household.

I agree 100% we have a bloated federal budget full of agencies that we can cut or shrink.

Again we have a $19 trillion deficit. to get that down we need everything on the table. Military, social security, education, commerce, etc etc.

Yes, yes and yes.

Trump will eliminate it all and make America great once more. At least that is what I hope.

There is no need to balance the federal budget.

Now what LL said is fascinating! And why is balancing the budget not needed? I thought that Bill Clinton's expansion, was helped along by his at least in real terms......coming close to balancing the budget. Are you suggesting that his administrations efforts were worth nothing in economic terms?

Nope. Not cause and effect. Pointless to discuss it with those who don't wish to view he matter logically. This nation is not a business and it is not a household.

Ah the stupid MMT argument of government being capable of magic.

Go tell to this to Greece and Argentina. I am sure that they will find comfort in your "logic".

So then, your own government has told you, me, and everyone else that..............THIS SPENDING IS UNSUSTAINABLE, but of course, you know better. Lone, you are now not the only one laughing, because everyone is laughing at you! Carry on-)

Our spending is most certainly not unsustainable. Some adjustment in where it is spent is in order....but we actually should be spending more.

I see, I see. So then, I can now claim that Lone Laughter has proclaimed that everyone should be paying zero taxes as the deficit and National debt does not matter. What ever money we need, just print it! Taxes are irrelevant, because debt is irrelevant. Fascinating synopsis, if I do say so myself.

 

[IcebergSlim]

I didn't think reducing the tax burden of each tax payer would destroy the economy?

How does the current federal tax burden compare to the historical average?

You tell me.

Socialism, is what happened.

What do you believe that shows with respect to the federal tax burden?

I gather you are a Trump enthusiast...

just so you know...

The debt tripled under Reagan, quadrupled if you include the four years which followed Supply Side Idiocy, Part One....

Scrub effected a net swing of over 15 trillion dollars in the nation;s fiscal position...

I will lay big odds that you cast a few votes in support of that madness...

 

[IcebergSlim]

I agree 100% we have a bloated federal budget full of agencies that we can cut or shrink.

Again we have a $19 trillion deficit. to get that down we need everything on the table. Military, social security, education, commerce, etc etc.

Yes, yes and yes.

Trump will eliminate it all and make America great once more. At least that is what I hope.

There is no need to balance the federal budget.

Now what LL said is fascinating! And why is balancing the budget not needed? I thought that Bill Clinton's expansion, was helped along by his at least in real terms......coming close to balancing the budget. Are you suggesting that his administrations efforts were worth nothing in economic terms?

Nope. Not cause and effect. Pointless to discuss it with those who don't wish to view he matter logically. This nation is not a business and it is not a household.

Now what LL said is fascinating! And why is balancing the budget not needed? I thought that Bill Clinton's expansion, was helped along by his at least in real terms......coming close to balancing the budget. Are you suggesting that his administrations efforts were worth nothing in economic terms?

Nope. Not cause and effect. Pointless to discuss it with those who don't wish to view he matter logically. This nation is not a business and it is not a household.

Ah the stupid MMT argument of government being capable of magic.

Go tell to this to Greece and Argentina. I am sure that they will find comfort in your "logic".

So then, your own government has told you, me, and everyone else that..............THIS SPENDING IS UNSUSTAINABLE, but of course, you know better. Lone, you are now not the only one laughing, because everyone is laughing at you! Carry on-)

Our spending is most certainly not unsustainable. Some adjustment in where it is spent is in order....but we actually should be spending more.

I see, I see. So then, I can now claim that Lone Laughter has proclaimed that everyone should be paying zero taxes as the deficit and National debt does not matter. What ever money we need, just print it! Taxes are irrelevant, because debt is irrelevant. Fascinating synopsis, if I do say so myself.

Have you, at any time in the past 7 years, complained about the rate of growth of GDP?

 

[LoneLaugher]

I agree 100% we have a bloated federal budget full of agencies that we can cut or shrink.

Again we have a $19 trillion deficit. to get that down we need everything on the table. Military, social security, education, commerce, etc etc.

Yes, yes and yes.

Trump will eliminate it all and make America great once more. At least that is what I hope.

There is no need to balance the federal budget.

Now what LL said is fascinating! And why is balancing the budget not needed? I thought that Bill Clinton's expansion, was helped along by his at least in real terms......coming close to balancing the budget. Are you suggesting that his administrations efforts were worth nothing in economic terms?

Nope. Not cause and effect. Pointless to discuss it with those who don't wish to view he matter logically. This nation is not a business and it is not a household.

Now what LL said is fascinating! And why is balancing the budget not needed? I thought that Bill Clinton's expansion, was helped along by his at least in real terms......coming close to balancing the budget. Are you suggesting that his administrations efforts were worth nothing in economic terms?

Nope. Not cause and effect. Pointless to discuss it with those who don't wish to view he matter logically. This nation is not a business and it is not a household.

Ah the stupid MMT argument of government being capable of magic.

Go tell to this to Greece and Argentina. I am sure that they will find comfort in your "logic".

So then, your own government has told you, me, and everyone else that..............THIS SPENDING IS UNSUSTAINABLE, but of course, you know better. Lone, you are now not the only one laughing, because everyone is laughing at you! Carry on-)

Our spending is most certainly not unsustainable. Some adjustment in where it is spent is in order....but we actually should be spending more.

I see, I see. So then, I can now claim that Lone Laughter has proclaimed that everyone should be paying zero taxes as the deficit and National debt does not matter. What ever money we need, just print it! Taxes are irrelevant, because debt is irrelevant. Fascinating synopsis, if I do say so myself.

There you go again.

 

[imawhosure]

I didn't think reducing the tax burden of each tax payer would destroy the economy?

How does the current federal tax burden compare to the historical average?

You tell me.

Socialism, is what happened.

What do you believe that shows with respect to the federal tax burden?

I gather you are a Trump enthusiast...

just so you know...

The debt tripled under Reagan, quadrupled if you include the four years which followed Supply Side Idiocy, Part Deux....

Scrub effected a net swing of over 15 trillion dollars in the nation;s fiscal position...

I will lay big odds that you cast a few votes in support of that madness...

Oh, we have a lefty war here-) So, which one of these stellar examples of lefty logic is correct folks? The one who claims that debt doesn't matter, or the one that claims that Reagan increased the debt, although for that debt we put the USSR out of business, which gave us the peace dividend that helped Clinton come close to balancing the budget; but that too doesn't matter if you listen to the other guy, because since debt doesn't matter, Bill Clinton was a Scrooge on spending, lol!

Boy oh boy, these lefties need their own thread to get on the same page. Debt matters, no it doesn't, yes it does, do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars-)

 

[LoneLaugher]

I didn't think reducing the tax burden of each tax payer would destroy the economy?

How does the current federal tax burden compare to the historical average?

You tell me.

Socialism, is what happened.

What do you believe that shows with respect to the federal tax burden?

I gather you are a Trump enthusiast...

just so you know...

The debt tripled under Reagan, quadrupled if you include the four years which followed Supply Side Idiocy, Part Deux....

Scrub effected a net swing of over 15 trillion dollars in the nation;s fiscal position...

I will lay big odds that you cast a few votes in support of that madness...

Oh, we have a lefty war here-) So, which one of these stellar examples of lefty logic is correct folks? The one who claims that debt doesn't matter, or the one that claims that Reagan increased the debt, although for that debt we put the USSR out of business, which gave us the peace dividend that helped Clinton come close to balancing the budget; but that too doesn't matter if you listen to the other guy, because since debt doesn't matter, Bill Clinton was a Scrooge on spending, lol!

Boy oh boy, these lefties need their own thread to get on the same page. Debt matters, no it doesn't, yes it does, do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars-)

You did it again.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There is no need to balance the federal budget.

Let’s say that’s it normal and appropriate for the Federal budget to exist in deficit at times related to economic conditions.

Indeed, during a recession it’s desirable to have a deficit because government spending can contribute to the economy’s recovery.

A pragmatic approach is best, absent partisan doctrine and dogma, with the understanding that the budget won’t be balanced on the backs of low income working Americans, disabled Americans, older Americans close to retirement, and those indeed retired.

 

[IcebergSlim]

I didn't think reducing the tax burden of each tax payer would destroy the economy?

How does the current federal tax burden compare to the historical average?

You tell me.

Socialism, is what happened.

What do you believe that shows with respect to the federal tax burden?

I gather you are a Trump enthusiast...

just so you know...

The debt tripled under Reagan, quadrupled if you include the four years which followed Supply Side Idiocy, Part Deux....

Scrub effected a net swing of over 15 trillion dollars in the nation;s fiscal position...

I will lay big odds that you cast a few votes in support of that madness...

Oh, we have a lefty war here-) So, which one of these stellar examples of lefty logic is correct folks? The one who claims that debt doesn't matter, or the one that claims that Reagan increased the debt, although for that debt we put the USSR out of business, which gave us the peace dividend that helped Clinton come close to balancing the budget; but that too doesn't matter if you listen to the other guy, because since debt doesn't matter, Bill Clinton was a Scrooge on spending, lol!

Boy oh boy, these lefties need their own thread to get on the same page. Debt matters, no it doesn't, yes it does, do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars-)

Uh...didn't you just have that debate with yourself?

And conclude that, if obscured by a fog of hagiographic flatus, debt is "good"?

 

[Norman]

There is no need to balance the federal budget.

Let’s say that’s it normal and appropriate for the Federal budget to exist in deficit at times related to economic conditions.

Indeed, during a recession it’s desirable to have a deficit because government spending can contribute to the economy’s recovery.

A pragmatic approach is best, absent partisan doctrine and dogma, with the understanding that the budget won’t be balanced on the backs of low income working Americans, disabled Americans, older Americans close to retirement, and those indeed retired.

This is all fine and dandy, as long as you don't claim that recession can go on for 20 years. You know, recession has to be cyclical. For democrats - it's always recession and spending time!

Although, if they had their way it would actually be a permanent recession... And that is what we are witnessing in parts of Europe. They are just too silly to see that the issue is not a 10 year recession, but a structural issue caused by socialist policies.

 

[Rozman]

I just love seeing the comments that the Federal government should be spending more.
Almost as funny as seeing the posts here that say our economy is thriving under Obama...

 

[IcebergSlim]

There is no need to balance the federal budget.

Let’s say that’s it normal and appropriate for the Federal budget to exist in deficit at times related to economic conditions.

Indeed, during a recession it’s desirable to have a deficit because government spending can contribute to the economy’s recovery.

A pragmatic approach is best, absent partisan doctrine and dogma, with the understanding that the budget won’t be balanced on the backs of low income working Americans, disabled Americans, older Americans close to retirement, and those indeed retired.

This is all fine and dandy, as long as you don't claim that recession can go on for 20 years. You know, recession has to be cyclical. For democrats - it's always recession and spending time!

Although, if they had their way it would actually be a permanent recession... And that is what we are witnessing in parts of Europe. They are just too silly to see that the issue is not a 10 year recession, but a structural issue caused by socialist policies.

Under which POTUS, over the past 35 years, have we seen the highest annual growth rate of federal spending?

 

[IcebergSlim]

I just love seeing the comments that the Federal government should be spending more.
Almost as funny as seeing the posts here that say our economy is thriving under Obama...

It certainly is markedly improved.....

 

[imawhosure]

I didn't think reducing the tax burden of each tax payer would destroy the economy?

How does the current federal tax burden compare to the historical average?

You tell me.

Socialism, is what happened.

What do you believe that shows with respect to the federal tax burden?

I gather you are a Trump enthusiast...

just so you know...

The debt tripled under Reagan, quadrupled if you include the four years which followed Supply Side Idiocy, Part Deux....

Scrub effected a net swing of over 15 trillion dollars in the nation;s fiscal position...

I will lay big odds that you cast a few votes in support of that madness...

Oh, we have a lefty war here-) So, which one of these stellar examples of lefty logic is correct folks? The one who claims that debt doesn't matter, or the one that claims that Reagan increased the debt, although for that debt we put the USSR out of business, which gave us the peace dividend that helped Clinton come close to balancing the budget; but that too doesn't matter if you listen to the other guy, because since debt doesn't matter, Bill Clinton was a Scrooge on spending, lol!

Boy oh boy, these lefties need their own thread to get on the same page. Debt matters, no it doesn't, yes it does, do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars-)

Uh...didn't you just have that debate with yourself?

And conclude that, if obscured by a fog of hagiographic flatus, debt is "good"?

Actually, no! You can't expect me to debate both sides of the same argument. You two need decide if balancing a federal budget is good, or bad. And if it is only good to run a deficit in recessionary years, are you then suggesting that the Obama economy has been in recession for the last 7?

We need clarification here, so it is obvious what your 2 guys points are. I have made myself clear, that the OMB says these deficits are unsustainable. Now what do you 2 people say? And if deficits mean nothing, then why pay any taxes at all, and just print money to cover the cost of government?

I think the debate is cut and dry, but I am trying to discover what position is being taken by you 2! Same? Different? Hybrid?

 

[Norman]

I just love seeing the comments that the Federal government should be spending more.
Almost as funny as seeing the posts here that say our economy is thriving under Obama...

Noo, the comments are exactly right. We need more spending! Lack of spending is the problem we are having here!

 

[IcebergSlim]

How does the current federal tax burden compare to the historical average?

You tell me.

Socialism, is what happened.

What do you believe that shows with respect to the federal tax burden?

I gather you are a Trump enthusiast...

just so you know...

The debt tripled under Reagan, quadrupled if you include the four years which followed Supply Side Idiocy, Part Deux....

Scrub effected a net swing of over 15 trillion dollars in the nation;s fiscal position...

I will lay big odds that you cast a few votes in support of that madness...

Oh, we have a lefty war here-) So, which one of these stellar examples of lefty logic is correct folks? The one who claims that debt doesn't matter, or the one that claims that Reagan increased the debt, although for that debt we put the USSR out of business, which gave us the peace dividend that helped Clinton come close to balancing the budget; but that too doesn't matter if you listen to the other guy, because since debt doesn't matter, Bill Clinton was a Scrooge on spending, lol!

Boy oh boy, these lefties need their own thread to get on the same page. Debt matters, no it doesn't, yes it does, do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars-)

Uh...didn't you just have that debate with yourself?

And conclude that, if obscured by a fog of hagiographic flatus, debt is "good"?

Actually, no! You can't expect me to debate both sides of the same argument. You two need decide if balancing a federal budget is good, or bad. And if it is only good to run a deficit in recessionary years, are you then suggesting that the Obama economy has been in recession for the last 7?

We need clarification here, so it is obvious what your 2 guys points are. I have made myself clear, that the OMB says these deficits are unsustainable. Now what do you 2 people say? And if deficits mean nothing, then why pay any taxes at all, and just print money to cover the cost of government?

I think the debate is cut and dry, but I am trying to discover what position is being taken by you 2! Same? Different? Hybrid?

here are your words...


The one who claims that debt doesn't matter, or the one that claims that Reagan increased the debt, although for that debt we put the USSR out of business, which gave us the peace dividend that helped Clinton come close to balancing the budget


am I wrong in coming away with the impression that you rationalized the unprecedented explosion of the debt under Ronald Reagan? (the accuracy, or complete lack thereof, of your blatherskite notwithstanding)

 

[IcebergSlim]

I just love seeing the comments that the Federal government should be spending more.
Almost as funny as seeing the posts here that say our economy is thriving under Obama...

Noo, the comments are exactly right. We need more spending! Lack of spending is the problem we are having here!

Spot the outliers........

 

[Rozman]

We are coming up on being $20 Trillion in debt and we just don't spend enough and need to spend more...
You have got to be shitting me...

 

[imawhosure]

You tell me.

Socialism, is what happened.

What do you believe that shows with respect to the federal tax burden?

I gather you are a Trump enthusiast...

just so you know...

The debt tripled under Reagan, quadrupled if you include the four years which followed Supply Side Idiocy, Part Deux....

Scrub effected a net swing of over 15 trillion dollars in the nation;s fiscal position...

I will lay big odds that you cast a few votes in support of that madness...

Oh, we have a lefty war here-) So, which one of these stellar examples of lefty logic is correct folks? The one who claims that debt doesn't matter, or the one that claims that Reagan increased the debt, although for that debt we put the USSR out of business, which gave us the peace dividend that helped Clinton come close to balancing the budget; but that too doesn't matter if you listen to the other guy, because since debt doesn't matter, Bill Clinton was a Scrooge on spending, lol!

Boy oh boy, these lefties need their own thread to get on the same page. Debt matters, no it doesn't, yes it does, do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars-)

Uh...didn't you just have that debate with yourself?

And conclude that, if obscured by a fog of hagiographic flatus, debt is "good"?

Actually, no! You can't expect me to debate both sides of the same argument. You two need decide if balancing a federal budget is good, or bad. And if it is only good to run a deficit in recessionary years, are you then suggesting that the Obama economy has been in recession for the last 7?

We need clarification here, so it is obvious what your 2 guys points are. I have made myself clear, that the OMB says these deficits are unsustainable. Now what do you 2 people say? And if deficits mean nothing, then why pay any taxes at all, and just print money to cover the cost of government?

I think the debate is cut and dry, but I am trying to discover what position is being taken by you 2! Same? Different? Hybrid?

here are your words...


The one who claims that debt doesn't matter, or the one that claims that Reagan increased the debt, although for that debt we put the USSR out of business, which gave us the peace dividend that helped Clinton come close to balancing the budget


am I wrong in coming away with the impression that you rationalized the unprecedented explosion of the debt under Ronald Reagan? (the accuracy, or complete lack thereof, of your blatherskite notwithstanding)

So, if you pay to have your roof fixed because of neglect by a previous owner, that is wrong? Notice, I didn't say purchase a new big screen TV, AKA, Obamacare!

All I ever intended to point out is------------> If we have a balanced budget amendment that is in force unless 2/3rds of congress deem it necessary to deficit spend, then anything either party desires, has to be paid for with cuts elsewhere, or a rise in taxes. Makes no difference if it is a Republican or Democrat!

Do that and American people will pay far more attention, and keep control of the government, no matter who resides there. And isn't that really what was intended?

If everyone's taxes will rise, or many more people would be in danger of losing something important to them, then voting percentages would rise dramatically; and isn't that a good thing! Shouldn't our government officials be FORCED to make hard choices with our hard earned money, or should we just allow them to devalue the currency which favors the very wealthy, who can hire people for the best investments to retain the wealth they have!

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

View attachment 69109

Ok so roughly 33% of the federal budget is discretionary spending. To balance the budget will require more than just cuts in discretionary spending.

One of the huge drivers of medicare and social security is the baby boomer generation retirees. We have an enormous number of old people drawing benefits. I think the current stat on ratio of those paying in for those receiving is 3:1 where as it was 15:1 when we started the program.

How do we get there?
1. do we cut social security benefits?
2. do we gut medicare?
3. do we lift the cap on taxed income?

we can talk about cutting food stamps or eliminating the department of education or cutting farm subsidies or foreign aid but those are such small pieces of the pie. Everything has to be on the table

You first of all have to get relevant data. The worker to retiree ratio is a mess. Here is an article that I published in Forbes, with the fuller explanation :

Social Security And The Blame Game

"First, the number of workers does not tell you about the capacity of the economy to service retirees. Second, the number of beneficiaries does not tell you how much Social Security costs to run....

The ratio is not about helping people understand the problem. It is about helping politicians avoid the blame."

Word counts prohibited me from getting the complete explanation in.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

geez. now you got me "started". I better get up and do something. sigh. Take good look at DEPT of Commerce? do we need all of this? there are hunders of these slushy wasteful boondoggle departments. Nice, they usually include an "other" to hide the party fund.

Department of Commerce
Bureau of Industry and Security
Bureau of the Census
Departmental Management
Economic Development Administration
Economics and Statistics Administration
International Trade Administration
Minority Business Development Agency
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Technical Information Service
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Other
Regional Development Program
Technology Administration
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
United States Travel and Tourism Administration

I agree 100% we have a bloated federal budget full of agencies that we can cut or shrink.

Again we have a $19 trillion deficit. to get that down we need everything on the table. Military, social security, education, commerce, etc etc.

We have $19 trillion in debt. The deficit is how much the debt grows every year - 500 billion over the past year. That does not include off-balance sheet guarantees like students loans much less the unfunded liabilities of SS, Medicare, and the like.