Levin: Let The Whole Damn Thing Collapse

[Cuyo]

Don't give me this both parties crap, the Democrat party is out to destroy this country. I can't see where the Republicans are doing anything but trying to stop them. That little pipsqueak Reid should be brought up on charges. If I were in charge he would be placed in irons and locked in the stockade for all to see. He's a shameful evil disgusting anti American piece of vomit. I would not piss on him if he were burning. Let the constitution place him in jail one day. Justice will be done.

where have you been the past decade? asleep? take the blinders off, this most certainly has not been 'a one man show'....

Bull! Don't just say it and post the crazy smilie. Give me some examples of what the Republicans are and have done to destroy America as we know it. I hate it when you birdbrains say things and suggest things that aren't true without offering any proof what so ever. Stop repeating the morons that supply you with your mistaken beliefs. Go beyond them and do your own research.

Yeah, sucks not everyone can be as smart as you and realize that the Democratic party alone is a massive conspiracy out to intentionally destroy the country, and the Republicans are upstanding citizens waging the resistance to evil....
Indeed.

 

[The T]

Congress should let non-essential government shut down until the newly elected members are seated in January, too.

Nobody but government would miss it.

That's what I have been saying for days.

 

[Care4all]

so how many employees do you think would be laid off and how many citizens would be added to unemployment and the cost of that, and how much less in tax revenues would be coming in?

And what exactly are non essential government employees, and who gets to decide? Would the Congress have to legislate these layoffs in some manner, and if so, how long would that take?

etc etc etc.....

I think there are plenty of gvt. jobs that could be or rather, should be eliminated. However, I do not think it should be done in haste, without reviewing the total consequences....many of the jobs that could be eliminated could be the very jobs that we say in haste, are essential.....like jobs covered by the Defense dept or are Congressional employees.

haste makes waste....in the long run.

 

[saveliberty]

Well...

I'd start with upper and middle level adminstrators first. If the postal service is any indicator, you could lose thousands and not effect service levels in any way.

 

[Cuyo]

so how many employees do you think would be laid off and how many citizens would be added to unemployment and the cost of that, and how much less in tax revenues would be coming in?

And what exactly are non essential government employees, and who gets to decide? Would the Congress have to legislate these layoffs in some manner, and if so, how long would that take?

etc etc etc.....

I think there are plenty of gvt. jobs that could be or rather, should be eliminated. However, I do not think it should be done in haste, without reviewing the total consequences....many of the jobs that could be eliminated could be the very jobs that we say in haste, are essential.....like jobs covered by the Defense dept or are Congressional employees.

haste makes waste....in the long run.

That's the thing... People think they can just scream CUT GOVERNMENT! and that will make it so.

First off, we can't cut our way out of this. The deficit is much, much larger than the amount of spending over which we have control. The bulk of our spending is in current liabilities. We default on them, well... Immediate worldwide depression.

Second, they ignore the fact that if cuts are to take place, the country has to AGREE on what to cut. The government is not going to just cut everything radical righties think is stoooopid, just because they think it's stoooopid.

Third, any spending cuts will add to unemployment rolls. Again, ANY spending cuts will add individuals to unemployment rolls. Is that not something we want to avoid amid economic turmoil?

Just my take anyway.

 

[Jroc]

If you outright eliminate every single one of those... Still doesn't come CLOSE to balancing the budget.



<Crickets>

We CANNOT cut our way out of this mess... I wish you would either realize this if you don't already, but if you do, exhibit a little intellectual honesty.

What?.. What is it with you libs? Cutting those agencies ALONG WITH ENTTLEMENT REFORM IS WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN, GET IT? Look... we have 10s of Trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities we have to reform government!! IT HAS TO BE DONE!!! Then we will grow our way out of this mess

Third, any spending cuts will add to unemployment rolls. Again, ANY spending cuts will add individuals to unemployment rolls. Is that not something we want to avoid amid economic turmoil?

When we do these things and reform government the private sector economy will take off that will create many more jobs then will be lost by the cuts its common sense for people that think logically, I guess that leaves liberals out.

 

[Cuyo]

If you outright eliminate every single one of those... Still doesn't come CLOSE to balancing the budget.



<Crickets>

We CANNOT cut our way out of this mess... I wish you would either realize this if you don't already, but if you do, exhibit a little intellectual honesty.

What?.. What is it with you libs? Cutting those agencies ALONG WITH ENTTLEMENT REFORM IS WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN, GET IT? Look... we have 10s of Trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities we have to reform government!! IT HAS TO BE DONE!!! Then we will grow our way out of this mess

Well, my not so bright but possibly well-intentioned friend, the problem with us libs is that we live in reality. We're crippled in an argument, because we have a need to make sense. In liberal circles, you can't get away with saying some looney stuff like "What we need, is to cut taxes so we can balance the budget!"

 

[Jroc]

If you outright eliminate every single one of those... Still doesn't come CLOSE to balancing the budget.



<Crickets>

We CANNOT cut our way out of this mess... I wish you would either realize this if you don't already, but if you do, exhibit a little intellectual honesty.

What?.. What is it with you libs? Cutting those agencies ALONG WITH ENTTLEMENT REFORM IS WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN, GET IT? Look... we have 10s of Trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities we have to reform government!! IT HAS TO BE DONE!!! Then we will grow our way out of this mess

Well, my not so bright but possibly well-intentioned friend, the problem with us libs is that we live in reality. We're crippled in an argument, because we have a need to make sense. In liberal circles, you can't get away with saying some looney stuff like "What we need, is to cut taxes so we can balance the budget!"

Brilliant.. I mean that is friken Brilliant.. Thank you for that useful post. Try to respond to the points or don't waste my time genus.

 

[boedicca]

If you outright eliminate every single one of those... Still doesn't come CLOSE to balancing the budget.

Please post the math that supports that conclusion.

Entire non-military descretionary budget this year - Roughly $600 Billion. (=x)

Deficit - About $1.2 TRILLION. (=y)

All of those programs are components of x. Since x < y, I can conclude that all those programs are also < y.

<Crickets>

We CANNOT cut our way out of this mess... I wish you would either realize this if you don't already, but if you do, exhibit a little intellectual honesty.

You first bub,

If you get rid of this mess, you get rid of the pensions and the other "fixed" expenses that are considered non-discretionary.

And get rid of the static thinking as well. Cutting back the size of government as a percent of the economy frees up capital for investment and spurs growth.

The resulting increase in tax receipts due to a growing economy would take care of filling the rest of the gap.

 

[Cuyo]

What?.. What is it with you libs? Cutting those agencies ALONG WITH ENTTLEMENT REFORM IS WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN, GET IT? Look... we have 10s of Trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities we have to reform government!! IT HAS TO BE DONE!!! Then we will grow our way out of this mess

Well, my not so bright but possibly well-intentioned friend, the problem with us libs is that we live in reality. We're crippled in an argument, because we have a need to make sense. In liberal circles, you can't get away with saying some looney stuff like "What we need, is to cut taxes so we can balance the budget!"

Brilliant.. I mean that is friken Brilliant.. Thank you for that useful post. Try to respond to the points or don't waste my time genus.

I'll give it a try, but I know how this conversation goes dood.... I know how it will end.

What, specifically, do you want to cut. No generalizations. You've got $1.2 trillion to go to a balanced budget. Go.

 

[Revere]

Push all spending to 2008 levels, for starters.

 

[boedicca]

$130B per year for 10 years will do the trick:

Jon Chait Watch: Libertarian "Vacuity" on Budget, Taxes, Once Again Causes Liberal Pundit to Erupt! - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine

 

[Revere]

Obama wants to consider "cuts" anythng below his baseline budget, which has increased 24% since he took office.

 

[The T]

Well...

I'd start with upper and middle level adminstrators first. If the postal service is any indicator, you could lose thousands and not effect service levels in any way.

And besides? The private sector eats the US Postal Services' lunch on a regular basis.

 

[The T]

Well...

I'd start with upper and middle level adminstrators first. If the postal service is any indicator, you could lose thousands and not effect service levels in any way.

I'd like to see an amendmnet that rids this nation of the WASTE that is the USPS....and they can take thier unions with them.

 

[Cuyo]

Please post the math that supports that conclusion.

Entire non-military descretionary budget this year - Roughly $600 Billion. (=x)

Deficit - About $1.2 TRILLION. (=y)

All of those programs are components of x. Since x < y, I can conclude that all those programs are also < y.

<Crickets>

We CANNOT cut our way out of this mess... I wish you would either realize this if you don't already, but if you do, exhibit a little intellectual honesty.

You first bub,

If you get rid of this mess, you get rid of the pensions and the other "fixed" expenses that are considered non-discretionary.

And get rid of the static thinking as well. Cutting back the size of government as a percent of the economy frees up capital for investment and spurs growth.

The resulting increase in tax receipts due to a growing economy would take care of filling the rest of the gap.

Well surely you at least admit that my math holds up. We're not talking about pensions and other fixed expenses, we're talking about disbanding the agencies the gentlemen mentioned. You're moving the goalposts. I'll be more than happy to address your post when you admit the same.

 

[boedicca]

You get rid of the agencies, you get rid of the snowballing pension problem.

I linked to an excellent article from Reason in which a 3.6% cut per year (from the projected budgets, not a one year baseline) would balance the budget in 10 years. I'd like to see more than that, but it would be a good place to start.

 

[Cuyo]

You get rid of the agencies, you get rid of the snowballing pension problem.

I linked to an excellent article from Reason in which a 3.6% cut per year (from the projected budgets, not a one year baseline) would balance the budget in 10 years. I'd like to see more than that, but it would be a good place to start.

The agencies' budgets include their respective pension outlays; Therefore the ~$600B I cited includes those amounts.

Maybe I admit it's a problem, maybe not. But first we have to agree on the numbers. I really feel we can't go on any further if we can't. And I hope we do. This will be a nice debate if it stays friendly and we .

 

[SFC Ollie]

You get rid of the agencies, you get rid of the snowballing pension problem.

I linked to an excellent article from Reason in which a 3.6% cut per year (from the projected budgets, not a one year baseline) would balance the budget in 10 years. I'd like to see more than that, but it would be a good place to start.

The agencies' budgets include their respective pension outlays; Therefore the ~$600B I cited includes those amounts.

Maybe I admit it's a problem, maybe not. But first we have to agree on the numbers. I really feel we can't go on any further if we can't. And I hope we do. This will be a nice debate if it stays friendly and we .

I thought we were told that just a few years ago the Clinton administration had a surplus.... yet now we are being told that we can't get that back without major tax increases? After all the added spending that the Bush and Obama administrations have already made? We can't do it? There's some BS in there somewhere.

 

[Cuyo]

You get rid of the agencies, you get rid of the snowballing pension problem.

I linked to an excellent article from Reason in which a 3.6% cut per year (from the projected budgets, not a one year baseline) would balance the budget in 10 years. I'd like to see more than that, but it would be a good place to start.

The agencies' budgets include their respective pension outlays; Therefore the ~$600B I cited includes those amounts.

Maybe I admit it's a problem, maybe not. But first we have to agree on the numbers. I really feel we can't go on any further if we can't. And I hope we do. This will be a nice debate if it stays friendly and we .

I thought we were told that just a few years ago the Clinton administration had a surplus.... yet now we are being told that we can't get that back without major tax increases? After all the added spending that the Bush and Obama administrations have already made? We can't do it? There's some BS in there somewhere.

According to GAO, to grow out of the problem would require double-digit GDP growth for the next 75 years. (GDP growth in the 90's - Which was considered excellent - averaged 3.2%)

According to Ben Bernanke in April of this year:

Unfortunately, we cannot grow our way out of this problem. No credible forecast suggests that future rates of growth of the U.S. economy will be sufficient to close these deficits without significant changes to our fiscal policies.

Also, nobody's calling for major tax increases - The only thing that was ever on the table by anyone this year was a 4.6% increase on wage earners making over $250k - And only on those wages above $250k.

I'm not saying it can't be both. But whatever it is, it's got to be sane and reside somewhere near the real world. Blind ideology does not solve problems, no matter how aggressive its proponents.