There's no hope

[Spexxvet]

From here.

Polls show that the American people are strongly in favor of cutting spending and getting the deficits under control. But polls also show that Americans strongly favor almost every sort of government program.

Supported by Pugh

The country is at an impass. We like the the things that our government does that benefit us, and want to cut out what it does that benefit others, but not us. And we want someone else to pay for it all.

We are fucked.

[glatt]

Seems like the simplest way to balance the budget is to do it proportionally. If we need to cut the budget 10%, you cut each and every program 10%. Including military, SS, medicare, medicaid, and all discretionary spending. You just cut everything. No fighting needed. No politics needed.

Personally, I think the infrastructure needs real attention, so I'd actually increase that a lot, and then cut everything else just a little bit more to make up for it.

Leave all the political stuff alone. It's too contentious. But just about everyone can see the need to maintain our infrastructure. It's non-political.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by glatt

Seems like the simplest way to balance the budget is to do it proportionally. If we need to cut the budget 10%, you cut each and every program 10%. Including military, SS, medicare, medicaid, and all discretionary spending. You just cut everything. No fighting needed. No politics needed.

Personally, I think the infrastructure needs real attention, so I'd actually increase that a lot, and then cut everything else just a little bit more to make up for it.

You're already arguing with yourself!!! Congress and 300 million Americans will never be able to agree.

[Uday]

This is a self-correcting problem, I am thinking.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Uday

This is a self-correcting problem, I am thinking.

That is what happened to GM. For 30 years, GM played money games to mask a reality that only got worse every five years. Eventually, GM ran out of money games. So the US government had to buy GM.

Self correcting means the debts come due (in the case of Mission Accomplished and Vietnam) seven or ten years after the fact.

Our government has other problems. For example, the government spends tens of $billions to enrich ethanol producers. All cars in America are now required to burn ethanol - that has no productive value. And that would not exist without those tens of $billions in US government subsidies.

Or an engine for the J-35 fighter plane - that even the defense department does not want. But the engine will be built in districts of the most powerful Congressional Republicans. So nobody will cancel what is clearly pork.

The US government issues protection to big pharma so that American drug prices can be 40% higher than even Canada and Mexico. That is $1 trillion over ten years. But again, too many bought and paid for politicians because the Supreme Court has said it is legal to buy a politicians.

Agricultural subsidies clearly protect farmers. Nonsense. Most of that government subsidy money goes to big agriculture companies such as Arthur Daniels Midlands. Farmers see almost none of it. Corporate welfare that can easily be eliminated. But ADM is a major purchaser of politicians.

Over $1billion annually given is Israel. The nation that gets the most American foreign aid. Why are we subsidizing a world industrial power with foreign aid? Because we must not cut spending that exists only for political reasons.

All examples of spending that is ignored - untouched - not even discusses for cut backs. Cited above is at least $100billion in savings. None are discussed by, for example, the tea party who says they want to cut spending.

Every above example should be cut to zero. But in money games, the resulting pain does not appear for so many years later. Same reasons why GM was on the verge of bankruptcy in 1991. Spread sheets never reported reality until 2008. So easy is to ignore realities.

[plthijinx]

god. here we go.

Our government has other problems. For example, the government spends tens of $billions to enrich ethanol producers. All cars in America are now required to burn ethanol - that has no productive value. And that would not exist without those tens of $billions in US government subsidies.

you forgot to mention that ethanol is a corn substitute additive to gasoline thus cutting down on the consumption of oil. you know what? nevermind. i;m borrowing LJ;s 10 foot pole.

[tw]

Originally Posted by plthijinx

you forgot to mention that ethanol is a corn substitute additive to gasoline thus cutting down on the consumption of oil.

Would be true if one unit of energy produced multiple units of ethanol energy. First, petroleum produces about 30 units of energy for one unit to obtain it. Ethanol consumes one unit of energy for one unit produced.

Second, different from Brazil where the ethanol process is actually profitable. Where less energy produces more ethanol energy. So Brazil need not subsidize their energy industry with tens of $billions. To protect our unproductive and inefficient ethanol industry, America adds a $0.50 per gallon tax on imported Brazilian ethanol. American ethanol is that inefficient and unproductive.

One unit of energy only produces one unit of energy. Costs most money. Basically American ethanol violates principles that make free markets work. A perfect example of what would happen in a Soviet economy. Something immediately cut from a government budget IF the tea party is serious about cutting wasteful government spending.

Third, we spend more on for pet food R&D than on energy research. How could that change? Remove at least $25billion that subsidizes unproductive ethanol plants. Then invest it in research for productive energy sources including an ethanol that might be productive. But we do not do that. We spend tens of $billions to enrich owners of useless ethanol manufacturing plants. Then put it into cars resulting in lower gasoline mileage.

So many damning numbers. I can find no advantage to ethanol. But many of power brokers are getting rich on it.

[TheMercenary]

So Obama has his Debt Commission study and come up with a plan to reduce the Deficit.... Then he proposes a budget that has none of the suggestions of the bipartisan commission. Pure Kabuki Theater.


The Hill Exclusive: Debt leaders call for more cuts to avert 'disaster'

Neither the White House budget nor the congressional Republican spending plan are focused on the long-term drivers of the budget deficit, the co-chairmen of President Obama’s debt commission write in Thursday’s issue of The Hill.

In an op-ed, former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.) and Democrat Erskine Bowles write that by focusing “primarily on domestic discretionary spending, neither plan goes at all far enough to deal with our medium- or long-term fiscal challenges.”

http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...son-and-bowles

[SamIam]

Quit declaring wars that are founded on lies and repeal the tax cuts for the wealthy. We actually were on the plus end of things under Clinton. Then GW Jr. decided to institute welfare for Halliburton el al and turn his billionaire friends into trillionaires. Nothing beats settling a score for the old man - especially when everyone else has to pay for it.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by SamIam

Nothing beats settling a score for the old man - especially when everyone else has to pay for it.

There in lies the problem. Everyone else is not paying for it in Federal Income Tax. Flatten the tax and make everyone pay then they can be invested. Raise the ceiling amount to tax wages on SS and that would be fixed in a day. Obama proposed to cut the budget by 1/35,000th and ignored his own debt commission. He failed.

[toranokaze]

Originally Posted by tw

Would be true if one unit of energy produced multiple units of ethanol energy. First, petroleum produces about 30 units of energy for one unit to obtain it. Ethanol consumes one unit of energy for one unit produced.

Second, different from Brazil where the ethanol process is actually profitable. Where less energy produces more ethanol energy. So Brazil need not subsidize their energy industry with tens of $billions. To protect our unproductive and inefficient ethanol industry, America adds a $0.50 per gallon tax on imported Brazilian ethanol. American ethanol is that inefficient and unproductive.

One unit of energy only produces one unit of energy. Costs most money. Basically American ethanol violates principles that make free markets work. A perfect example of what would happen in a Soviet economy. Something immediately cut from a government budget IF the tea party is serious about cutting wasteful government spending.

Third, we spend more on for pet food R&D than on energy research. How could that change? Remove at least $25billion that subsidizes unproductive ethanol plants. Then invest it in research for productive energy sources including an ethanol that might be productive. But we do not do that. We spend tens of $billions to enrich owners of useless ethanol manufacturing plants. Then put it into cars resulting in lower gasoline mileage.

So many damning numbers. I can find no advantage to ethanol. But many of power brokers are getting rich on it.

I'm am 100% for the production of ethanol; I just don't think it should be put in cars

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

There in lies the problem. Everyone else is not paying for it in Federal Income Tax. Flatten the tax and make everyone pay then they can be invested. Raise the ceiling amount to tax wages on SS and that would be fixed in a day. Obama proposed to cut the budget by 1/35,000th and ignored his own debt commission. He failed.

As I look at the budget numbers, Obama cuts about $33 billion and the Republicans cut about $61 billion.

The problem I see with many of the Republican cuts are that they just kick higher costs down the road.

The best examples are completely gutting Title X family planning funding (kills funding for preventive care for the poor and will simply add much more to Medicaid costs down the road), significantly cutting infrastructure funding (if you dont start repairing it now, it will only cost more later) and significantly cutting investments in clean energy (enabling China, India, etc to move further ahead).

Neither side is addressing entitlements or, as the deficit commission recommended, the necessity for tax increases as part of the mix. So, in that respect, they both fail.

Oh and that 1/35,000th figure tossed around conservative blogs? I would like to see the documentation.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Once we cowboy up and do it, we are then, and henceforth for a time, unfucked.

Do not do as the Democrats, the Democratically-inclined voters, and SEIU do, mistaking the government for a branch of the service industry. It cannot do that as well as the service industry itself, not as long as it is funded by taxation. Which means essentially never ever.

[plthijinx]

ok so oil went up today. big surprise there. what i want to know is why? yeah i;ve read and heard the news...but really. why? Libya is the size of my county plus a couple others in the surrounding area. yeah they have oil. but because there is the threat of civil war the mf;s freak out? why? i;m really asking here. i don;t get it. the oil companies are posting profits in the billions and we are suffering? the last time my gas tank was full was a year ago. i cannot afford to fill it up. 3 fucking dollars a gallon here and higher elsewhere? wtf? rich get richer and poor stay that way. i;m fucking tired of it. rather than give tax credits the government might ought to consider cutting taxes on gas. and while we;re at it lets just tax everyone a percentage across the board but that won;t happen cuz if you make more you pay more. ffs. it;s just fucked i tell ya. just fucked.

[plthijinx]

AND by cutting taxes on gas, thus saving corporations money in transportation costs the costs of consumer goods would go down thus leaving more money for people to spend thus helping the economy. awww hell. what do i know.