PDA

View Full Version : Economics Getting a spending cut doing nothing?


Bewbies
07-11-2011, 05:48 PM
Republicans want a cut, Obama wants a tax hike. Isn't doing nothing a chance for Republicans to get everything they want and give Obama nothing he wants?

Hitting the debt ceiling doesn't mean we can't service our debt, it means we have to prioritize our spending. Not raising the debt ceiling doesn't mean we default.

I fail to see how anyone other than Obama loses if R's do nothing....of course I could be wrong--enlighten me.

BucEyedPea
07-11-2011, 05:51 PM
Good point.

Jaric
07-11-2011, 05:52 PM
Allegedly not raising the debt ceiling will result in disaster rivaling the great plagues of Egypt.

As a first born son, I must say I hope they figure this shit out pronto.

BucEyedPea
07-11-2011, 05:54 PM
Allegedly not raising the debt ceiling will result in disaster rivaling the great plagues of Egypt.

As a first born son, I must say I hope they figure this shit out pronto.

:hmmm:

Has Obama made a decree lately?

Jaric
07-11-2011, 05:57 PM
:hmmm:

Have Obama made a decree lately?

And I said to Pharaoh "LET MY PEOPLE GO."

And Pharaoh said "BUT I NEED THEIR STUFF!"

BucEyedPea
07-11-2011, 06:07 PM
<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/k2R07EbLjSU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

FD
07-11-2011, 06:15 PM
Our current tax revenues are about 15% of GDP, our current spending is about 24% of GDP. So if we didn't borrow any money and immediately cut spending to the level of our revenues, GDP would shrink by 9% (assuming a multiplier of 1, in reality it would shrink by more than 9%.) This would be an absolutely massive recession.

Just for comparison, if we tried to get by like this for only two months, it would be the worst recession since the great depression:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/ezra-klein/StandingArt/possible%20default.jpg?uuid=exD96KlwEeC3-rgEfeg4Bg

patteeu
07-11-2011, 07:39 PM
Our current tax revenues are about 15% of GDP, our current spending is about 24% of GDP. So if we didn't borrow any money and immediately cut spending to the level of our revenues, GDP would shrink by 9% (assuming a multiplier of 1, in reality it would shrink by more than 9%.) This would be an absolutely massive recession.

Just for comparison, if we tried to get by like this for only two months, it would be the worst recession since the great depression:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/ezra-klein/StandingArt/possible%20default.jpg?uuid=exD96KlwEeC3-rgEfeg4Bg

Then Obama had better not let that happen or he might need to seek asylum in Kenya.

FD
07-11-2011, 08:59 PM
Then Obama had better not let that happen or he might need to seek asylum in Kenya.

He wont. If a deal can't be made, he'll declare the debt limit unconstitutional, or otherwise that the FY2011 budget takes greater precedence than the debt limit, or some third unknown option. The effect on our economy of cutting spending that fast, or of defaulting on Treasuries, would be too great for any president to allow it to happen.

Bewbies
07-11-2011, 09:02 PM
He wont. If a deal can't be made, he'll declare the debt limit unconstitutional, or otherwise that the FY2011 budget takes greater precedence than the debt limit, or some third unknown option. The effect on our economy of cutting spending that fast, or of defaulting on Treasuries, would be too great for any president to allow it to happen.

Don't bye this. At all. The govt is not the economy, and keeping the debt ceiling does not mean we default. All strawmen designed by people who want to bankrupt us.

petegz28
07-11-2011, 09:11 PM
Don't bye this. At all. The govt is not the economy, and keeping the debt ceiling does not mean we default. All strawmen designed by people who want to bankrupt us.

Exactly. It's fear mongering is all it is.

cdcox
07-11-2011, 09:15 PM
Okay geniuses, which 1/3 of federal spending are you going to cut on August 2 that won't end in disaster. Go.

petegz28
07-11-2011, 09:19 PM
Okay geniuses, which 1/3 of federal spending are you going to cut on August 2 that won't end in disaster. Go.

so now federal spending is only on 3 programs?

cdcox
07-11-2011, 09:21 PM
so now federal spending is only on 3 programs?

1/3 is a fraction

not 1 out of 3.

Cut 1 out of every 3 dollars we are currently spending. That is what the OP is advocating.

Jaric
07-11-2011, 09:22 PM
so now federal spending is only on 3 programs?

Mostly...

petegz28
07-11-2011, 09:24 PM
1/3 is a fraction

not 1 out of 3.

Cut 1 out of every 3 dollars we are currently spending. That is what the OP is advocating.

Ok, I misunderstood your post

cdcox
07-11-2011, 09:34 PM
Ok, I misunderstood your post

Challenge still stands, since this is all just "fear mongering".

You going to quit sending granny her SS check so she gets evicted?

You going to quit paying military families?

You going to refuse a heart by pass operation to a 67 year old man that would add 10 years to his life?

Cause if you aren't willing to do any of those, then basically we have to default on interest.

You aren't going to touch 1/3 of federal spending without doing one or more of the above options, even if you took every other government expenditure to zero. That is the reality.

Amnorix
07-11-2011, 09:43 PM
Republicans would get killed. Newt and crew learned the hard way that people talk a good game when it comes to balancing the budget, but at the end of the day it's "hey, dont' fuck me, fuck the other guy."

You eliminate 1/3rd of federal spending with basically zero notice, you're going to fuck every granny on SS and every guy trying to get a passport and every guy and gal in the military, and the ones who really will get fucked are the Republicans.

You think people are too stupid to know how to allocate blame? Newt learned the hard way, and Boehner and crew will find out the same thing the hard way if they want to push the mutually assured destruction button.

headsnap
07-11-2011, 09:44 PM
Challenge still stands, since this is all just "fear mongering".

You going to quit sending granny her SS check so she gets evicted?

You going to quit paying military families?

You going to refuse a heart by pass operation to a 67 year old man that would add 10 years to his life?

Cause if you aren't willing to do any of those, then basically we have to default on interest.

You aren't going to touch 1/3 of federal spending without doing one or more of the above options, even if you took every other government expenditure to zero. That is the reality.

I think we found our fear mongerer...

BigChiefFan
07-11-2011, 09:47 PM
Challenge still stands, since this is all just "fear mongering".

You going to quit sending granny her SS check so she gets evicted?

You going to quit paying military families?

You going to refuse a heart by pass operation to a 67 year old man that would add 10 years to his life?

Cause if you aren't willing to do any of those, then basically we have to default on interest.

You aren't going to touch 1/3 of federal spending without doing one or more of the above options, even if you took every other government expenditure to zero. That is the reality.

I believe they are already in serious trouble. We have to find a way to keep the current obligations going, but try a different way for the future generations.

They OWE us. We PAID in full. They squandered and laundered the money. On top of that, they took additional BAIL-OUT money. They robbed us. If they can't pay it back then there needs to be federal charges brought.

Just because they are fellow Americans doesn't give them the right to wave the flag and at the same time rob us blind.

cdcox
07-11-2011, 09:47 PM
I think we found our fear mongerer...

Okay, cut 1/3 of federal spending effective August 2. Describe it any way you want. Let's hear your proposal.

go bowe
07-11-2011, 10:03 PM
well, let's see...

fire the irs, burn the treasury, close all those silly museums and institutes, and discharge everybody from the army wherever they may be and let them get home by themselves...

nope, not enough cuts...

anybody got any serious ideas on how to cut 1/3 of all federal spending overnight?

cdcox
07-11-2011, 10:05 PM
anybody got any serious ideas on how to cut 1/3 of all federal spending overnight?

crickets

trndobrd
07-11-2011, 10:27 PM
Republicans would get killed. Newt and crew learned the hard way that people talk a good game when it comes to balancing the budget, but at the end of the day it's "hey, dont' **** me, **** the other guy."

You eliminate 1/3rd of federal spending with basically zero notice, you're going to **** every granny on SS and every guy trying to get a passport and every guy and gal in the military, and the ones who really will get ****ed are the Republicans.

You think people are too stupid to know how to allocate blame? Newt learned the hard way, and Boehner and crew will find out the same thing the hard way if they want to push the mutually assured destruction button.


Unless the House Republicans pass a small increase to the debt limit sufficient for 90-180 days. If the Senate bottles it up, or the President decides to veto.

BigChiefFan
07-11-2011, 10:35 PM
1. Slash the defense department in half. Allow for salaries and maintenance of weaponry. No new research and development for two full years. We are already so far ahead of the curve, 700 plus days won't mean squat.

2. Call for all politicans to make the sacrifice. No more free pensions. You get paid for your time in office, not anytime after.
No more free insurance. They also will pay taxes from this day forward in my plan.

3. Tax American companies that have a physical address here. No more loopholes for exploiting third-world countries of their laborers and being allowed to stay without paying their share.

4. Disband and/or shrink several current federal agencies. Freddie and Fannie go bye-bye. Dept. of Education gets all but disolved.

5. Decriminalize drugs and tax it big.

6. Sell some assets to the private sector. Not all, but some.

7. End the Federal Reserve.

8. Hire the IRS employees to audit how Congress spends our money. Yeah, finally a reason for the IRS to exist and no more $90 hammers.

9. Restructure policies to be productive and serve the greater good. If an agency is LOSING money, they need to be seriously scrutinized and most likley disolved.

10. End the wars. Money shouldn't be collected from government to KILL others.

11. Wake the department of justice up. Where are they? They actually are supposed to be protecting us from this criminal hi-jacking.



That's my start.

ClevelandBronco
07-11-2011, 10:42 PM
...You going to quit sending granny her SS check so she gets evicted?

You going to quit paying military families?

You going to refuse a heart by pass operation to a 67 year old man that would add 10 years to his life?

Cause if you aren't willing to do any of those...

I say let the geezer with the bad ticker croak. Granny and the military family still vote. Probably Republican.

BigChiefFan
07-11-2011, 10:52 PM
I would also add...show an exact break-down of where our money was spent, every fiscal year.

Chiefs3158
07-11-2011, 11:01 PM
after clinton..the reps ruined the country...its gonna take atleast the same amount of time they took destroying it..to repair it..at least that!!! we just gotta ride the roller coaster!!!

cdcox
07-11-2011, 11:04 PM
I say let the geezer with the bad ticker croak. Granny and the military family still vote. Probably Republican.

So basically do serious cuts on medicare benefits. I would be in favor of this, but would give the 67 year old (hardly a geezer) the by pass surgery due to the good $/year ratio. But I would not pay for any treatment costing over $x that would not have at least a y% chance of extending life for at least 1 year. x and y would decrease as you grew older. Death panel by formula. But this isn't going to be implemented in any sane way by August 2.

patteeu
07-12-2011, 05:16 AM
Okay geniuses, which 1/3 of federal spending are you going to cut on August 2 that won't end in disaster. Go.

I don't think that's the point. The point is that on that day, you wouldn't default because servicing the debt could still take place. As for the rest of the government's spending obligations, it would be no worse than a partial shutdown. It wouldn't guarantee a shutdown for the rest of the year (which is what your challenge implies). Congress and the POTUS would be free to continue to negotiate to break the impasse and authorize a debt ceiling increase at any time.

patteeu
07-12-2011, 05:19 AM
Republicans would get killed. Newt and crew learned the hard way that people talk a good game when it comes to balancing the budget, but at the end of the day it's "hey, dont' **** me, **** the other guy."

You eliminate 1/3rd of federal spending with basically zero notice, you're going to **** every granny on SS and every guy trying to get a passport and every guy and gal in the military, and the ones who really will get ****ed are the Republicans.

You think people are too stupid to know how to allocate blame? Newt learned the hard way, and Boehner and crew will find out the same thing the hard way if they want to push the mutually assured destruction button.

You think Barack Obama is as slick as Slick Willie? I don't. I don't think Barack Obama's leadership on economic issues is very well respected at the moment.

Amnorix
07-12-2011, 06:26 AM
You think Barack Obama is as slick as Slick Willie? I don't. I don't think Barack Obama's leadership on economic issues is very well respected at the moment.

I don't see the Republicans being held in much regard on economic issues either. Frankly, we still have the usual status quo, with the right hating the left and vice versa, and the people in the middle (who decide things) overwhelmingly feeling that both sides are idiots who suck.

I think Obama is a very effective communicator. That got Reagan and Clinton two terms for a reason. Clinton, you may remember, also got killed in the off year elections immediately after winning the Presidency. Draw your own conclusions, but I wouldn't take Bachmann or Romney or whoever your flavor of the month is as a shoe-in. Especially since the entire Republican field seems to be leaving people with a general feeling of "meh".

eazyb81
07-12-2011, 06:34 AM
1. Slash the defense department in half. Allow for salaries and maintenance of weaponry. No new research and development for two full years. We are already so far ahead of the curve, 700 plus days won't mean squat.

2. Call for all politicans to make the sacrifice. No more free pensions. You get paid for your time in office, not anytime after.
No more free insurance. They also will pay taxes from this day forward in my plan.

3. Tax American companies that have a physical address here. No more loopholes for exploiting third-world countries of their laborers and being allowed to stay without paying their share.

4. Disband and/or shrink several current federal agencies. Freddie and Fannie go bye-bye. Dept. of Education gets all but disolved.

5. Decriminalize drugs and tax it big.

6. Sell some assets to the private sector. Not all, but some.

7. End the Federal Reserve.

8. Hire the IRS employees to audit how Congress spends our money. Yeah, finally a reason for the IRS to exist and no more $90 hammers.

9. Restructure policies to be productive and serve the greater good. If an agency is LOSING money, they need to be seriously scrutinized and most likley disolved.

10. End the wars. Money shouldn't be collected from government to KILL others.

11. Wake the department of justice up. Where are they? They actually are supposed to be protecting us from this criminal hi-jacking.



That's my start.

I don't agree with all of this, but it is a great post and is exactly the type of brainstorming that Congress should be doing right now instead of blindly focusing on increasing the debt level. Hard choices need to be made and we need out of the box thinking, not the status quo.

This is an exciting time and may finally provide a catalyst to changing how our government mindlessly allocates capital as if it is a spigot that will never end.

We need to address the cause of our country's financial failure, not the effect.

petegz28
07-12-2011, 06:46 AM
Challenge still stands, since this is all just "fear mongering".

You going to quit sending granny her SS check so she gets evicted?

You going to quit paying military families?

You going to refuse a heart by pass operation to a 67 year old man that would add 10 years to his life?

Cause if you aren't willing to do any of those, then basically we have to default on interest.

You aren't going to touch 1/3 of federal spending without doing one or more of the above options, even if you took every other government expenditure to zero. That is the reality.

Sorry, that is is just more fear mongering.

Amnorix
07-12-2011, 06:54 AM
Sorry, that is is just more fear mongering.

It's also reality, is it not? If you instantly cut spending by 35% or whatever, then someone is not getting paid. Actually, ALOT of someones aren't getting paid.

petegz28
07-12-2011, 07:03 AM
It's also reality, is it not? If you instantly cut spending by 35% or whatever, then someone is not getting paid. Actually, ALOT of someones aren't getting paid.

No, I don't believe it is reality. We will have to prioritize speding, that is the reality. I have heard several economists state we will not default if the debt ceiling is not raised. The money is there, it's just what we choose to spend it on and those things you are talking about will not happen. Might there be a partial shutdown in some places? Maybe. But this whole schtick of the world will come to an end if we don't approve another $2 tril in spedning is bogus. And yes, someone may not get paid but that's how it goes. Look around, every other company is doing it because that is what they have to do. SS, Medicare and Medicaid and defense will be just fine. Some of the other non-critical aspects of the Fed Gov may suffer and that might be a good thing in the long run.

headsnap
07-12-2011, 07:16 AM
It's also reality, is it not?

The flavor and texture of dog food has really improved a lot in the last 15+ years...

ClevelandBronco
07-12-2011, 07:19 AM
The flavor and texture of dog food has really improved a lot in the last 15+ years...

Can people purchase dog food with food stamps?

petegz28
07-12-2011, 07:24 AM
Can people purchase dog food with food stamps?

They can purchase SPAM!!!

Amnorix
07-12-2011, 07:28 AM
No, I don't believe it is reality. We will have to prioritize speding, that is the reality. I have heard several economists state we will not default if the debt ceiling is not raised. The money is there, it's just what we choose to spend it on and those things you are talking about will not happen. Might there be a partial shutdown in some places? Maybe. But this whole schtick of the world will come to an end if we don't approve another $2 tril in spedning is bogus. And yes, someone may not get paid but that's how it goes. Look around, every other company is doing it because that is what they have to do. SS, Medicare and Medicaid and defense will be just fine. Some of the other non-critical aspects of the Fed Gov may suffer and that might be a good thing in the long run.


So you believe we can stop spending 35% of what we spend and nobody will really notice. That's, umm, interesting...

Amnorix
07-12-2011, 07:34 AM
No, I don't believe it is reality. We will have to prioritize speding, that is the reality. I have heard several economists state we will not default if the debt ceiling is not raised. The money is there, it's just what we choose to spend it on and those things you are talking about will not happen. Might there be a partial shutdown in some places? Maybe. But this whole schtick of the world will come to an end if we don't approve another $2 tril in spedning is bogus. And yes, someone may not get paid but that's how it goes. Look around, every other company is doing it because that is what they have to do. SS, Medicare and Medicaid and defense will be just fine. Some of the other non-critical aspects of the Fed Gov may suffer and that might be a good thing in the long run.


Well, this is one year out of date, but I couldnt' quickly find a similar breakdown for 2011. It should be close enough for this purpose.

And these numbers were Obama's spending request for 2010, so it doesn't precisely accurately reflect exactly what was spent and where. But still, for this purpose, ought to be good enough.

35% of $3.55 trillion is $1.24 trillion. Cut that amount out of the spending below. Please be sure not to touch Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Defense. Ok, go!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget

The President's budget request for 2010 totals $3.55 trillion. Percentages in parentheses indicate percentage change compared to 2009. This budget request is broken down by the following expenditures

Mandatory spending: $2.173 trillion (+14.9%)
$695 billion (+4.9%) Social Security
$571 billion (+58.6%) Other mandatory programs
$453 billion (+6.6%) Medicare
$290 billion (+12.0%) Medicaid
$164 billion (+18.0%) Interest on National Debt

Discretionary spending: $1.378 trillion (+13.8%)
$663.7 billion (+12.7%) Department of Defense (including Overseas Contingency Operations)
$78.7 billion (−1.7%) Department of Health and Human Services
$72.5 billion (+2.8%) Department of Transportation
$52.5 billion (+10.3%) Department of Veterans Affairs
$51.7 billion (+40.9%) Department of State and Other International Programs
$47.5 billion (+18.5%) Department of Housing and Urban Development
$46.7 billion (+12.8%) Department of Education
$42.7 billion (+1.2%) Department of Homeland Security
$26.3 billion (−0.4%) Department of Energy
$26.0 billion (+8.8%) Department of Agriculture
$23.9 billion (−6.3%) Department of Justice
$18.7 billion (+5.1%) National Aeronautics and Space Administration
$13.8 billion (+48.4%) Department of Commerce
$13.3 billion (+4.7%) Department of Labor
$13.3 billion (+4.7%) Department of the Treasury
$12.0 billion (+6.2%) Department of the Interior
$10.5 billion (+34.6%) Environmental Protection Agency
$9.7 billion (+10.2%) Social Security Administration
$7.0 billion (+1.4%) National Science Foundation
$5.1 billion (−3.8%) Corps of Engineers
$5.0 billion (+100%-NA) National Infrastructure Bank
$1.1 billion (+22.2%) Corporation for National and Community Service
$0.7 billion (0.0%) Small Business Administration
$0.6 billion (−14.3%) General Services Administration
$0 billion (−100%-NA) Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)
$0 billion (−100%-NA) Financial stabilization efforts
$11 billion (+275%-NA) Potential disaster costs
$19.8 billion (+3.7%) Other Agencies
$105 billion Other

petegz28
07-12-2011, 07:38 AM
So you believe we can stop spending 35% of what we spend and nobody will really notice. That's, umm, interesting...

Of course we will notice, that's the point. We don't have to stop all at once. That's pure BS. Are some tough decisions going to have to be made? Yea and it's about time. Don't fall for the shell game. They have you so focused on 3 parts of the Fed Gov and have you convinced the world will end if we cut any of those. The phrase that comes to mind is fear not the dragon you see but the one you don't. We have 11 times the revenue needed to maintain our debt obligations. There is more than enough money to work with. They just want you to think there isn't so they can continue the BS spending. If some parts of the Fed Gov have to shut down then shut them down.

Amnorix
07-12-2011, 07:38 AM
If you prefer to be more precise, then Obama's 2011 budget is here:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/02/01/us/budget.html

The breakdown is even made into much smaller buckets. Go there and work out $1.29 trillion of cuts (on a budget of $3.69 trillion at 35%). You can even opt to hide mandatory spending so you can just work on discretionary stuff.

Amnorix
07-12-2011, 07:38 AM
I would also add...show an exact break-down of where our money was spent, every fiscal year.

You need more than this?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/02/01/us/budget.html

FishingRod
07-12-2011, 07:40 AM
after clinton..the reps ruined the country...its gonna take atleast the same amount of time they took destroying it..to repair it..at least that!!! we just gotta ride the roller coaster!!!

I got mad enough at the Republicans during the last administration that I decided the no longer Represented me. So since this administration has taken virtually all of the Bush policies and either continued or poured miracle grow them, and then I assume you are enraged with the current administration and feel the best thing they could do for the country is resign in disgrace. Right?

Amnorix
07-12-2011, 07:42 AM
Of course we will notice, that's the point. We don't have to stop all at once. That's pure BS. Are some tough decisions going to have to be made? Yea and it's about time. Don't fall for the shell game. They have you so focused on 3 parts of the Fed Gov and have you convinced the world will end if we cut any of those. The phrase that comes to mind is fear not the dragon you see but the one you don't. We have 11 times the revenue needed to maintain our debt obligations. There is more than enough money to work with. They just want you to think there isn't so they can continue the BS spending. If some parts of the Fed Gov have to shut down then shut them down.

Carrying the debt isn't the difficult part. The difficult part is that we currently borrow something like 40 cents of every dollar we spend. That's why the deficit is exploding.

So yes, come August 2 we can stop doing that -- stop borrowing (because we've hit the debt ceiling). But we can service our debt.

But now we're instantly forced to stop spending beyond our means. Sounds GREAT. But what will you cut. See my prior two posts. Tell me what part of the Fed Gov to shut down.

It's so easy to SAY...and so hard to DO, especially on 30 days notice.

Amnorix
07-12-2011, 07:44 AM
The flavor and texture of dog food has really improved a lot in the last 15+ years...

Tell me which Kibbles and Bits you'd like to remove in 25 days to the tune of $1.25 trillion.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/02/01/us/budget.html

petegz28
07-12-2011, 07:45 AM
Well, this is one year out of date, but I couldnt' quickly find a similar breakdown for 2011. It should be close enough for this purpose.

And these numbers were Obama's spending request for 2010, so it doesn't precisely accurately reflect exactly what was spent and where. But still, for this purpose, ought to be good enough.

35% of $3.55 trillion is $1.24 trillion. Cut that amount out of the spending below. Please be sure not to touch Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Defense. Ok, go!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget

The President's budget request for 2010 totals $3.55 trillion. Percentages in parentheses indicate percentage change compared to 2009. This budget request is broken down by the following expenditures

Mandatory spending: $2.173 trillion (+14.9%)
$695 billion (+4.9%) – Social Security
$571 billion (+58.6%) – Other mandatory programs
$453 billion (+6.6%) – Medicare
$290 billion (+12.0%) – Medicaid
$164 billion (+18.0%) – Interest on National Debt

Discretionary spending: $1.378 trillion (+13.8%)
$663.7 billion (+12.7%) – Department of Defense (including Overseas Contingency Operations)
$78.7 billion (−1.7%) – Department of Health and Human Services
$72.5 billion (+2.8%) – Department of Transportation
$52.5 billion (+10.3%) – Department of Veterans Affairs
$51.7 billion (+40.9%) – Department of State and Other International Programs
$47.5 billion (+18.5%) – Department of Housing and Urban Development
$46.7 billion (+12.8%) – Department of Education
$42.7 billion (+1.2%) – Department of Homeland Security
$26.3 billion (−0.4%) – Department of Energy
$26.0 billion (+8.8%) – Department of Agriculture
$23.9 billion (−6.3%) – Department of Justice
$18.7 billion (+5.1%) – National Aeronautics and Space Administration
$13.8 billion (+48.4%) – Department of Commerce
$13.3 billion (+4.7%) – Department of Labor
$13.3 billion (+4.7%) – Department of the Treasury
$12.0 billion (+6.2%) – Department of the Interior
$10.5 billion (+34.6%) – Environmental Protection Agency
$9.7 billion (+10.2%) – Social Security Administration
$7.0 billion (+1.4%) – National Science Foundation
$5.1 billion (−3.8%) – Corps of Engineers
$5.0 billion (+100%-NA) – National Infrastructure Bank
$1.1 billion (+22.2%) – Corporation for National and Community Service
$0.7 billion (0.0%) – Small Business Administration
$0.6 billion (−14.3%) – General Services Administration
$0 billion (−100%-NA) – Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)
$0 billion (−100%-NA) – Financial stabilization efforts
$11 billion (+275%-NA) – Potential disaster costs
$19.8 billion (+3.7%) – Other Agencies
$105 billion – Other

What is "other mandatory programs"?

Secondly almost 10% of your target is achieved by getting rid of the Departments of Education and Energy.

Cut a bunch of these "international programs"

Quit counting SS twice (SS & SSA)

And I have to know more about "Other agencies" and "other".

Cut staff, cut junketts, etc., scale back benefits, streamline operations......you know, shit any other company would do.


You do all that and then we can talk about raising the debt ceiling and\or taxes.

Amnorix
07-12-2011, 07:45 AM
Can people purchase dog food with food stamps?

You can cut food stamps altogether and save $80 billion. Good start. You've probably lost some voters, and some kids may starve, but we gotta start somewhere, I agree.

Only $1.16 trillion to go. Good luck!

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/02/01/us/budget.html

Amnorix
07-12-2011, 07:53 AM
What is "other mandatory programs"?

Secondly almost 10% of your target is achieved by getting rid of the Departments of Education and Energy.

Well, 6% is "almost 10%", I guess, but I would've rounded down to 5% myself.

Cut a bunch of these "international programs"

Ok, cut 'em. Are you cutting the entire Secretary of State's office? I'll just give it to you. Another $50 billion, you're doing Great!

Quit counting SS twice (SS & SSA)

errr....??

And I have to know more about "Other agencies" and "other".

Why be picky? Just cut them. Another $120 billion. Who knows what they are, but they're gone. Great.

Cut staff, cut junketts, etc., scale back benefits, streamline operations......you know, shit any other company would do.

I do know. Better than you. But let's put that aside. You need to start on AUGUST 2. You can't implement long term savings now, you've got to stop borrowing in 25 days!

But I'll give you $10 billion bucks on all this starting day 1.

You do all that and then we can talk about raising the debt ceiling and\or taxes.


Wait, what! We've already cut like $250 billion out of our spending. You only have a trillion to go.

What's next?

patteeu
07-12-2011, 07:56 AM
I don't see the Republicans being held in much regard on economic issues either. Frankly, we still have the usual status quo, with the right hating the left and vice versa, and the people in the middle (who decide things) overwhelmingly feeling that both sides are idiots who suck.

I think Obama is a very effective communicator. That got Reagan and Clinton two terms for a reason. Clinton, you may remember, also got killed in the off year elections immediately after winning the Presidency. Draw your own conclusions, but I wouldn't take Bachmann or Romney or whoever your flavor of the month is as a shoe-in. Especially since the entire Republican field seems to be leaving people with a general feeling of "meh".

We're talking about the debt limit issue here. The GOP is on the side of reigning in spending while Obama is holding out for a tax increase. If I had to face the people after failing to reach an agreement, I'd rather have the cards the GOP is holding.

petegz28
07-12-2011, 07:56 AM
Well, 6% is "almost 10%", I guess, but I would've rounded down to 5% myself.



Ok, cut 'em. Are you cutting the entire Secretary of State's office? I'll just give it to you. Another $50 billion, you're doing Great!



errr....??



Why be picky? Just cut them. Another $120 billion. Who knows what they are, but they're gone. Great.



I do know. Better than you. But let's put that aside. You need to start on AUGUST 2. You can't implement long term savings now, you've got to stop borrowing in 25 days!

But I'll give you $10 billion bucks on all this starting day 1.




Wait, what! We've already cut like $250 billion out of our spending. You only have a trillion to go.

What's next?

We need to START in August 2nd. We don't have to cut the entire 35% on August 2nd. And as I said.....make the cuts then we can talk about what has to happen next.

I'm not so sure you "know better" than me as you claim.

Amnorix
07-12-2011, 08:07 AM
We need to START in August 2nd. We don't have to cut the entire 35% on August 2nd. And as I said.....make the cuts then we can talk about what has to happen next.

I'm not so sure you "know better" than me as you claim.


If we don't raise the debt ceiling, then we can't borrow another dime.

Which means we need to spend within our means, a situation I wholly support long term, but not on 25 days notice.

And if we can't borrow another dime, then we must immediately reduce spending by 35%, approximately.

So what programs are you going to defund.

And given how unrealistic your approach is to all this, I suspect I do know better, but it hardly matters.

eazyb81
07-12-2011, 08:11 AM
Defaulting, or at least beginning the writedown process, on our debt is not the economic nuke that many seem to think it is. The US homeowner writedowns have been effective at reducing household debt to more manageable levels.

An orderly writedown of debt would be a partial solution to our problem, and I expect many countries to reach this conclusion eventually. If others fall in line, the credit rating hit will not be severe on a relative basis.

Amnorix
07-12-2011, 08:12 AM
We're talking about the debt limit issue here. The GOP is on the side of reigning in spending while Obama is holding out for a tax increase.

Great oversimplification. That would play great on Fox News for a 10 second sound bite, I'm sure.

The GOP wishes to implement spending reductions, including structural reform in entitlement programs, as a condition to voting to approve any increase in the debt ceiling. This is perceived as a necessary step to controlling our spiralling deficit. That is a position I support.

Obama and the Democrats are willing to implement such spending reductions as well, but see increased tax revenues as an important part of controlling our spiralling deficit as well. Since Obama has the WH and the Democrats control one house of Congress, it's fair to say that it would be extremely unusual for the minority (in terms of control of the branches of government) party to get everything it wants without giving up anything in connection with a negotiation, especially when it is touching upon some holy grails for the "majority" party.

If I had to face the people after failing to reach an agreement, I'd rather have the cards the GOP is holding.

Perhaps. But when Obama can talk about offering spending cuts, including Medicare/Medicaid/SS, at a rate of 6:1 to tax increases on hedge fund managers, you may be surprised.

I largely support the Republicans in this, you may be surprised to learn. ANYONE who emphasizes the deficit situation is getting huge kudos in my book. Hell, I may vote Republican in 2012. I'm sure I'll regret it, but neither party plays my kind of music really, I'm just stuck choosing between various evils.

petegz28
07-12-2011, 08:13 AM
If we don't raise the debt ceiling, then we can't borrow another dime.

Which means we need to spend within our means, a situation I wholly support long term, but not on 25 days notice.

And if we can't borrow another dime, then we must immediately reduce spending by 35%, approximately.

So what programs are you going to defund.

And given how unrealistic your approach is to all this, I suspect I do know better, but it hardly matters.

Yeah, I'm really unrealistic. Quit spending money you don't have on shit you don't need.

cdcox
07-12-2011, 08:14 AM
Sorry, that is is just more fear mongering.

No it's reality, unless you have a different proposal to cut 1/3 of federal spending overnight. Which no one has come close tomdoing yet.

Amnorix
07-12-2011, 08:14 AM
Yeah, I'm really unrealistic. Quit spending money you don't have on shit you don't need.


Nice comeback.

You still can't tell me what shit we don't need to the tune of $1.25 trillion. It is always so much easier to say than do.

FishingRod
07-12-2011, 08:18 AM
I think you can get most of the conservatives to sign off on some pretty significant cuts in their "sacred cow" defense spending, if the liberals will bite the bullet on some of their pet programs as well. The short story is we can’t keep spending more money than the Government collets. The deficit spending alone exceeds the individual GNP of the majority of the countries in the world and that doesn’t include the deficits run up by the various states. Just like we can’t afford to be the world’s policeman and be everywhere doing everything we can’t afford to do everything for everyone. I don’t have much hope of either side putting the long term health of our country ahead of their short term political gains.

Bewbies
07-12-2011, 08:20 AM
Nice comeback.

You still can't tell me what shit we don't need to the tune of $1.25 trillion. It is always so much easier to say than do.

With Obama in office you can't do it. I'll give you that. He thinks he can raise taxes and make up a huge difference even though a couple months ago he said letting the Bush tax cuts expire would cost us 1,000,000 jobs.

This is a good opportunity to make some long term changes, but I don't know of anyone who thinks it's something Obama is willing to do. Self reliance is his enemy.

mlyonsd
07-12-2011, 08:22 AM
Because all this is happening behind closed doors none of us know what is really being discussed. It's like we're trying to guess who the Chief's will pick in the 3rd round.

All the little press conferences held afterwards are just political posturing.

I wish the talks were open to reporters so we knew what was going on.

Bewbies
07-12-2011, 08:25 AM
Because all this is happening behind closed doors none of us know what is really being discussed. It's like we're trying to guess who the Chief's will pick in the 3rd round.

All the little press conferences held afterwards are just political posturing.

I wish the talks were open to reporters so we knew what was going on.

Even if reporters did know what was going on, we'd not know the truth. We'd know how what's going to benefit Obama was winning the day.

mlyonsd
07-12-2011, 08:28 AM
Enacting tax increases is like handing a compulsive eater a box of donuts. You know it's eventually going to go where it isn't needed.

petegz28
07-12-2011, 08:31 AM
Enacting tax increases is like handing a compulsive eater a box of donuts. You know it's eventually going to go where it isn't needed.

I've said that all along. The problem is the Fed Gov needs to make a concerted effort to get rid of the waste, fraud and abuse in our entitlement programs. They have no desire to do so which is a huge part of the problem.

How much would we save if we cut out just 50% of the waste and fraud?

mlyonsd
07-12-2011, 08:31 AM
Even if reporters did know what was going on, we'd not know the truth. We'd know how what's going to benefit Obama was winning the day.Naw, that's why the White House calls Fox News "fair and balanced."

petegz28
07-12-2011, 08:33 AM
Nice comeback.

You still can't tell me what shit we don't need to the tune of $1.25 trillion. It is always so much easier to say than do.

Yes, yes I can. I never said it was easy but saying "it's not easy" isn't an excuse for not doing it. I would bet a legit audit of SS and Medicare alone would uncover a shitload of waste just in how we operate let alone uncovering any fraud.

FD
07-12-2011, 08:33 AM
I've said that all along. The problem is the Fed Gov needs to make a concerted effort to get rid of the waste, fraud and abuse in our entitlement programs. They have no desire to do so which is a huge part of the problem.

How much would we save if we cut out just 50% of the waste and fraud?

That would save $30 billion. IF we could cut it, and its not like they aren't already trying to stop fraudsters.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/23/60minutes/main5414390.shtml

You are still about a trillion dollars short.

Amnorix
07-12-2011, 08:39 AM
With Obama in office you can't do it. I'll give you that. He thinks he can raise taxes and make up a huge difference even though a couple months ago he said letting the Bush tax cuts expire would cost us 1,000,000 jobs.

This is a good opportunity to make some long term changes, but I don't know of anyone who thinks it's something Obama is willing to do. Self reliance is his enemy.

The Democrats seem much more willing to compromise on their core issues (SS/Medicare etc.) than Republicans (no new taxes).

petegz28
07-12-2011, 08:39 AM
That would save $30 billion. IF we could cut it, and its not like they aren't already trying to stop fraudsters.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/23/60minutes/main5414390.shtml

You are still about a trillion dollars short.

I didn't read the article but the title says $60 bil.

Your approach is the problem I have with a lot of you on this topic. I constantly hear "that only saves X"....

Well, X here, Y there....adds up.

mlyonsd
07-12-2011, 08:40 AM
The Democrats seem much more willing to compromise on their core issues (SS/Medicare etc.) than Republicans (no new taxes).Really? When did Pelosi buy into that?

KC Dan
07-12-2011, 08:41 AM
The Democrats seem much more willing to compromise on their core issues (SS/Medicare etc.) than Republicans (no new taxes).Yeah, right. That is as false as false can be. The media just isn't highlighting that because they must demonize the right

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/07/pelosi-says-house-dems-wont-support-entitlement-benefit-cuts-in-debt-limit-deal.html

Amnorix
07-12-2011, 08:42 AM
Yes, yes I can. I never said it was easy but saying "it's not easy" isn't an excuse for not doing it. I would bet a legit audit of SS and Medicare alone would uncover a shitload of waste just in how we operate let alone uncovering any fraud.

You say you can, but you haven't.

And do you think SS and Medicare aren't audited and peopel dont' spend time investigating the payouts etc. They do. Absolutely. In fact, Obama has increased the auditing and enforcement end of things in those programs.

But that stuff isn't all that easy to uncover, and I doubt it's going to work out to be 25% of the expenses or anything. Obviously, any massive program has some percentage of fraud/waste. You can't eliminate it, but you can fight it like crazy. But still, you won't squeeze a half trillion out of it or anything.

And, of course, increased enforcement means increased investigations which turns into higher costs for providers who already are feeling the squeeze.

http://crimeinthesuites.com/federal-strike-forces-will-boost-medicare-fraud-enforcement/

In October 2010, federal enforcers announced a plan to nearly triple the number of its Medicare fraud strike force units around the nation. In view of the magnitude of health care fraud, this plan is understandable, but the vast majority of providers, who comply with the law, will also see their compliance and other costs increase.

Amnorix
07-12-2011, 08:45 AM
Yeah, right. That is as false as false can be. The media just isn't highlighting that because they must demonize the right

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/07/pelosi-says-house-dems-wont-support-entitlement-benefit-cuts-in-debt-limit-deal.html

Or the far left, which is increasingly wondering how often Obama will cave to the Republicans, is trying to stand its ground because they're worried Obama will give away the farm for nothing.

Frankly, Obama has proven soft in negotiations with Republicans. That should thrill you guys. Liberals are increasingly becoming very annoyed with him about it however. For all you who paint Obama as the most liberal person that ever walked, you seem to ignore alot of what is going on on the other side of the fence.

Amnorix
07-12-2011, 08:46 AM
Really? When did Pelosi buy into that?

I should've said Obama rather than the Democrats, but I think Obama can bring the Democrats around on this. For now, Pelosi probably feels forced to draw a line in the sand as the Republicans have. So far, the Republicans have been pushing the Democrats around.

Donger
07-12-2011, 08:46 AM
Okay geniuses, which 1/3 of federal spending are you going to cut on August 2 that won't end in disaster. Go.

They aren't trying to do that, right? Isn't it $3 trillion over ten years?

Amnorix
07-12-2011, 08:47 AM
They aren't trying to do that, right? Isn't it $3 trillion over ten years?

In connection with raising the debt ceiling. The OP postures NOT raising the debt ceiling, which means not a penny of new borrowing.

I understand the new number to be $2.4 trillion, but what's $600 billion between friends...

Amnorix
07-12-2011, 08:51 AM
Yeah, right. That is as false as false can be. The media just isn't highlighting that because they must demonize the right

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/07/pelosi-says-house-dems-wont-support-entitlement-benefit-cuts-in-debt-limit-deal.html

.

"I'm prepared to take on significant heat from my party to get something done," he said, "and I expect the other side should be willing to do the same thing if they mean what they say."

KC Dan
07-12-2011, 08:53 AM
.He can take all the heat he wants but his party will NOT approve any entitlement cuts, they have stated so in no uncertain terms. He is just talking as a mediator so the other side appears as the only stumbling block. It's called politics.

Amnorix
07-12-2011, 08:56 AM
The Economist, which isn't exactly a liberal rag sheet, has weighed in vilifying Republicans...


http://www.economist.com/node/18928600?fsrc=scn/tw/te/ar/shameonthem

Shame on them
The Republicans are playing a cynical political game with hugely high economic stakes


IN THREE weeks, if there is no political deal, the American government will go into default. Not, one must pray, on its sovereign debt. But the country will have to stop paying someone: perhaps pensioners, or government suppliers, or soldiers. That would be damaging enough at a time of economic fragility. And the longer such a default went on, the greater the risk of provoking a genuine bond crisis would become.

There is no good economic reason why this should be happening. America’s net indebtedness is a perfectly affordable 65% of GDP, and throughout the past three years of recession and tepid recovery investors have been more than happy to go on lending to the federal government. The current problems, rather, are political. Under America’s elaborate separation of powers, Congress must authorise any extension of the debt ceiling, which now stands at $14.3 trillion. Back in May the government bumped up against that limit, but various accounting dodges have been used to keep funds flowing. It is now reckoned that these wheezes will be exhausted by August 2nd.

The House of Representatives, under Republican control as a result of last November’s mid-term elections, has balked at passing the necessary bill. That is perfectly reasonable: until recently the Republicans had been exercising their clear electoral mandate to hold the government of Barack Obama to account, insisting that they will not permit a higher debt ceiling until agreement is reached on wrenching cuts to public spending. Until they started to play hardball in this way, Mr Obama had been deplorably insouciant about the medium-term picture, repeatedly failing in his budgets and his state-of-the-union speeches to offer any path to a sustainable deficit. Under heavy Republican pressure, he has been forced to rethink.

Now, however, the Republicans are pushing things too far. Talks with the administration ground to a halt last month, despite an offer from the Democrats to cut at least $2 trillion and possibly much more out of the budget over the next ten years. Assuming that the recovery continues, that would be enough to get the deficit back to a prudent level. As The Economist went to press, Mr Obama seemed set to restart the talks.

The sticking-point is not on the spending side. It is because the vast majority of Republicans, driven on by the wilder-eyed members of their party and the cacophony of conservative media, are clinging to the position that not a single cent of deficit reduction must come from a higher tax take. This is economically illiterate and disgracefully cynical.

A gamble where you bet your country’s good name

This newspaper has a strong dislike of big government; we have long argued that the main way to right America’s finances is through spending cuts. But you cannot get there without any tax rises. In Britain, for instance, the coalition government aims to tame its deficit with a 3:1 ratio of cuts to hikes. America’s tax take is at its lowest level for decades: even Ronald Reagan raised taxes when he needed to do so.

And the closer you look, the more unprincipled the Republicans look. Earlier this year House Republicans produced a report noting that an 85%-15% split between spending cuts and tax rises was the average for successful fiscal consolidations, according to historical evidence. The White House is offering an 83%-17% split (hardly a huge distance) and a promise that none of the revenue increase will come from higher marginal rates, only from eliminating loopholes. If the Republicans were real tax reformers, they would seize this offer.

Both parties have in recent months been guilty of fiscal recklessness. Right now, though, the blame falls clearly on the Republicans. Independent voters should take note.

Amnorix
07-12-2011, 08:56 AM
He can take all the heat he wants but his party will NOT approve any entitlement cuts, they have stated so in no uncertain terms. He is just talking as a mediator so the other side appears as the only stumbling block. It's called politics.

Yeah, his party was singing a similar tune regarding extending the Bush tax cuts...

Amnorix
07-12-2011, 09:00 AM
I note that I support damn near every word of the Economist piece, especially how the Republicans have pressured the Democrats into paying attention to the deficit.

mlyonsd
07-12-2011, 09:10 AM
I note that I support damn near every word of the Economist piece, especially how the Republicans have pressured the Democrats into paying attention to the deficit.And I am against any change in tax code that makes it more progressive.

Amnorix
07-12-2011, 09:28 AM
And I am against any change in tax code that makes it more progressive.

I disfavor charts showing things like this:


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e8/MeanNetWorth2007.png/800px-MeanNetWorth2007.png

patteeu
07-12-2011, 09:32 AM
The Democrats seem much more willing to compromise on their core issues (SS/Medicare etc.) than Republicans (no new taxes).

If I had just rammed a boatload of my liberal wishlist along with one of the largest tax hikes in history down the country's throat, I'd be willing to "compromise" a bit on the correction knowing full well that the net result was going to be much larger government riding a much larger tax revenue base. What's not to like from the point of view of the tax and spend party?

Meanwhile, back at the reality ranch, the only sensible thing for Republicans to do here is insist on a spending "cut". A big one if they get their way, or a somewhat smaller one if they're forced to compromise. If the democrats don't want to compromise, then take it to the jury of public opinion and break Jimmy Hussein Obama.

KC Dan
07-12-2011, 09:32 AM
I disfavor charts showing things like this:
You do realize that if their income rises, they should be paying much more in taxes proportionately. Of course, with all of the political carve-outs for votes enacted that probably is not the case. But, that is the politicians doing not the people working harder to earn more. I am all in favor for a cleaning of the tax code, though it probably would negatively effect job creation and votes for those politicians making the changes. But, to say that the system isn't progressive enough is wrong. When 10% of the population pay over 50% of the revenue to the gov't, the system is progressive enough.

Direckshun
07-12-2011, 09:35 AM
We've clearly been soaking the rich.

patteeu
07-12-2011, 09:46 AM
I note that I support damn near every word of the Economist piece, especially how the Republicans have pressured the Democrats into paying attention to the deficit.

The Economist article seems to presume that this debt ceiling moment is the one and only opportunity we have for addressing the budget imbalance. That is, of course, rubbish. Each year, Congress has the opportunity to develop a budget (although, admittedly, democrat Congresses of the recent past failed to perform responsibly in this area).

If Republicans give in to elimination of tax expenditures at this time, no meaningful tax reform will be possible. The ONLY interest democrats will have in tax policy at that point will be increasing rates and increasing progressivity. No, to have meaningful tax reform of the type envisioned by Bowles-Simpson, repeal of targeted tax breaks (aka loophole, aka tax expenditures) must wait for a comprehensive tax reform effort.

mlyonsd
07-12-2011, 09:51 AM
I disfavor charts showing things like this:
I'm afraid I don't pay attention to charts like that. That kind of information isn't important to me. Not to mention it's basically meaningless when it comes to properly running a government.

Amnorix
07-12-2011, 09:54 AM
Sure it's meaningless, if you don't mind a huge percentage of your population living in abject poverty.

patteeu
07-12-2011, 10:03 AM
Sure it's meaningless, if you don't mind a huge percentage of your population living in abject poverty.

A car, a cell phone, fast internet, a big screen TV, and abundant food doesn't seem like abject poverty to me. Maybe you high falutin' east coast lawyers have lost touch with real poverty? :shrug: :p

Amnorix
07-12-2011, 10:05 AM
A car, a cell phone, fast internet, a big screen TV, and abundant food doesn't seem like abject poverty to me. Maybe you high falutin' east coast lawyers have lost touch with real poverty? :shrug: :p

What I'm saying is that if you ignore the data of charts such as the one I posted, you end up with a huge slice of the population in abject poverty.

Cave Johnson
07-12-2011, 10:09 AM
A car, a cell phone, fast internet, a big screen TV, and abundant food doesn't seem like abject poverty to me. Maybe you high falutin' east coast lawyers have lost touch with real poverty? :shrug: :p

Ah, I'd grown to miss the 2011 version of the "welfare queen" canard.

mlyonsd
07-12-2011, 10:24 AM
What I'm saying is that if you ignore the data of charts such as the one I posted, you end up with a huge slice of the population in abject poverty.

Even if you tax the rich more you don't address the poverty problem you're worrying about. It might make your chart look better but it doesn't do squat for the real reason 50% of our workers don't pay income tax. It does nothing for jobs, unless of course you are a government worker or Obama staffer, or want to grease one of your congressman's wheels so you can get a contract.

I also think it's naive if you think a tax increase today will go towards the debt tomorrow, let alone 2-4-6 years.

oldandslow
07-12-2011, 10:50 AM
A car, a cell phone, fast internet, a big screen TV, and abundant food doesn't seem like abject poverty to me. Maybe you high falutin' east coast lawyers have lost touch with real poverty? :shrug: :p

Come on out to the poorest county in the country. There are no big screen TV's, lots of folks don't have enough food, and the internet doesn't exist.

I know.

1. Ziebach County, S.D. 62 percent of residents in poverty

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/america-s-10-poorest-counties-appalachia

Here is a family that lives near my wife's cousin...lot's a color big screens there, I tell ya.

Brock
07-12-2011, 10:52 AM
Come on out to the poorest county in the country. There are no big screen TV's, lots of folks don't have enough food, and the internet doesn't exist.

I know.

1. Ziebach County, S.D. 62 percent of residents in poverty

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/america-s-10-poorest-counties-appalachia

Here is a family that lives near my wife's cousin...lot's a color big screens there, I tell ya.

That's a choice. You couldn't pry those people off of that (worthless) land with a crowbar.

patteeu
07-12-2011, 10:57 AM
Come on out to the poorest county in the country. There are no big screen TV's, lots of folks don't have enough food, and the internet doesn't exist.

I know.

1. Ziebach County, S.D. – 62 percent of residents in poverty

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/america-s-10-poorest-counties-appalachia

Here is a family that lives near my wife's cousin...lot's a color big screens there, I tell ya.

I guess it's a matter of hedge word interpretation, but do you think that particular demographic represents a "huge slice" of the population?

P.S. I know you probably don't want to hear this, but assimilation might help some of those people (or give their descendants a better opportunity).

Chief Henry
07-12-2011, 10:58 AM
How will increasing the taxs on the authors of books or corporate jet owners help the upcoming laid off 10,000 employees at Cisco retain the jobs ?

oldandslow
07-12-2011, 11:18 AM
I guess it's a matter of hedge word interpretation, but do you think that particular demographic represents a "huge slice" of the population?

P.S. I know you probably don't want to hear this, but assimilation might help some of those people (or give their descendants a better opportunity).

...and yet you chide amnorix for not knowing "real poverty." My friend, you don't either.

In 1491, the avg life span of a plains indian who made it out of childhood, was estimated to be about 60. Today, on this reservation, the avg life span for a male is 48.

To be honest, the real problem is that many adopted the bad things from both the red and the white and let the good things from each side go.

We are fixing it tho. Our own way. This is getting too personal, but my adopted son told me a couple of weeks ago that Wakan (God) had told him to be a doctor and shaman. He is mixing the good things from both cultures and that is what we all must begin to do.

HonestChieffan
07-12-2011, 11:27 AM
Come on out to the poorest county in the country. There are no big screen TV's, lots of folks don't have enough food, and the internet doesn't exist.

I know.

1. Ziebach County, S.D. 62 percent of residents in poverty

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/america-s-10-poorest-counties-appalachia

Here is a family that lives near my wife's cousin...lot's a color big screens there, I tell ya.

Almost the entire county lies within the Cheyenne River Indian Reservation....imagine that. Great example of the government helping is it not?

patteeu
07-12-2011, 11:45 AM
...and yet you chide amnorix for not knowing "real poverty." My friend, you don't either.



Again, we're talking about what constitutes a "huge slice" of the American population and I don't think an example from the poorest county in the country is likely to be representative. I wasn't tryin to suggest that every homeless guy has a cellphone and a big screen in his shopping cart, but I suspect that a pretty large percentage of the bottom 40% live pretty well compared to world poverty standards. You can find a small sliver of the population living in "abject poverty" but not a "huge slice".

Good for your son. I hope it works out well for him. I'm sure that wise parents and children like you and yours don't necessarily need assimilation, but I still think it would serve the majority well. We can agree to disagree on this point.

go bowe
07-12-2011, 12:20 PM
assimilation?

what is this, episode thirteen of the borg invasion?

patteeu
07-12-2011, 12:25 PM
assimilation?

what is this, episode thirteen of the borg invasion?

How many trekie conventions have you attended, nerd guy? ;)

go bowe
07-12-2011, 12:30 PM
How many trekie conventions have you attended, nerd guy? ;)

none, but i stayed in a holliday inn express last year, or was it ten years ago?

time flies when you're on chiefs planet all day...

petegz28
07-12-2011, 12:35 PM
How will increasing the taxs on the authors of books or corporate jet owners help the upcoming laid off 10,000 employees at Cisco retain the jobs ?

Help pay their unemployment??