PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Defict\debt ceiling deal...a sham?


petegz28
08-09-2011, 08:34 PM
Ok, so I was talking about this today with a co-worker, why did we only get $1.5 tril in cuts? Supposedly Obama had a $4 tril plan. Ryan had a $4tril + plan.

Ok, so neither were adopted. Tax hikes were taken off the table. What we ended up with was $1.5 tril in spending cuts. HTF is that so? Assuming we go with the Left's argument that this was all because the Tea Party wouldn't budge, does that mean there were $2.5 tril in tax hikes they wanted?

I am trying to figure out how we got so little spending cuts just because we didn't raise taxes? I don't get the argument that we couldn't cut more because we couldn't raise more in taxes?

Just to simplify it some, let's assume $2tril was proposed in cuts and $2 tril in tax hikes. So you take the hikes off the table and you should still end up with $2 tril in cuts.

I guess I am just not getting why we fall so short of the $4 tril just because tax hikes were taken off the table? Doesn't that mean they were basically asking for more in tax hikes than they were in spending cuts?

FishingRod
08-10-2011, 08:00 AM
I assume that we won't even get that. I think what we have is the word of our honorable congress to cut future increases by that much not actual cuts in the real sense.

Deberg_1990
08-10-2011, 08:11 AM
John Kerry will make sure every last penny gets cut!

Amnorix
08-10-2011, 08:16 AM
Well, the short answer is politics. The Democrats were apparently offering revisions to entitlement programs, etc., but required tax increases to be part of the package.

The ratio of cuts to increases was whatever -- 3:1, 5:1. I've heard different ratios.

So when the Republicans refused to increase revenues by, hypothetically, $500 billion, that took 3x that amount of spending cuts ($1.5 billion), off the table, for a total deficit reduction of $2 billion.

That's my general understanding anyway.

Hydrae
08-10-2011, 08:21 AM
John Kerry will make sure every last penny gets cut!

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41offnity7L._SL160_.jpg

patteeu
08-10-2011, 10:05 AM
There are lots of ways this could happen, petegz28. Amnorix is probably right about it, the democrats just didn't want cuts unless they got tax increases at the same time. Another way it could happen is if each side was proposing different cuts so the common cuts would be smaller than either side's full list of cuts.

And just to be clear, I agree with FishingRod that none of them are real cuts anyway.

Amnorix
08-10-2011, 10:07 AM
There are lots of ways this could happen, petegz28. Amnorix is probably right about it, the democrats just didn't want cuts unless they got tax increases at the same time. Another way it could happen is if each side was proposing different cuts so the common cuts would be smaller than either side's full list of cuts.

What I don't understand is why we can't move at least some no-brainer cost cuts through, even on a stand alone basis. IMHO it should take about 10 f'n minutes, TOTAL, to pass a law (or whatever it is) letting the US Post Office eliminate Saturday delivery, which I understand will save more money than these 3,000 post office branch closings COMBINED, not to mention the massive reduction in the use of gasoline by the largest fleet of vehicles in the world.

:banghead:

mlyonsd
08-10-2011, 10:17 AM
What I don't understand is why we can't move at least some no-brainer cost cuts through, even on a stand alone basis. IMHO it should take about 10 f'n minutes, TOTAL, to pass a law (or whatever it is) letting the US Post Office eliminate Saturday delivery, which I understand will save more money than these 3,000 post office branch closings COMBINED, not to mention the massive reduction in the use of gasoline by the largest fleet of vehicles in the world.

:banghead:It sounds funny but out where we live our Saturday carrier is differnt than the rest of the week.

So I'm guessing it does mean something to jobs.

Warrior5
08-10-2011, 11:46 AM
What I don't understand is why we can't move at least some no-brainer cost cuts through, even on a stand alone basis. IMHO it should take about 10 f'n minutes, TOTAL, to pass a law (or whatever it is) letting the US Post Office eliminate Saturday delivery, which I understand will save more money than these 3,000 post office branch closings COMBINED, not to mention the massive reduction in the use of gasoline by the largest fleet of vehicles in the world.

:banghead:

Bingo... I'd even argue they should reduce mail delivery to 3 days a week.

So with the exception of a waiver given to Spink SD, what can possibly be the reason this isn't a done deal already?

orange
08-10-2011, 01:21 PM
What I don't understand is why we can't move at least some no-brainer cost cuts through, even on a stand alone basis. IMHO it should take about 10 f'n minutes, TOTAL, to pass a law (or whatever it is) letting the US Post Office eliminate Saturday delivery, which I understand will save more money than these 3,000 post office branch closings COMBINED, not to mention the massive reduction in the use of gasoline by the largest fleet of vehicles in the world.

:banghead:

Whether they should eliminate Saturday delivery or not, it wouldn't make a dime worth of difference on the budget. The USPS hasn't been tax-supported for decades.

Now, as for those no-brainer costs that everyone can agree on... I welcome anyone to come up with some. I challenged LOCOChief a week ago when he claimed he could name them, but he never got back to me. It sounds like a thread-worthy idea, though.

2bikemike
08-10-2011, 01:38 PM
Whether they should eliminate Saturday delivery or not, it wouldn't make a dime worth of difference on the budget. The USPS hasn't been tax-supported for decades.

Now, as for those no-brainer costs that everyone can agree on... I welcome anyone to come up with some. I challenged LOCOChief a week ago when he claimed he could name them, but he never got back to me. It sounds like a thread-worthy idea, though.

The USPS is supported by taxes because they can't make ends meet. IIRC I read they are like $3 Billion short so far this year and are looking for the Govt. welfare check.

They need to get their financial affairs in order. Eliminating Saturday service would help. I doubt it would cure all their ills.

Hydrae
08-10-2011, 02:07 PM
The USPS is supported by taxes because they can't make ends meet. IIRC I read they are like $3 Billion short so far this year and are looking for the Govt. welfare check.

They need to get their financial affairs in order. Eliminating Saturday service would help. I doubt it would cure all their ills.

My understanding is that a lot of the financial issues for USPS has to do with mailings that have been mandated by law to be mailed at prices that are below cost.

Amnorix
08-10-2011, 02:34 PM
Whether they should eliminate Saturday delivery or not, it wouldn't make a dime worth of difference on the budget. The USPS hasn't been tax-supported for decades.



I understood that to be the case for many years, but now understand that the USPS is not at all certain it will be able to cover costs going forward and is looking for general support from the feds.

orange
08-10-2011, 02:54 PM
I understood that to be the case for many years, but now understand that the USPS is not at all certain it will be able to cover costs going forward and is looking for general support from the feds.

They are looking at allowing the USPS to recover money it overpayed into it's pension fund and to reduce future payments currently. There is nothing ontap that would involve a direct subsidy. They also want Congress to give USPS more authority to make money-saving changes (such as eliminating Saturdays ...).

Amnorix
08-10-2011, 03:22 PM
They are looking at allowing the USPS to recover money it overpayed into it's pension fund and to reduce future payments currently. There is nothing ontap that would involve a direct subsidy. They also want Congress to give USPS more authority to make money-saving changes (such as eliminating Saturdays ...).


Seriously -- we were never supposed to have to bail out Fannie and Freddie either, right?

The US stands behind too much, in addition to its own hideous debt load. When you're $14.6 trillion in the hole, borrowing 40 cents of every dollar you spend AND guarantying the debts of many other agencies totalling lord knows how many trillions more, eventually you reach a breaking point.

Carlota69
08-10-2011, 04:19 PM
I dont come in here very often, but thought this was hilarious!

<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/-McpNtHet3w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

HonestChieffan
08-10-2011, 04:28 PM
Superb

Radar Chief
08-10-2011, 04:41 PM
I dont come in here very often, but thought this was hilarious!

<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/-McpNtHet3w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

ROFL Thatís why thereís 37 states going through a heat wave, cause you didnít pay the fucking light bill.

petegz28
08-10-2011, 04:54 PM
That was fucking awesome, Carlota!!!! Rep your way!

patteeu
08-10-2011, 06:37 PM
LMAO

KCTitus
08-10-2011, 07:48 PM
The US stands behind too much, in addition to its own hideous debt load. When you're $14.6 trillion in the hole, borrowing 40 cents of every dollar you spend AND guarantying the debts of many other agencies totalling lord knows how many trillions more, eventually you reach a breaking point.

That is the bottom line...we have to be brave enough to admit that this has gone on too long and it's time to start making some really tough decisions.

As to the OP, the deal was a sham...instead of adding 10 trillion to the debt over 10 years, we're going to add 8 trillion. I dont think we have 10 years.

petegz28
08-10-2011, 09:35 PM
Well what the whole thing comes off to me as is the Dems don't want to cut spending. They just want to tax more to allegedly put the additional "revenue" towards the current spending so we don't have to borrow so much.

HonestChieffan
08-10-2011, 09:41 PM
Well what the whole thing comes off to me as is the Dems don't want to cut spending. They just want to tax more to allegedly put the additional "revenue" towards the current spending so we don't have to borrow so much.


They will make "cuts". The cuts just take effect in 2020. The entire big lie is the cuts need to start now and there is no way a dem can bring him or herself to pull the trigger and get on with the rat killin.

Hydrae
08-11-2011, 08:16 AM
Seriously -- we were never supposed to have to bail out Fannie and Freddie either, right?

The US stands behind too much, in addition to its own hideous debt load. When you're $14.6 trillion in the hole, borrowing 40 cents of every dollar you spend AND guarantying the debts of many other agencies totalling lord knows how many trillions more, eventually you reach a breaking point.

You know, I heard this this morning on the radio also. I know we raised the debt limit to this amount but I certainly did not know we immediately borrowed to that ceiling the minute it was available. I would think we were building towards that new level but not that we would be there within a couple of days. :shrug:

Amnorix
08-11-2011, 08:24 AM
You know, I heard this this morning on the radio also. I know we raised the debt limit to this amount but I certainly did not know we immediately borrowed to that ceiling the minute it was available. I would think we were building towards that new level but not that we would be there within a couple of days. :shrug:


The $14.6 number is the current debt, which I pulled off the debt clock. I'm not sure if that's the new number to which we raised the debt ceiling or not. I wouldn't think so or else we'd be facing a new crisis, right?

I'm not surprised that there would be a big leap as of August 2 or 3, however, because the Treasury had been playing games to avoid default for a couple months prior to the August 2 "deadline".

Hydrae
08-11-2011, 08:38 AM
The $14.6 number is the current debt, which I pulled off the debt clock. I'm not sure if that's the new number to which we raised the debt ceiling or not. I wouldn't think so or else we'd be facing a new crisis, right?

I'm not surprised that there would be a big leap as of August 2 or 3, however, because the Treasury had been playing games to avoid default for a couple months prior to the August 2 "deadline".

Ok, I am up to date again. For some reason I thought this latest increase in the ceiling took it to the $14T mark. It increased from $14.3T to $16.4T so I guess we have a few pennies we can borrow still if needed (as if that was a question).