Shock Graphics Show Severity of Proposed Obama Budget Cuts

Increase taxes and cut military spending, omg I solved the American debt crisis.

I can't understand how Americans freak out when the idea of tax raises come up and when the idea of specific spending cuts come up. I blame the republicans for this situation, if you want to call for budget cuts man up and produce some resonable ideas.

[QUOTE="Renevent42"]What does he mean when he says: "when the federal government spends money, those are resources that are drained from the state, diluted by way of large Washington bureaucracy, and sent back to the school districts with red tape and strings attached."BMD004

That doesn't sound like what he is implying...more specifically how does the federal government spending money drain resources from the state? Much of this money is actually spent in and for the state and it's programs. Unless I am misunderstanding what he is trying to say.

Anyways like what I sorta alluded to in my earlier post, I think he's incorrectly attributing our educational performance just on the money spent on it federally (there's other reasons imo). Aside from the standardized testing issue, I'd throw plain old simple civil decay into the mix lol.

Increase taxes and cut military spending, omg I solved the American debt crisis.

I can't understand how Americans freak out when the idea of tax raises come up and when the idea of specific spending cuts come up.

[QUOTE="BMD004"][QUOTE="Renevent42"]What does he mean when he says: "when the federal government spends money, those are resources that are drained from the state, diluted by way of large Washington bureaucracy, and sent back to the school districts with red tape and strings attached."Renevent42

That doesn't sound like what he is implying...more specifically how does the federal government spending money drain resources from the state? Much of this money is actually spent in and for the state and it's programs. Unless I am misunderstanding what he is trying to say.

Anyways like what I sorta alluded to in my earlier post, I think he's incorrectly attributing our educational performance just on the money spent on it federally (there's other reasons imo). Aside from the standardized testing issue, I'd throw plain old simple civil decay into the mix lol.

[QUOTE="Renevent42"]

[QUOTE="BMD004"] Basically means that the states can handle a lot of things that Washington does much more efficiently. MrSelf-Destruct

That doesn't sound like what he is implying...more specifically how does the federal government spending money drain resources from the state? Much of this money is actually spent in and for the state and it's programs. Unless I am misunderstanding what he is trying to say.

Anyways like what I sorta alluded to in my earlier post, I think he's incorrectly attributing our educational performance just on the money spent on it federally (there's other reasons imo). Aside from the standardized testing issue, I'd throw plain old simple civil decay into the mix lol.

Speaking with many teachers and even a few principles almost all of them tell me the funds they receive from the feds is crucial. I get the red tape (and even testing falls into that) but if you cut the funds what's magically going to replace them? And again, he specifically says money spent by the feds drains state resources...I still don't completely understand that.

Under his proposed 'tax cuts' the only option is raising property taxes and other state taxes...he is simply passing the buck back. In other words, those tax savings will simply trickle back down to us when we pay our property taxes (for those of us who own a home).

Increase taxes and cut military spending, omg I solved the American debt crisis.

I can't understand how Americans freak out when the idea of tax raises come up and when the idea of specific spending cuts come up. I blame the republicans for this situation, if you want to call for budget cuts man up and produce some resonable ideas.

htekemerald

Well I agree with you that we need to cut military spending (and other spending as well), but raising taxes isn't a great long-term deficit solution. The problem is that while raising taxes may raise taxes in the short run (decreasing real GDP from raising taxes only partially offsets revenue gains at our current tax rates), it's not a great long-term solution (in the long run, the decrease in real GDP will eventually match or outweigh the revenue gains). Now that's not to say we don't need to raise enough tax revenue to cover our expenditures, but we should go about decided where/how to cut spending, do it, and then see what our budget situation is before we start talking about raising taxes (of course, I'd push for reforming the tax code (eliminating exemptions/tax expenditures, reducing marginal tax rates) before cutting spending, then cut spending, then look into raising taxes).

[QUOTE="MrSelf-Destruct"][QUOTE="Renevent42"]

That doesn't sound like what he is implying...more specifically how does the federal government spending money drain resources from the state? Much of this money is actually spent in and for the state and it's programs. Unless I am misunderstanding what he is trying to say.

Anyways like what I sorta alluded to in my earlier post, I think he's incorrectly attributing our educational performance just on the money spent on it federally (there's other reasons imo). Aside from the standardized testing issue, I'd throw plain old simple civil decay into the mix lol.

Speaking with many teachers and even a few principles almost all of them tell me the funds they receive from the feds is crucial. I get the red tape (and even testing falls into that) but if you cut the funds what's magically going to replace them? And again, he specifically says money spent by the feds drains state resources...I still don't completely understand that.

Under his proposed 'tax cuts' the only option is raising property taxes and other state taxes...he is simply passing the buck back. In other words, those tax savings will simply trickle back down to us when we pay our property taxes (for those of us who own a home).

Since the TC's link references the Rand Paul proposal, allow me to discuss Senator Paul's proposed budget cuts. For those of you who are at all curious, here is a detailed view of the proposal for the new Rand Paul budget that shows how he would save the U.S. $500 billion per year. Before I proceed further, I want to show you all two important visual representations of how the U.S. spends your tax dollars if you live in this country. Now, back to Senator Paul's budget. Look at it. I mean REALLY look at it. This is about as dead on arrival as is politically possible for a budget proposal to be. These two items positioned right next to each other show you everything that you need to know. DEFENSE.......................................................$47,500,000,000. (6.5%) EDUCATION..................................................$78,000,000,000 (83%) Only the Pell grant program survives. Cutting out 47.5 billion dollars from the Defense budget would only reduce it by 6.5%, but Rand Paul would rather eliminate over 83% of our Education Budget? This is honestly nothing more than a Republican fantasy dream put on paper. I doubt that there are even that many Republicans that want to go face the voters and say things like: "Because we think our children are the future of this country and we're falling behind the rest of the world in things like math and science, we've cut spending on their education by 83%."

"Because it's so important for the U.S. to be on the cutting edge of new scientific developments, we've cut the National Science Foundation by 62%."

"Because we think it is important that there be no discrimination when it comes to Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, we're eliminating the Department of Housing and Urban Development completely." (Among other things that cabinet level position is responsible for...) You get the idea. These programs/government entities exist and get more and more funding every year for two very important reasons: 1. They do useful things. Things that we, as a country, have felt is the legitimate role of government for decades.



2. The U.S. keeps growing each year, therefore the jobs that these programs/government entities do needs more resources because the job they need to do keeps getting bigger. As a simple analogy, think of staffing a tech support call center. Let's say that three people can handle 40 calls a day and give good service. If the call volume goes up to 80 per day, then those three people may not be enough and you need to invest in a larger tech support staff. Pretty basic right? It's the same way things like education work. If the number of kids that need to be educated goes up, then the money you need to spend to do things like build and maintain more schools, hire and train more teachers and support staff, etc. also goes up. And since the U.S. population is going to continue to grow, so is the size of government if we want to continue to have a public school system. So for Mr. Paul to blithely suggest cutting the education budget by 83%, what does he think is going to be the result? Unless you really feel that our education system is so bloated and inefficient that we can magically IMPROVE the quality of our schools and our education by removing 83% of the funding then what will happen is that our kids will get deeply dumber, less of them will be able to go to college, and the U.S. will gradually over time lose our ability to compete globally. Go through the rest of the list and think about what each one does and how slashing their funding billions and billions of dollars a year will impact their ability to do what they do successfully. So all these cuts that would utterly ravage our government's ability to do important things, and it still wouldn't actually accomplish it's goal. We'd still have a huge budget shortfall of approximately 800 billion to 1 trillion dollars. Let me repeat that: Even if every single one of Senator Paul's draconian cuts to all these discretionary spending programs went through, we'd still have an annual budget deficit of one trillion dollars. A serious approach to reducing the longterm structural deficit involves precisely three things. 1. Entitlement program changes (Social Security, Medicare, etc.) 2. Defense/military changes 3. Tax changes Any deficit reduction plan that is not 95% composed of some combination of cuts to Entitlement and Defense and increases in taxes is, flat out, not a serious deficit reduction strategy. It is unserious from a political standpoint, since I would wager even the majority of Republicans will run away as fast as they can from Rand Paul's recommended cuts to the "everything else" category of the first pie graph above. And it's unserious from the end goal it is trying to accomplish: actually reducing the longterm deficit since those are not the major areas we spend the vast majority of our money.

This is not difficult to understand when you take a high level view and look at where our spending really comes from as a country.nocoolnamejim

That is all.

I like this thread.

[QUOTE="htekemerald"]

Increase taxes and cut military spending, omg I solved the American debt crisis.

I can't understand how Americans freak out when the idea of tax raises come up and when the idea of specific spending cuts come up. I blame the republicans for this situation, if you want to call for budget cuts man up and produce some resonable ideas.

chessmaster1989

Well I agree with you that we need to cut military spending (and other spending as well), but raising taxes isn't a great long-term deficit solution. The problem is that while raising taxes may raise taxes in the short run (decreasing real GDP from raising taxes only partially offsets revenue gains at our current tax rates), it's not a great long-term solution (in the long run, the decrease in real GDP will eventually match or outweigh the revenue gains). Now that's not to say we don't need to raise enough tax revenue to cover our expenditures, but we should go about decided where/how to cut spending, do it, and then see what our budget situation is before we start talking about raising taxes (of course, I'd push for reforming the tax code (eliminating exemptions/tax expenditures, reducing marginal tax rates) before cutting spending, then cut spending, then look into raising taxes).

and I'd say that the interest charged on the debt would more than counter balance any small growth in GDP caused by keeping taxes low.

How did this thread become about Rand Paul?

lol everyone pointing out defense and crying, look at SS and medicare they should not even be. i am all for trimming fat off of defense but that is not this countries budgetary problemsurrealnumber5

There isn't really a problem with SS, but medicare will cause trouble.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]lol everyone pointing out defense and crying, look at SS and medicare they should not even be. i am all for trimming fat off of defense but that is not this countries budgetary problemFormer_Slacker

There isn't really a problem with SS, but medicare will cause trouble.

lol everyone pointing out defense and crying, look at SS and medicare they should not even be. i am all for trimming fat off of defense but that is not this countries budgetary problemsurrealnumber5

Increase taxes and cut military spending, omg I solved the American debt crisis.

I can't understand how Americans freak out when the idea of tax raises come up and when the idea of specific spending cuts come up.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]lol everyone pointing out defense and crying, look at SS and medicare they should not even be. i am all for trimming fat off of defense but that is not this countries budgetary problemRenevent42

[QUOTE="Renevent42"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]lol everyone pointing out defense and crying, look at SS and medicare they should not even be. i am all for trimming fat off of defense but that is not this countries budgetary problemsurrealnumber5

50 billion doesn't even begin to address the deficit unfortunately. I don't like paying taxes as much as anyone else...but if we want to have a budget like this what else can we do? There is no way growth alone will handle the difference...something has to give.Renevent42

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="Renevent42"] No, the fact our defense budget is as large as every other country in the world combined and is one of our largest expenditures isn't part of our budget problem. You are absolutely right...and the BILLIONS of dollars annually we are spending in Iraq/Adghanistan has nothing to do with it either. All that stuff get's paid for with Monopoly money!Renevent42

How is it not? Is it not one of our biggest expenditures? Is it not grossly out of balance with what other countries spend? I am not saying it's only place that needs cutting, or that if we cut it it solves everything...but the defense budget IS the 800 lb gorilla in the room. Renevent42

Yeah I saw the proposed military cuts...they were a joke. The defense budget is right up there with entitlement spending in our overall budget anyways...and when you compare it to other discretionary spending budgets it's literally like 60% of our budget. It's insane...

As for the wars we are already well above a trilliion dollars...that's a pretty sizeable amount of money. And with no end in sight it will just continue to grow and grow. Can you imagine if we invested that into our own country isntead?

[QUOTE="Renevent42"]How is it not? Is it not one of our biggest expenditures? Is it not grossly out of balance with what other countries spend? I am not saying it's only place that needs cutting, or that if we cut it it solves everything...but the defense budget IS the 800 lb gorilla in the room. surrealnumber5

Yeah I saw the proposed military cuts...they were a joke. The defense budget is right up there with entitlement spending in our overall budget anyways...and when you compare it to other discretionary spending budgets it's literally like 60% of our budget. It's insane...Renevent42

You took 3 different programs and rolled them into a single category.

There's no way to ignore our defense budget is out of control. I do agree that we need to do something all around though, and I think we need to raise taxes too. We can't have two wars and all the issues internally and just keep going cutting taxes just because it sounds good in speeches.

This country has had many times in our history with higher taxes and we didn't drive ourselves into the ground. In fact, many times of prospecrity were during periods where the taxes were higher than what they are today.

Both parties are being irresponsible, and the American peope too. We keep voting in the same type of politician over and over again...we deserve what we get.

You took 3 different programs and rolled them into a single category.

There's no way to ignore our defense budget is out of control. I do agre that we need to do something all around though, and I think we need to raise taxes too. We can't have two wars and all the issues internally and just keep going cutting taxes just because it sounds good in speeches.

This country has had many times in our history with higher taxes and we didn't drive ourselves into the ground. in fact, many times of prospecrity were during periods where the taxes were higher than what they are today.

But they don't change it...it's been like this for years and isn't changing anytime soon. This is where we stand and where it has been for a very long time. You could roll up all the discretionary spending into one too but that (like what you are doing) merely obfuscates the obvious.

There's no way around it, the defense budget is a HUGE part of our budget and is wildly our of whack with the rest of the world. If we want to cut down our deficit, we will have to make major cuts there as well as many other places.

But they don't change it...it's been like this for years and isn't changing anytime soon. This is where we stand and where it has been for a very long time. You could roll up all the discretionary spending into one too but that (like what you are doing) merely obfuscates the obvious.

There's no way around it, the defense budget is a HUGE part of our budget and is wildly our of whack with the rest of the world. If we want to cut down our deficit, we will have to make major cuts there as well as many other places.

To be fair, this is exactly what Rand Paul says about Education:

The mere existence of the Department of Education is an overreach of power by the federal government. State and

local governments, parents, and teachers are far better equipped to meet the needs of their students than this redtape laden department, which benefits teachers' unions more than pupils. However, Pell Grants will be preserved in

this proposal.

The Department of Education has increasingly meddled with the more traditional idea of education being tailored to

the needs and requirement of communities and states. The growth in education spending at the federal level has

gone from nearly $53 billion in 2001 to an estimated $95 billion in FY2011 – an 80 percent increase. When the

federal government spends money, those are resources that are drained from the state, diluted by way of large

Washington bureaucracy, and sent back to the school districts with red tape and strings attached.

During the first half of the past century, America ranked among the most educated population in the world. Since that

time, the role of the federal government in education has expanded significantly, at one point (FY2009) accounting for

10 percent of all government spending. The expansion of the role of the federal government in education has been

detrimental, as the U.S. now ranks far below other economically developed countries. In December 2010, the OECD

reported that the U.S. ranked 14th in reading skills, 17th in science, and 25th in mathematics (considered below

average) out of 35 developed nations.

BMD004

Your point is shot down when your comparing those rankings with other other countries that all have public schooling systems and not the prviate Rand Paul is suggesting. Which means it being as a public institution is not the problem just certain things within the system that need to be changed and fixed.

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="BMD004"] What are your thoughts on Rand Paul's explanations that I posted a few posts up... on education and energy. Does it change your opinion any?BMD004

Our biggest issue is we are spending more money than we collect from taxes, and our defense budget is a huge part of that. Entitlements as well. I don't understand why we should downplay the defense budget just because entitlement spending is also a major part of the problem.Renevent42

[QUOTE="Former_Slacker"]

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]lol everyone pointing out defense and crying, look at SS and medicare they should not even be. i am all for trimming fat off of defense but that is not this countries budgetary problemsurrealnumber5

There isn't really a problem with SS, but medicare will cause trouble.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="Former_Slacker"]

There isn't really a problem with SS, but medicare will cause trouble.

Ontain

[QUOTE="Renevent42"]Our biggest issue is we are spending more money than we collect from taxes, and our defense budget is a huge part of that. Entitlements as well. I don't understand why we should downplay the defense budget just because entitlement spending is also a major part of the problem.surrealnumber5

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="Renevent42"]Our biggest issue is we are spending more money than we collect from taxes, and our defense budget is a huge part of that. Entitlements as well. I don't understand why we should downplay the defense budget just because entitlement spending is also a major part of the problem.Renevent42

You are downplaying the seriousness of it by pointing to another problem...and maybe you were just being silly at the time but you also called the people who pointed out the defense budget cry babies. I don't think the rate of entitlement spending we have now is responsible either, never said that anywhere.Renevent42

Half the defense budget is almost 350 billion dollars annually...that would have a tremendous impact on our deficit. Would it fix it? No of course not, but it would be a huge step in the right direction. And guess what, cutting entitlement programs alone wouldn't solve our deficit problem either.

Half the defense budget is almost 350 billion dollars annually...that would have a tremendous impact on our deficit. Would it fix it? No of course not, but it would be a huge step in the right direction. And guess what, cutting entitlement programs alone wouldn't solve our deficit problem either.

You realize that's over a very long period of time and not annually?

I would also be careful throwing around figures like that...most of the time they don't include things like growth, projected adujstments, tax rates, ect...opponent to entitlement programs have been using big scary figures like this for decades. If it were true we should have been bankrupted decades ago.

You realize that's over a very long period of time and not annually?Renevent42

Well then if that's true I am a little surprised you would even mention that as a response to cutting 350 billion from our budget. Last time I checked the current federal deficit is something like 1.3 trillion dollars...it doesn't take an accountant to see that a cut of that magnitude would have a tremendous impact on our overall budget and deficit.Renevent42

Taxes as a whole needs to be reformed. right now no corporation pays the actual corporate tax rate or even close to it. Heck Exxon paid nothing in 2009 federal while making billions in profits AND got a rebate of 106 million. why do we still have subsidies for the oil industry at this point? that's like 36billion a year. subsidies for alternatives are like 500million this year :P There's businesses using off shore offices just to avoid our taxes. Just one example is one 4 story building with 18,000 companies registered to it. the republicans also want to repeal the estate tax that only benefits the top 0.3% and would cost over 1 trillion over 10 years. Ontain