We Have a Spending Problem

G

Gone To Texas

500+ Posts
The media do a remarkable job of throwing around massive numbers with no context. It is with this in mind that I made the chart below. Note that any purported "savings" or deficit reductions stemming from any of the plans coming out of Congress are with respect to the CBO baseline (blue line, data from CBO). Data for Reid and Boehner's plans were likewise obtained from the CBO. Data for 1982-2010 came from usgovernmentspending.com.

spendingproblem.JPG
 
Liberals have created fiscal time-bombs. They simply assumed that taxes would keep rising to pay for it all, as they have in Europe.

We're on a road to fiscal perdition. Congress has made so many promises to so many Americans that there is no conceivable way those promises can be kept. Taxes might have to rise to 60-80% to raise revenues to finance these promises, but that would be economically ruinous.
 
BI,
So there is a "legitimate" reason for the exponential growth. Obviously the architects of these entitlements did not plan adequately for the future AND explaining the reasons certainly doesn't provide a solution going forward.

There will be tough decisions but we can't let the country go belly up just so we can extend a few more years of entitlement.

Though this is a pipe dream, it's time to address entitlement spending and the current method of taxation (i.e. FairTax, etc.)
 
WE do have a spending problem.

It's either the tax and spend Dems or the don't tax and spend Pubs.

Spending is always on the menu, which is not inherently wrong, though paying for it comes now or later.
 
taxes would not even touch paying this debt down

it is a spending problem...28 trillion here we come...get the printers warmed up...we are going to need more cash
 
Yes, it was stupid to get the unfunded plan put in place. As it is stupid to continue the Social Security ponzi scheme, as it is stupid to continue to fund medicare and medicaid.

It is time to overhaul our entitlement programs, if not scrap them altogether. It is time to cut the power away from the ******** who run congress, and the only way to do that is to elect people who will cut programs. Not slow the rate of increase, but truly cut programs. All of them.
 
history repeating itself...

In the 1937 "Depression within the Depression," Morgenthau was unable to persuade Roosevelt to desist from continued deficit spending. Roosevelt continued to push for more spending, and Morganthau promoted a balanced budget. On November 10, 1937, Morgenthau gave a speech to the Academy of Political Science at New York's Hotel Astor, in which he noted that the Depression had required deficit spending, but that the government needed to cut spending to revive the economy. In his speech, he said:

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot

Henry Morgenthau, JR U.S. Secretary of the Treasury during the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt.
 
Great quote TexasGolf! Its amazing that we are still experimenting with Keynesian economics 70 years later when it was already a proven failure in the 1930s.
 
It might be nice to provide the rest of the context, but (like "the media" Gone to Texas derides for neglecting context), of course, you are into selective quoting.
"We have never begun to tax the people in this country the way they should be. ...We have never begun to tax the people. I don't pay what I should. People of my class don't. People who have it should pay. "The Link (from the same source as your quote-it was not, as you stated, a speech, but a private meeting)
Morganthau's views are much more complex than presented in the mined quote you regurgitated, and that has been going the rounds in conservative blogs lately. The year he stated that taxes should be raised on the upper classes, the top tax rate was about twice what it is today.
I don't support marginal tax rates of 80-94% as they were in those days, and I have no problem with the notion that spending cuts are in order. I do have a problem with deceptive, selective quote mining, however.

"To analyze your statement briefly, it's the position of you two gentlemen that there should be a tax bill to raise enough revenue to make a start towards balancing the budget?
Yes!"

and this:
"Looking the world over, each country through their armament program and this rearmament race is gradually getting near financial ruin"

He hated unbalanced budgets, and believed that budgets should be balanced with a combination of spending cuts and increased taxes on the wealthy. TexasGolf (go look at his views on , but if you are going to quote him, quote him fairly. All in all, you might not like his economics much, except for his dislike of Keynesian governmental spending, though, once again, his views are a little more complex. He was fine with "off the books" defcit spending during recession, for instance, notwithstanding your isolated quote. It is also interesting to note that the reductions in spending Roosevelt made at his urging contributed to the "Roosevelt recession" of the late 30's..
 
Forever 93?
" I hate the free prescription drug benefits that that liberal president enacted "

WHICH free prescritpion drug benefit is that?

Please provide a link.
 
point was and is now that throwing trillions of dollars at it is not going to work to get a country out of a depression or major recsession.....more taxes would not put a dent in the amount of money that has been spent and the government cannot be trusted to cut spending.
 
Updated charts to show the "compromise" plan which the CBO has scored basically identical to the Boehner plan. This does not include the supposed cuts that will be made by the Congressional committee of 12. I also added revenues which are rather rosy projections if you ask me. Second charts shows spending and revenues as a % of GDP.

spendingproblem2.JPG


spendingproblem3.JPG
 
And what will the graph look like if you add in the other $1.5 trillion in cuts and $1.2 trillion in revenue put on the table by Obama and almost accepted by Boehner.

It looks to me like we would be in good shape and certainly a lot better shape than anytime other than the Clinton boom years.

So yes we have a spending problem and yes we have a revenue problem. You certainly cannot cure the issue only with cuts and you certainly cannot cure the issue only with additional taxes.

But perhaps with tax rates similar to the Clinton years and a few Tea Party congresspersons keeping a lid on spending, and a few liberals (now maybe joined by Tea Partiers) to resist new wars, maybe we can get more control of the deficits.
 
Warren Buffet said ( I am repeating this from an unconfirmed source, but it does not really matter. It is still true.)

Congress could solve this problem if they passed one new law.

If the deficeit exceeds 3% of GDP, NO sitting member of Congress can run for re-election.

Congress is and always has been the problem. They make the laws, pass the budgets and appropriate the funds. Even if the President vetoes anything, they can over-ride it.

You will note that I did not mention Dems or Repubs. They are all to blame.

Their primary concern is to get elected and then their primary concern is to get re-elected.

The power they get when elected corrupts all but a select few.
JMHO.
hookem.gif
 
SDHorn, you haven't listed a single $ in expenditure cuts; just increases (hopefully) in tax revenue. Where are the $1.5 trillion in savings?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top