Economy

[Azred]

Let me go back and put in a few more cuts here and there.

Original outlays = $3,498.605 billion

Commodities and Intl (from Dept of Ag)--$4.4045 billion (it isn't even explained, so it's gone)
Forest Service--$5.137 billion (the forests will take care of themselves if you leave them alone and quit micromanaging them)
Commerce/legislative proposal for Wireless Innovation Fund--$1.447 billion (public companies are doing this already, thank you very much)
NOAA--$1 billion
CDCP--$1 billion (perhaps now they'll quit overordering flu "vaccines" that don't really work, anyway, and trying to cause yearly panics)
Legislative subset of Medicare manadatory outlays--$17.282 billion (attributable to Obamacare)
Treasury International Programs--$1 billion
Millenium Challenge Corporation--$1.125 billion (not explained; cut entirely)
Fed Highway Admin--$3 billion (the increase was from $35.4 billion in 2011 to $43.573, so this is actually only increasing the amount less)
Federal Transit Admin--$1 billion
other "mandatory" outlays from Dept. of Treasury--$1 billion
SSA Limitation on Admin Expenses Base--$1 billion

This brings us down to $3,460 billion in outlays. Keep the flat 15% spending cuts in all other agencies/departments and this drops outlays to $2,941 billion.

recepits $2,904 billion - outlays $2,941 billion = deficit $37 billion.

Still not quite a surplus, but that is an acceptable amount.

[VulcanRider]

Originally Posted by Azred Now...if I can essentially balance the budget--and do it fairly easily, I might add--then certainly our politicians can do it.

But they don't *want* to do it. Neither party gives more than lip service to a balanced budget, and that's usually just before an election. Politicians crave power. They wield it by controlling the purse strings of the various agencies, and by handing out favors to special interest groups who reciprocate with votes. Increasing the size of gov't means they have bigger purses to spend. I seriously doubt the fed will ever get anywhere close to a balanced budget -- it's not in their best interest.

[Micah Foehammer]

Az,

Couple of comments on your defense department cuts:

1) ending Operation Enduring Freedom--$107.143 billion

Approximately 11.2 billion dollars of the 107.43 goes to military personnel costs. Even if you terminate OEF and redeploy, you will still have those costs.

2) ending Operation Iraqi Freedom--$10.442 billion

Again there are troop costs imbedded in this figure, close to 1 Billion $. Further, the 2012 budget costs are based terminating the operation in March of 2012. It does take time to disengage. You simply can not snap your figures and say "okay, troops are gone".

Figure at least 12.2 billion of those funds can NOT be written off (troop support etc). Given the time frame of termination of OIF, you are probably going to end up paying all of OIF costs plus the 11.2 in troop support costs from OEF

total ~ 21.6 billion $ added back into your budget.

Plus there are probably some other costs that can't be avoided such as equipment maintenance, redeployment costs etc.

see page 118, table 8.3 OCO funding (OCO is the blanket term that includes both OEF and OIF(since renamed Operation New Dawn)

http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbu...rview_Book.pdf

[Azred]

Of course they don't want to actually balance the budget, VulcanRider. As you can see from my examples, the only way to balance it is to cut things. The instant any politician cuts something from the budget, his opponents in the next election will have charts and graphs showing how the cuts directly led to the deaths of children and/or the elderly so obviously that politician cares more about saving money than your grandmother's life.

Check out President Obama's voting record. At this point in time he would have us believe that raising the debt ceiling is an absolute must or the world will end. Back when he was a Senator, though, he thought Bush raising the debt ceiling--which did happen--was evil incarnate.

Micah, my budget proposal isn't perfect but it's a heck of a lot more than we're getting out of Washington these days. No, I'm certain we couldn't bring everyone home right away--it would probably take a year to accomplish--but at least it would be happening.

[Timber Loftis]

You idiots are stupid. All of you. I don't have much more to say.

I'm editing this to say I stand by it. There's not one person on here that I've seen can have an actual discussion on this macro-eco issue.

[Azred]

It is a shame that some things never change.

A disinterested third party will read this thread and see me trying to solve the problem with actual research and numbers. The same person will read this thread and see you insulting people, which seems to be one of the things you do well.

Since you apparently want to bring nothing to this discussion except insults, why did you bother showing up at all? Do you think we care about your insults? If you don't like what is being said, try doing something constructive and offer different proposals. If not, then please allow the adults to continue their discussion.

[Timber Loftis]

I had nothing to add and was trolling. I think you'd suspect that.

Having had time to consider some of the facts, particularly the political situation, I have some actual thoughts, without delving into all the intricacies of the numbers like others have. I wish the President would do something along these lines:

Tell Congress that he would veto any bill they send him that does not:
1. Increase the debt ceiling -- out to 2013, on a lock-step 3-stage system per annum.
2. Balance the budget.
3. Have an equal amount of spending cuts and revenue increases (i.e. new taxes)
Notes: At first I was thinking a 33/66 split on this one, but I really believe some of the pre-existing taxes that the rich have been able to lobby themselves out of should come back. First no-brainer is reinstate the pre-Bush tax rate for dollars made over 250/350,000 (a 2% increase). Second no-brainer is getting rid of loopholes for the rich in the tax code, such as the one I posted an article about that allows them to treat income as capital gains. I also think they should re-insert the 60's era "millionaire tax" (my term, there, but the tax kicked in at around $300K, which is roughly a millionaire or more in today's dollars). I'd suggest setting that at 40%ish on dollars made in excess of $1/1.25 M. I would suggest no change in corporate tax rates.

Regarding the spending cuts, I'd like him to suggest that at least half of those have to come from the military. It's not a sticking point, but I don't see how the WWJD folks and the liberals can't come together to see that torching planned parenthood or programs for the poor isn't the most obvious or ethical way to cut our budget.

4. If Congress follows McConnell's cowards' plan and pass a measure just giving the President plenary authority to just increase the debt ceiling, he should veto that and throw it back in their faces. Congress has very little that it MUST do, and balancing the budget is one of those things. Plus, they need to quit asking the President to do their homework for them and solve their problems. Congress can't take a crap without asking the President for a plan of how to proceed. They need to do their jobs, and he is right to talk down to them like children lately.

[Azred]

I never have to suspect you of trolling.

I wonder why Obama voted against raising the debt ceiling when Bush was President but now thinks it is a good idea?

I couldn't see any way to approach a balanced budget that did not include both cuts and modest tax increases, which is why I included them both. Notice that the single largest cut I made was to the military--there is no reason for us to be wasting lives or money in the Middle East any more, especially since they don't want us there. Didn't we learn that lesson back in Vietnam? I was being nice, though, and left things like rental assistance, education grants, and veteran's programs alone.

The entire exercise in me crunching numbers was to show that it could be done and done relatively easily. Well, easily for me, at any rate. I am me, after all, another one of those things that do not change.

[John D Harris]

Originally Posted by Azred Let me go back and put in a few more cuts here and there. Original outlays = $3,498.605 billion Commodities and Intl (from Dept of Ag)--$4.4045 billion (it isn't even explained, so it's gone) Forest Service--$5.137 billion (the forests will take care of themselves if you leave them alone and quit micromanaging them) Commerce/legislative proposal for Wireless Innovation Fund--$1.447 billion (public companies are doing this already, thank you very much) NOAA--$1 billion CDCP--$1 billion (perhaps now they'll quit overordering flu "vaccines" that don't really work, anyway, and trying to cause yearly panics) Legislative subset of Medicare manadatory outlays--$17.282 billion (attributable to Obamacare) Treasury International Programs--$1 billion Millenium Challenge Corporation--$1.125 billion (not explained; cut entirely) Fed Highway Admin--$3 billion (the increase was from $35.4 billion in 2011 to $43.573, so this is actually only increasing the amount less) Federal Transit Admin--$1 billion other "mandatory" outlays from Dept. of Treasury--$1 billion SSA Limitation on Admin Expenses Base--$1 billion This brings us down to $3,460 billion in outlays. Keep the flat 15% spending cuts in all other agencies/departments and this drops outlays to $2,941 billion. recepits $2,904 billion - outlays $2,941 billion = deficit $37 billion. Still not quite a surplus, but that is an acceptable amount.

If we run that plan and numbers we'll have a surplus in a year or so, from increased revenues from the currently unemployed starting new jobs and paying taxes. I can live with another year of 37 billion debt. I'm for across the board cuts of 10%-15%.

[John D Harris]

Originally Posted by Timber Loftis You idiots are stupid. All of you. I don't have much more to say. I'm editing this to say I stand by it. There's not one person on here that I've seen can have an actual discussion on this macro-eco issue.

LOL that's what I love about you TL you use them thar fancy words... confuse edu'macation for intellegence.

TL did you notice the price of Gold today over $1600, let me see that's $600 per ounce proft you could have made if you'd have listened to me.... how's your investments compared to that Silver has more then doubled...