Sequester Madness
If the Republicans are supposed to be the voice of fiscal responsibility in Washington, then we are doomed. They are absolutely as bad as Obama, running around in panic that the trivial cuts required by the sequester (not 8% this year or 5% or even 2% but 1% of Federal spending). I have never seen a private organization with a large administrative staff that could not take a 5% reduction and generally be better off for it. I absolutely guarantee that I could take 5% or more off the top of every agency's budget and you would never notice it.
This includes the military. In fact, this includes the military in particular. The military is never asked to prioritize. We still have armored divisions in Germany. It is always incredible to me that Republicans, who doubt that the government can ever manage or spend wisely, suddenly cast aside all these doubts when it comes to the military. I understand the honor that folks accord to front-line soldiers vs., say, DMV workers. But they are not the ones spending the money. I am tired of such honor for the troops being used to bait and switch me from a very reasonable focus on DOD spending and waste.
When it comes to the military, Republicans use the same "closing the Washington Monument" tactics that Democrats use for social programs, essentially claiming that a 5% (or 1%) spending cut will result in the cessation of whatever activity taxpayers most want to see continue. This process of offering up the most, rather than the least, important uses of money when spending cuts are proposed as a tactic to avoid spending cuts is one of the most corrupt practices imaginable. No corporate CEO would tolerate it of his managers for a micro-second.
About two years ago at Forbes I imagined a hypothetical budget discussion at a corporation that followed Congressional budgeting practices.
YOU CUT EVERYTHING, STARTING WITH ENTITLEMENTS, MORON.
As we have already shown you, ENTITLEMENTS NOW EAT UP MOST OF THE EXPENDITURE BUDGET
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2013/01/Spending%20Q1%20TBAC.jpg
Even if you don't cut entitlements, they will be cut for you.
That will be hilarious to watch.
Larry, I'm pretty sure you have no idea how much trouble you/this country are in.
this is an example of what defines the "fringe". Not really interested in specifics at all just a narrative that opposes any/all entitlements and excuses any/all spending on Defense and when you do this at the GOP level - this is what you get - absolutely nothing - but gridlock.
this is why we have the deficit and debt and there is no progress on dealing with it.
so this is really not about the deficit and debt at all.. but something else..
so be it for those who fret and wring their hands over the deficit and debt. when you bring actual facts and data into the discussion - they run away like little 5 year olds who don't like reality.
re: how much trouble we are in - well Meso.. this is pretty certain your kind is not going to fix it, in fact your kind is what keeps it from being fixed. how about them apples?
Larry, retarded imbecile,
·
The Social Security spending explosion is already hitting us. At
first glance it might appear that Social Security spending growth is
significantly less of a problem than growth in the health entitlements. For
example, CBO reports that Social Security spending will rise from 5.1% of GDP
today to 5.5% by 2023, while health entitlements will grow much faster. But
this difference is partially an illusion borne of the fact that Social Security
spending has exploded over the last four years. To suggest that Social
Security’s recent cost surge means that it is now less of a problem going
forward would be somewhat like announcing that the jobs forecast has improved
after a huge spike in unemployment. The Social Security cost explosion is
already here, whereas federal health entitlement cost growth will only be fully
felt as “Obamacare” is implemented.
·
Going forward, federal health spending is a huge problem. While
Social Security has been the fastest-growing program in recent years, the
biggest growth going forward will be in the federal health entitlements. Net
costs for Medicare, Medicaid and “Obamacare” are expected to grow more rapidly
than GDP going forward, from 4.9% of GDP today to 6.2% by 2023, faster than
projected growth elsewhere in the budget.
·
Controlling health cost inflation isn’t enough to fix the budget
problem. In recent years a seductive but incorrect picture of the federal
budget became fashionable; the idea that the main thing we need to do to repair
the budget is to conquer health care cost inflation in the public and private
sectors alike. Unfortunately, it’s not true. Last year CBO
estimated that over the next quarter-century, cost growth in the federal health
entitlements and Social Security will be 75% attributable to population aging
and only 25% to health cost inflation. Even in the health entitlements
considered alone, population aging accounts for 60% of such cost growth, excess
health inflation only 40%. Thus even in the unlikely scenario that we
completely conquer health cost inflation, we would still have to confront the
bigger problem of the growing number of people receiving federal health
benefits.
·
Health care reform as enacted in 2010 made the problem worse, not
better. One justification presented for passing the massive health care
overhaul of 2010 was that doing so would help to correct runaway federal health
spending. Unfortunately the legislation added to the federal health spending
problem instead of correcting it. CBO now projects that the law’s new health
exchange subsidies will add $949 billion to federal spending from 2014–2023,
while federal Medicaid costs will rise from $265 billion this year to $572
billion annually by 2023, accelerated by the 2010 law. One of the best things
that can be done for the budget is to scale back expenditures scheduled under
the 2010 health reform law.
·
The fiscal strains caused by “Obamacare” may be underestimated.
CBO routinely provides alternative projections in which various ongoing
policies are extended or re-indexed relative to current law. For example, in its
latest ten-year budget outlook CBO models the effects of overriding pending
Medicare physician payment cuts, expiring tax provisions, and across-the-board
“sequestration” cuts. But in its long-term budget outlook published last year,
CBO also warned that the so-called “Obamacare” health exchange subsidies may
ultimately prove more expensive than now projected. Under current law, the
share of participant premiums covered by the subsidies is scheduled to decline
over time, requiring low-income participants to shoulder a rising percentage of
their own health care expenses. It’s far from certain whether lawmakers will
allow this to happen. If lawmakers instead act more in line with historical
precedent and allow the new subsidies to grow in proportion to participants’
health care costs, then the program’s eventual cost will be much higher.
Larry, ‘the fringe’ is you.
The fringe refuses to accept facts, like you.
The fringe deflects blame, like you.
The fringe tries to redirect the discussion to abstractions, which you refuse to define, like you.
What should we spend on entitlements, Larry?
How much?
What’s that number, Larry?
social security- by LAW cannot spend more than FICA brings in. It cannot "explode" and that's the simple truth.
health care spending - yes.. it can and will explode but not just Medicare and MedicAid - ALL health care - even private health care has the very same problem and you won't fix that problem by cutting ONLY govt programs.
Remember also - ALL military and DOD civilian retirees are dependent on SS and Medicare. So what would you do to THEIR entitlements?
re: Obamacare - you cite CBO data when it supports your argument then question it when it does not... what a joke.
Medicare currently spends about 210 billion from the general fund. do you know how much the military spends on health care for the military including the VA? You should. Would you advocate cutting military entitlements also?
social security- by LAW cannot spend more than FICA brings
in. It cannot "explode" and that's the simple truth.
Completely irrelevant, Larry.
Know what else Socialist Insecurity said?
After the first 3 year--that is to say, beginning in
1940--you will pay, and your employer will pay, 1.5 cents for each dollar you
earn, up to $3,000 a year. This will be the tax for 3 years, and then,
beginning in 1943, you will pay 2 cents, and so will your employer, for every
dollar you earn for the next 3 years. After that, you and your employer will
each pay half a cent more for 3 years, and finally, beginning in 1949, twelve
years from now, you and your employer will each pay 3 cents on each dollar you
earn, up to $3,000 a year. That is the most you will ever pay.
http://www.ssa.gov/history/ssn/ssb36.html
How’d that work out, Larry?
Christ, you are offensively stupid.
You are now officially the dumbest person on the internet. Well played, Larry.
what percent of available revenues, right?
I ask you for the percent for the military. What is it?
I'd say that AFTER you tell what the number is for the military - the remainder should be split between entitlements and general govt.
but first you have to be honest about how much of the available revenues should go to National Defense overall which is roughly twice what we spend on the "military".
so you see.. I'm willing to let you prioritize the military first and talk about what is left - for entitlements but you gotta give a number.
AVAILABLE REVENUES HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING, FUCKBAG.
GOVERNMENT SPENDS WHATEVER IT WANTS - GET THIS THRU YOUR THICK FUCKING SKULL ASSHAT
"irrelevant"? not when you're talking about deficits guy. It's VERY relevant. why are you backtracking on history of the SSA here? what difference does that make - right now with the current budget and deficit if SS by law cannot pay out more in benefits than what FICA provides?
and so what do you do ? you act like a little 5year old... as your response?
you're a joke guy. you blather on and on but when you get called on it - you act like a little boy.
and this pretty much defines the state of those who say they are "concerned" about the deficit and debt - i.e. "available revenues have nothing to do with it".
yup.
LOL, says the moron with his head so far up his ass, he can see out his own nostrils.
Larry, I seriously think you are in need of help.
You have zero ability to absorb facts, and are therefore irrelevant, but you do have the right to vote.
That is a major problem, which needs to be removed.
Yup, you still don't get it.
Yup.
How much should we spend on entitlements, Larry?
ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION
How much, Larry?
LarryDumbass, as I previously stated, government has already promised far more than it can deliver.
Your fatuous notion of “available revenues” is quaint, and irrelevant.
Socialist Insecurity is not only spending more than it takes in now, it is adding to debt outstanding/publicly held. That is a fact, Jack.
The real problem, in about 7 years, is when the US government starts unilaterally scaling back on their overpromises, and violence breaks out.
Are you ready, Larry?
Mesa - folks like you have zero impact on real govt. this is why the Tea Party is tearing the GOP apart... when the rest of the country gets a good look at who you are - they want none of it.
Agreed, we do have zero impact.
We ask impolite questions, of morons like you, such as
HOW MUCH SHOULD WE SPEND ON WELFARE ASSHAT?
ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION
Over time, reality has a nasty way of impacting everyone, especially rubes like you.
Are you ready, Larry?
actually, I asked you first and told you I would answer your question as soon as you answered mine but then you went into another tantrum... and insisted that available revenues don't matter.. .sounded a lot like Cheney saying "deficits don't matter".
I have a number.. as soon as you behave yourself, you get it.
ready for guys like you? sure. every day I have to watch where I step ....
ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION
LOL,
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2012/06/deer_in_headlights.jpg
you first pretty boy.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2303/2500014887_740ca006e9.jpg
HOW MUCH SHOULD WE SPEND ON ENTITLEMENTS, SHITFORBRAINS?
Well played, dogshit. Is that a self-portrait?
HOW MUCH SHOULD WE SPEND ON ENTITLEMENTS, DUMBASS?
Already did.
HOW MUCH SHOULD WE SPEND ON ENTITLEMENTS, DUMBASS?
As always, Larry, you show yourself to be a farce.
All you have to do is give a reasonable number (determined by me) as a % of GDP (easy, but you have no clue how to quantify that) which reflects your vacuous worldview on entitlements.
That number will be huge, because you are an ignorant leftist (redundant, yes).
How much, Larry?
Still waiting for your ignorant response….
Guess how much Socialist Insecurity entitlements will grow in the next 4 years, Larry?
Wild guess?
$700 billion entitlements in the next 4 years, Larry.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-02-21/stanley-druckenmiller-we-have-entitlement-problem-and-one-day-feds-hamster-wheel-wil
US Socialist Insecurity is beyond dead, it is compacted, incinerated, and tossed out the window.
Larry you are such a putz. -- "Most people do not believe the US harbors bad guys and terrorists to start with and no other country that I know of has declared a class of bad guys called terrorists that hide in the US."
How about the Dali Lama? He freely traverses the US, has a visa, meets with Obama. Yet Obama's WH ushered him in and out thru the kitchen entrance, no press allowed. Look it up. ever wondered why?
Because as far as red china is concerned he is at minimum an agitator and possibly a terrorist in their eyes. If we apply our own standards to this, we are harboring.
the Dali Lama is a bad guy/terrorist who occupies failed nation states and attacks other nation states? Who knew?
John - can you seriously distinguish between terrorists and political dissidents guy? Do you compare hijacking aircraft and crashing them into buildings with a religious guy who disobey's his own country's rules?
and I'm the putz? geeze guy.