SUBSCRIBE | NEWSLETTERS | MAPS | VIDEOS | BLOGS | MARKETPLACE | CONTESTS
TRY BACKPACKER FREE!
SUBSCRIBE NOW and get
2 Free Issues and 3 Free Gifts!
Full Name:
Address 1:
Address 2:
City:
State:
Zip Code:
Email: (required)
If I like it and decide to continue, I'll pay just $12.00, and receive a full one-year subscription (9 issues in all), a 73% savings off the newsstand price! If for any reason I decide not to continue, I'll write "cancel" on the invoice and owe nothing.
Your subscription includes 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Or click here to pay now and get 2 extra issues
Offer valid in US only.


» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

Page 1 of 212>>

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]

reply to topic new topic new poll
Topic: Where to Start Cutting?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
 Post Number: 1
wwwest Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6273
Joined: Dec. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 07 2013, 1:18 pm  Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Good opinion piece by Samuelson, but I notice that he shys away from the elephant in the room, i.e. defense spending.

Looks like Obama is going to work his way up to that, but in the meantime, agricultural subsidies would be a good place to start.  It would be very good for the consumers of food to find out the wild fluctuations that occur in farming, and the roller coaster food prices that would result, instead of the artificial price levels that have been maintained since WWII.

Probably might help with the obesity problems, neh??

Politics favors the status quo; economics calls for change. Farm subsidies are but one example. As the CBO observes: “Very few policy changes, taken individually, can shrink the deficit [sharply]. .&#8201;.&#8201;. Significant deficit reduction is likely to require a combination of policies, many of which may stand in stark contrast to policies now in place.” Still, agriculture would be a good starting point. In 2013, Congress will continue debating a farm bill. It would be refreshing, if surprising, to see subsidies phased out because — whatever their historical justification — they’re no longer needed.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinion....ry.html


--------------
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

- John Kenneth Galbraith
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 2
WalksWithBlackflies Search for posts by this member.
Resident Eco-Freak Bootlicker
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 9826
Joined: Jun. 2004
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 07 2013, 2:16 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

IMO, until we cut our Department of Offense Defense spending, all other cuts aren't even worth discussing.

--------------
When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be. - Lao Tzu
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 3
Ocean82 Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 38
Joined: Dec. 2011
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 07 2013, 2:34 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(WalksWithBlackflies @ Jan. 07 2013, 2:16 pm)
QUOTE
IMO, until we cut our Department of Offense Defense spending, all other cuts aren't even worth discussing.

Here are the top 10 most ridiculous things the federal government paid for this year (2011):

10. $764,825 for a study on how college students use cell phones and social media

The National Science Foundation awarded the University of Notre Dame this grant to study the mobile and social media habits of college freshmen. We can tell you exactly how college freshmen use mobile phones and social media: for 3 a.m. texts and phone calls to that girl in American History. We could have saved the government a lot of money. Just ask us.

9. $136,555 for teachers to retrace Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales in England

This grant, awarded to teachers from Kent State and Eastern Illinois Universities, allowed Middle English lit fanatics to take the trip outlined in Canterbury Tales. We’re betting £10 that the tour guides just make up half of the landmarks.

8. $55,660 on butter packaging

Kriemhild Dairy Farms received this chunk of change to package their grass-fed cow butter. The funding isn’t the only thing that’s too big: The butter itself is 85 percent fat.

7. $606,000 for a study about online dating

Columbia University researchers received over a half-million dollars to study online dating. Maybe the Ivy League nerds who conducted this study should put down the lab coats and go to a bar — or at least the library.

6. $484,000 for a pizza restaurant

Arlington, Texas has one more beer and pizza joint, thanks to this grant to a private developer. The groovy Mellow Mushroom, a national chain, is known for its hippie theme.

5. $48,700 towards the Second Annual Hawaii Chocolate Festival

These funds were awarded to promote Hawaii’s chocolate industry. The Aloha State is already full of sandy beaches, clear blue water, and sun. Why do they get all the good stuff? (That’s the mayor of Hershey, Pennsylvania on Line 1.)

4. $147,138 to build a magic museum

Maybe the wizards at the American Museum of Magic in Marshall, Mich., can make the federal deficit disappear. The grant was awarded to promote the “history of magic entertainment.”

3. $96,000 on iPads for kindergarteners

One school district in Maine was awarded this grant to buy every kindergarten student the latest Apple gadget. These kids can’t add yet, but thanks to Uncle Sam they’ll never need to.

2. $175,587 for a study on the link between cocaine and the mating habits of quail

The funding for this super-important scientific study is down from its 2010 level of $181,406. But we think the amount is ridiculous for research that proves what the film “Blow” already did: that cocaine is linked to high-risk sexual activity.

1. $130,987 for dragon robots

We think the phrase “dragon robots” sounds pretty cool. But when their purpose is to help develop preschoolers’ vocabulary, that’s when we get a little worried. The National Science Foundation will spend nearly $1 million over four years to determine if the dragon-shaped robot can enhance toddlers’ learning skills — because Elmo and Barney are just so 1990s.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011....JtyOUdW

I agree that we can cut tons from the military budget (I experienced first hand ridiculous spending over 7 years of service), but we can entertain other cuts as well.


--------------
 "We don't stop hiking because we grow old,
we grow old because we stop hiking." 
                                 -- Finis Mitchell,
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 4
WalksWithBlackflies Search for posts by this member.
Resident Eco-Freak Bootlicker
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 9826
Joined: Jun. 2004
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 07 2013, 2:38 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Ocean82 @ Jan. 07 2013, 2:34 pm)
QUOTE

(WalksWithBlackflies @ Jan. 07 2013, 2:16 pm)
QUOTE
IMO, until we cut our Department of Offense Defense spending, all other cuts aren't even worth discussing.

Here are the top 10 most ridiculous things the federal government paid for this year (2011):

10. $764,825 for a study on how college students use cell phones and social media

The National Science Foundation awarded the University of Notre Dame this grant to study the mobile and social media habits of college freshmen. We can tell you exactly how college freshmen use mobile phones and social media: for 3 a.m. texts and phone calls to that girl in American History. We could have saved the government a lot of money. Just ask us.

9. $136,555 for teachers to retrace Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales in England

This grant, awarded to teachers from Kent State and Eastern Illinois Universities, allowed Middle English lit fanatics to take the trip outlined in Canterbury Tales. We’re betting £10 that the tour guides just make up half of the landmarks.

8. $55,660 on butter packaging

Kriemhild Dairy Farms received this chunk of change to package their grass-fed cow butter. The funding isn’t the only thing that’s too big: The butter itself is 85 percent fat.

7. $606,000 for a study about online dating

Columbia University researchers received over a half-million dollars to study online dating. Maybe the Ivy League nerds who conducted this study should put down the lab coats and go to a bar — or at least the library.

6. $484,000 for a pizza restaurant

Arlington, Texas has one more beer and pizza joint, thanks to this grant to a private developer. The groovy Mellow Mushroom, a national chain, is known for its hippie theme.

5. $48,700 towards the Second Annual Hawaii Chocolate Festival

These funds were awarded to promote Hawaii’s chocolate industry. The Aloha State is already full of sandy beaches, clear blue water, and sun. Why do they get all the good stuff? (That’s the mayor of Hershey, Pennsylvania on Line 1.)

4. $147,138 to build a magic museum

Maybe the wizards at the American Museum of Magic in Marshall, Mich., can make the federal deficit disappear. The grant was awarded to promote the “history of magic entertainment.”

3. $96,000 on iPads for kindergarteners

One school district in Maine was awarded this grant to buy every kindergarten student the latest Apple gadget. These kids can’t add yet, but thanks to Uncle Sam they’ll never need to.

2. $175,587 for a study on the link between cocaine and the mating habits of quail

The funding for this super-important scientific study is down from its 2010 level of $181,406. But we think the amount is ridiculous for research that proves what the film “Blow” already did: that cocaine is linked to high-risk sexual activity.

1. $130,987 for dragon robots

We think the phrase “dragon robots” sounds pretty cool. But when their purpose is to help develop preschoolers’ vocabulary, that’s when we get a little worried. The National Science Foundation will spend nearly $1 million over four years to determine if the dragon-shaped robot can enhance toddlers’ learning skills — because Elmo and Barney are just so 1990s.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011....JtyOUdW

The military spends that much on three hammers and five toilet seats.

--------------
When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be. - Lao Tzu
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 5
Ben2World Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 25450
Joined: Jun. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 07 2013, 3:12 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(WalksWithBlackflies @ Jan. 07 2013, 11:16 am)
QUOTE
IMO, until we cut our Department of Offense Defense spending, all other cuts aren't even worth discussing.

If Obama starts with defense -- that will provide even more fuel to the partisan flame.   Obama needs to provide the leadership to solve our deficit problem effectively -- and that means a "no sacred cow" message upfront.


--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page.  -- St. Augustine
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 6
buzzards Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1986
Joined: Apr. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 07 2013, 3:58 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Friends, check out this article with graphs on spending trends.

US Government spending history

Historically speaking, defense spending is near postwar lows as a percent of GDP. Yes, there are cuts that can be made, and must. But the big money isn't there anymore.
The money is in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, with Disability coming up fast on the outside.
You can say all you want about these benefits being earned, promised, that this is balancing the budget on the backs of the poor (which isn't true for SS and Medicare, most recipients are middle class). And you all might have valid points. But if you want a balanced budget, you have to tackle these. Either that or raise taxes substantially, and not just on millionaires, but on just about every American with a job. Possibly both.
And the funny thing is that raising the retirement age to reflect modern mortality rates vs. where they were in the 1930's (70 to start, target of 75), along with some modest means testing for SS and especially Medicare, and those two programs are instantly solvent. Don't think it will happen, but it's either that or taxation at rates that will get every bum thrown out, Dem or Republican.
P.S. Let's leave the Park Service alone. They have been cut more than enough.


--------------
Now shall I walk or shall I ride?
Ride, said pleasure,
Walk, Joy replied,
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 7
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 42721
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 07 2013, 5:31 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I'd agree the large issue is Medicare and Defense, SS is self funding (the payroll tax is dedicated to Social Security) so it's impact, beyond drawing down trust fund treasury bonds those retirees already paid for, is minimal. I'm blurry on Medicaid's totals.

Here's a look at national healthcare spending in its entirety. From a quick look i couldn't tell whether its Medicaid number was federal alone or the sum of federal and state, I suspect the latter.

https://www.cms.gov/Researc....010.pdf

Yes that $400 billion was national total. The federal portion was $275 per the CBO:
http://www.cbo.gov/sites....aid.pdf

A federal budget pie chart:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/budget_pie_gs.php

We can feel all warm and fuzzy killing Big Bird and forcing grandma back on cat food  but maybe  facing Congress adding BILLIONS   the Pentagon doesn't want would be jut the teensiest bit more effective?

http://defensetech.org/2012....-budget

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012....o-tanks

And that bigger budget doesn't mean a safer nation according to the Secretary of Defense, for one.
"#In a speech this week, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta criticized the pressure on the Pentagon to keep weapons that it doesn't want. "Aircraft, ships, tanks, bases, even those that have outlived their usefulness, have a natural political constituency. Readiness does not," Panetta said.

#"What's more, readiness is too often sacrificed in favor of a larger and less effective force. I am determined to avoid that outcome," he said.

#Panetta said members of the House and Senate "diverted about $74 billion of what we asked for in savings in our proposed budget to the Congress, and they diverted them to other areas that, frankly, we don't need.""

For a bit of perspective? The $74 billion is Double the entire annual budget of the National Institutes of Health.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 8
TehipiteTom Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5713
Joined: Jul. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 07 2013, 6:07 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(buzzards @ Jan. 07 2013, 12:58 pm)
QUOTE
The money is in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, with Disability coming up fast on the outside.
You can say all you want about these benefits being earned, promised, that this is balancing the budget on the backs of the poor (which isn't true for SS and Medicare, most recipients are middle class). And you all might have valid points. But if you want a balanced budget, you have to tackle these. Either that or raise taxes substantially, and not just on millionaires, but on just about every American with a job. Possibly both.

True, up to a point: long-term deficits are driven primarily by Medicare and Medicaid.  (Social Security could be made solvent with very minor tweaks.)  But there are widely diverging ideas of how to "tackle" these.  

The first approach simply assumes that tackling the problem means reducing benefits.  There are various suggested "solutions" with varying degrees of defensibility, from voucherizing Medicare to raising the eligibility age to means testing, but they all take as their starting point an unexamined belief that (some or all) seniors have to pay more.

The second approach recognizes that the Medicare and Medicaid cost problem is driven by healthcare cost growth (including the private sector), and that any "solution" that merely reduces Medicare/Medicaid expenditures without addressing healthcare inflation doesn't really solve anything.  Shifting healthcare costs (from the Federal government to seniors, e.g.) doesn't actually reduce healthcare expenditures--in fact, it increases them (because Medicare is more efficient than private insurance).

The PPACA took some significant steps in that direction (and it's possible it will end up having a much larger impact on healthcare inflation than CBO scoring indicates, if any of the pilot programs that weren't scored by the CBO work out), but we need to do a lot more--because if healthcare continues to suck more and more money out of the productive economy, deficits will be the least of our worries.

Now, maybe in the end we'll need to do a little of both--limited means testing, say, or increasing the income cap for contributions, along with holding down cost growth.  The point is, if anyone is pushing benefit cuts as the first thing to do (rather than a last resort) they either don't understand the situation or are trying to pull one over on you.

QUOTE
And the funny thing is that raising the retirement age to reflect modern mortality rates vs. where they were in the 1930's (70 to start, target of 75), along with some modest means testing for SS and especially Medicare, and those two programs are instantly solvent. Don't think it will happen, but it's either that or taxation at rates that will get every bum thrown out, Dem or Republican.

I would be okay with indexing the eligibility age to lifetime income, so that higher earners become eligible later, because it would reflect the actuarial reality that wealthier people live longer than poorer people.  Otherwise, raising the eligibility age is a terrible idea because it screws the very people who are most likely to need Medicare in the first place.

On top of that, raising the eligibility age would actually increase rather than reduce healthcare expenditures (as noted above).  It's one thing to propose a painful policy that actually accomplishes something; it's another to propose inflicting pain when it actually makes the overall problem worse.


--------------
Conservatives are the whiniest whiners in the wholy whiny history of whiny-ass whinerdom.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 9
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 42721
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 07 2013, 6:59 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I've long held national healthcare expenditures are, at their core, a demand challenge more than a spending challenge in terms of containment I. e. we are just that unhealthy and until that side of the issue is addressed we're stuck in an ever upward cost spiral.

But back to defense: Ezra Klein just put out some good information in the context of the cost management challenge that will face Chuck Hagel should he be confirmed:
http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs....-charts
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 10
wycanislatrans Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2671
Joined: Nov. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 07 2013, 7:47 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Social Security does not add to the deficit. The best thing we could do is leave it the **** alone and pay back the money they stole from it.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 11
TehipiteTom Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5713
Joined: Jul. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 07 2013, 8:01 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(High_Sierra_Fan @ Jan. 07 2013, 3:59 pm)
QUOTE
I've long held national healthcare expenditures are, at their core, a demand challenge more than a spending challenge in terms of containment I. e. we are just that unhealthy and until that side of the issue is addressed we're stuck in an ever upward cost spiral.

That's one component of it, but there's more to it:  Americans are paying a whole lot more per procedure than anybody anywhere else.  So changing behavior and improving overall health is one piece of a very complicated puzzle, along with things like reducing hospital infection rates and moving away from a fee-for-service model and moving to electronic records...and so on and so on.

--------------
Conservatives are the whiniest whiners in the wholy whiny history of whiny-ass whinerdom.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 12
Ben2World Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 25450
Joined: Jun. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 07 2013, 8:17 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(wycanislatrans @ Jan. 07 2013, 4:47 pm)
QUOTE
Social Security does not yet add to the deficit. The best thing we could do is leave it the **** alone and pay back the money they stole from it.

Fixed it for you.  Up to now, it's been the baby boomers paying for the WWII generation.  Simple math will tell you that the current payout system cannot be maintained... over the next several decades, there won't be enough people working to fund the baby boomer benefits -- unless we make the younger generation pay more, or screw the baby boomers -- or likely both.


--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page.  -- St. Augustine
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 13
hikerjer Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 10617
Joined: Apr. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 07 2013, 9:16 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

In the Bolwes-Simpson Report, the govenment got a well thought out, responsible, non-paritsan plan for dealing with the deficit.  It chose to ignore it.  
Still, I think the Bolwes-Simpson plan is the only viable solution to the deficit problem.  In essence it calls for increasing taxes on nearly everyone to some degree, cutting entitlement programs, specifically Social Security and Medicade, and significant spending cuts in the military.  Let's face it, to get out of this mess, we're all going to have to feel a little pain.  IMO, the only ones exempt should be those unfortunate enough to be at the very bottom of the economic ladder.  Now whether this nation and especialy this Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, have the forsight, courage and intelligence to take action as outline by Bowles-Simpson, remainns to be seen.  I have my doubts.


--------------
"Too often I have met men who boast only of how many miles they've traveled and not of what they've seen."  -  Louis L'Amour
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 14
SW Mtn backpacker Search for posts by this member.
Born to hike, forced to work ...
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7076
Joined: Jul. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 07 2013, 10:31 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Probably Medicare.  Have about 10+ years traditional, then the rest vouchercare (after age 80, most really don't do well after major surgery anyways).  Should start now, ...may make people think about life/work balance, though.  DoD should do much more automation especially in areas where we take the most casualties.  Maybe look at Ag but Moms aren't putting up with $7 milk (woe to politicians who try passing that...)

--------------
Usually Southwest and then some.

In wildness is the preservation of the world. - Henry Thoreau
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 15
wwwest Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6273
Joined: Dec. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 08 2013, 12:53 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Maybe look at Ag but Moms aren't putting up with $7 milk (woe to politicians who try passing that...)


Well, at some point reality will impinge on politically driven subsidies.

The issue is whether we are tough enough, long term enough to make the adjustments before we crash.  After we crash they will take care of themselves and the politicians will have no possibility of controlling the rapid changes.

Think of the disaster that "cultural revolution" was for China, just put it in American terms.

We are a long way from that now, and have many opportunities to avoid a crash, but we need some strong young leaders to step up and get with changing the public understanding and attitude, IMO.

False, inaccurate political slogans, from both sides,  that avoid the real problems are driving us down, just hope we have the strength and resolve to get back up and correct our course.

What a country!


--------------
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

- John Kenneth Galbraith
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 16
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 42721
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 08 2013, 12:57 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Perhaps with $7 milk 75% of all the people who show up to apply to military service wouldn't be too obese to serve?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 17
ol-zeke Search for posts by this member.
Clear Creek
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 12362
Joined: Sep. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 08 2013, 1:43 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I was thinking about the proposed $7 milk, and wondered why we even market the stuff?  Adults don't need it, adolescents don't either.  Babies should probably drink either Mother's milk, or a formula better than cow's milk.  If we had $15 milk, maybe we could wean ourselves off the stuff entirely.

That said, what would we put on our cereal?  Can the breakfast industry withstand a shift away from milk?  Already, I eat my oatmeal without milk, but my Grapenuts seem to require the stuff.  


--------------
Everything I know, I learned by doing it wrong at least twice.

"I would rather wake up in the middle of nowhere than in any city on earth."  Steve McQueen
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 18
wwwest Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6273
Joined: Dec. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 08 2013, 2:12 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Yep, that is the kind of cultural revolution I was thinking about.

Big changes in everyday life, and they won't come easy.

But, it certainly would work to diminish overeating and obesity!   :D


--------------
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

- John Kenneth Galbraith
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 19
SW Mtn backpacker Search for posts by this member.
Born to hike, forced to work ...
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7076
Joined: Jul. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 08 2013, 7:29 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Lactose intolerant so no lost love for that vile liquid.  Still think the Mom's of America know exactly where to shove that empty baby bottle for any politician contemplating removing price supports for it.

--------------
Usually Southwest and then some.

In wildness is the preservation of the world. - Henry Thoreau
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 20
justwalkin Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 494
Joined: Nov. 2008
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 08 2013, 8:06 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(WalksWithBlackflies @ Jan. 07 2013, 2:16 pm)
QUOTE
IMO, until we cut our Department of Offense Defense spending, all other cuts aren't even worth discussing.

Hoe about an across the board 10% cut (for starters).  I have no sacred cows.  Do you?

--------------
If a day in the mountains is better than a week at work, why aren't I working in the mountains?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 21
TehipiteTom Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5713
Joined: Jul. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 09 2013, 3:28 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(justwalkin @ Jan. 08 2013, 5:06 pm)
QUOTE

(WalksWithBlackflies @ Jan. 07 2013, 2:16 pm)
QUOTE
IMO, until we cut our Department of Offense Defense spending, all other cuts aren't even worth discussing.

Hoe about an across the board 10% cut (for starters).  I have no sacred cows.  Do you?

Sure, if you want to take an approach that doesn't require any judgment or familiarity with the programs in question or understanding of the budget process. But when you take a brain-dead approach, you generally get sub-optimal results.

The other way to do it would be to look very carefully at the benefits of each individual budget item, and decide on the merits.

One other point (and this is addressed not just to you, but to the entire thread): cutting long-term costs (which is, after all, the goal here) doesn't necessarily mean cutting short-term costs; in fact, there are lots of cases where the two are entirely incompatible, where cutting programs today means increasing costs in the future. Spending money on infrastructure repair or replacement, e.g., is actually a net positive in the long term. Spending money on developing a smart power grid, or alternative energy R&D, or lead abatement, or any number of other worthwhile projects pays off enormously in the future.

So the point is, the whole framework of this discussion is a little myopic.  From the standpoint of long-term fiscal health, it shouldn't be all about what to cut and how much.  It should also be about what to invest in, and how much.


--------------
Conservatives are the whiniest whiners in the wholy whiny history of whiny-ass whinerdom.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 22
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 42721
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 09 2013, 3:34 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Very much agree: investment is a key to future progress.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 23
buzzards Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1986
Joined: Apr. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 09 2013, 4:02 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(TehipiteTom @ Jan. 09 2013, 1:28 pm)
QUOTE
The other way to do it would be to look very carefully at the benefits of each individual budget item, and decide on the merits.

Ah, Tom, but there is the rub. We just don't flush money down the toilet-though we often come close. Every dime of spending is a check cut to someone or some company. And if that check stops coming, it hurts, and they pick up the phone and cal their congressman/woman, who not wanting to lose their vote, lest they cease being in congress next term, valiantly comes to the defense of this necessary expenditure that does so much good for the country, while decrying the waste that is manifest in the program that cuts checks to people or companies that are one state over-and probably supported by those of the opposite party.
This is true no matter if the check is being cut to a company that builds nuclear subs, a doctor providing Medicare services, or a Grandma getting Security Checks.
Every dime the government spends is zealously defended, and if you make substantive reductions in those dimes, politicians of one stripe or another will lose their jobs, and politicians don't like that.
But never fear, in a few years, we will run out of other peoples money to spend, that's when things will get interesting.


--------------
Now shall I walk or shall I ride?
Ride, said pleasure,
Walk, Joy replied,
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 24
Bass Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2112
Joined: Sep. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 09 2013, 4:04 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

TehipiteTom
QUOTE
maybe in the end we'll need to do a little of both--limited means testing, say, or increasing the income cap for contributions, along with holding down cost growth.  The point is, if anyone is pushing benefit cuts as the first thing to do (rather than a last resort) they either don't understand the situation or are trying to pull one over on you.


I agree strongly with all three of your well thought out posts. The solution is not simple. I hope that Congress has as good a grasp on the problem of cutting spending as you do.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 25
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 42721
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 09 2013, 4:06 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

How are we going to "run out" when taxation is at all times lows of around 14% of GDP?

Oh yes, when we've totally drained the innovation pool built up over decades of investment in research, development and infrastructure both human and physical by "cutting" our way into the ground then we WILL run out, but it won't be "other people's" money it will be our own.

As to the "brain dead" cutting approach: I don't agree that something as seemingly important as the federal government's budget should be subject to such a random approach. Either there are items that are not necessary or they shouldn't be cut anyway. "Necessary" simply has to be paid for: and for that there's raising taxes back closer to what we've had for all these previous decades of prosperity.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 26
buzzards Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1986
Joined: Apr. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 09 2013, 4:24 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(High_Sierra_Fan @ Jan. 09 2013, 2:06 pm)
QUOTE
How are we going to "run out" when taxation is at all times lows of around 14% of GDP?

You may be right. But again, woe be unto the politician that raises MY taxes. Don't you know you are supposed to be taxing the other guy?
To whit (yes, I know the Washington Times is right of center, you wouldn't expect to see this on the DailyKos, would you?:
Obama supporters angry at tax increases
And this was merely at the expiration of the two year SS payroll tax reduction, a break that was due to expire, and that no one proposed last in perpetuity.
Imagine the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth when the government comes after some real money, as YOU propose.
You can't just soak the rich, there are not enough rich people, you are going to have to raise taxes on the great mass of Americans making more than about 40K/year. Except no politician will do it, the revenge at the ballot box would throw their jobs into peril. But so would reducing their benefits. And when they can't borrow any more...what to do, what to do? Like I said, should be interesting.


--------------
Now shall I walk or shall I ride?
Ride, said pleasure,
Walk, Joy replied,
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 27
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 42721
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 09 2013, 5:30 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Re the hot linked title: Here's a big Obama supporter who's not at all angry about his taxes going up.

I'm not feeling "soaked" I'm feeling like I'm paying a bit more of what I can based on all the benefits I've been and continue to be the beneficiary of. It's not like I can't afford it, that's part of the secret eh?  :cool:

Sure I've worked and will work hard, but I'm not some isolated guy with his own printing press: Way much due to this great nation. And I pay my bills, in full.

The politics may win out and then we'll "austerity" our way to third world banana republic status and won't that be a hoot?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 28
yosemite girl Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1077
Joined: Oct. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 09 2013, 6:50 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(wwwest @ Jan. 08 2013, 9:53 am)
QUOTE
Maybe look at Ag but Moms aren't putting up with $7 milk (woe to politicians who try passing that...)


Well, at some point reality will impinge on politically driven subsidies.

The issue is whether we are tough enough, long term enough to make the adjustments before we crash.  After we crash they will take care of themselves and the politicians will have no possibility of controlling the rapid changes.

Think of the disaster that "cultural revolution" was for China, just put it in American terms.

We are a long way from that now, and have many opportunities to avoid a crash, but we need some strong young leaders to step up and get with changing the public understanding and attitude, IMO.

False, inaccurate political slogans, from both sides,  that avoid the real problems are driving us down, just hope we have the strength and resolve to get back up and correct our course.

What a country!

I agree. Same goes for corn. Maybe if soda and candy cost the same as veggies and water we'd slow that problem down even more.

--------------
QUOTE
...there's just something about him.

Something around the eyes...I don't know...reminds me of...me. No. I'm sure of it, I hate him.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 29
buzzards Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1986
Joined: Apr. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 10 2013, 1:18 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(High_Sierra_Fan @ Jan. 09 2013, 3:30 pm)
QUOTE
Re the hot linked title: Here's a big Obama supporter who's not at all angry about his taxes going up.

I'm not feeling "soaked" I'm feeling like I'm paying a bit more of what I can based on all the benefits I've been and continue to be the beneficiary of. It's not like I can't afford it, that's part of the secret eh?  :cool:

Sure I've worked and will work hard, but I'm not some isolated guy with his own printing press: Way much due to this great nation. And I pay my bills, in full.

The politics may win out and then we'll "austerity" our way to third world banana republic status and won't that be a hoot?

Like I said, you may have a point, but that's beside the point. Most folks just are not like you. They will defend their personal short term economic interests zealously, while doing their best to stick it to the other guy. This is true of all political persuasions. Cut the benefits of welfare "takers" on one side, soak the rich from the other.
One thing that might make the left nervous, if the you know what really hits the you know where, is that the right owns a lot more guns. (BTW, I don't own one and never will. Just not what makes me tick.) And don't count on the military to save your hineys. While the military is about evenly split politically, the officer corps is decidedly to the right.
Let's all hope and pray it never comes to that.


--------------
Now shall I walk or shall I ride?
Ride, said pleasure,
Walk, Joy replied,
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 30
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 42721
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 10 2013, 1:25 am Skip to the previous post in this topic.  Ignore posts   QUOTE

"One thing that might make the left nervous,..."


Oh I wouldn't count on that were I a "right". Remember that thread on Nancy Pelosi packing?

Odds are she's not alone. :)

Remember during the Vietnam War everybody got drafted...
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
31 replies since Jan. 07 2013, 1:18 pm < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]


Page 1 of 212>>
reply to topic new topic new poll

» Quick Reply Where to Start Cutting?
iB Code Buttons
You are posting as:

Do you wish to enable your signature for this post?
Do you wish to enable emoticons for this post?
Track this topic
View All Emoticons
View iB Code



Get 2 FREE Trial Issues and 3 FREE GIFTS
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
The Best Trails in America
YES! Please send me my FREE trial issues of Backpacker
and my 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Full Name:
City:
Address 1:
Zip Code:
State:
Address 2:
Email (required):
Free trial offer valid for US subscribers only. Canadian subscriptions | International subscriptions