you mean 2.8%

3/1/2013 12:19:54 AM

This is this decade's Y2K!

3/1/2013 12:20:49 AM

Ok, 2.8% is fine.

3/1/2013 12:22:37 AM

I just had to do just that actually. It was a split between opting for cheaper services without losing much functionality (ATT>StraightTalk, cut out cable TV, cutting down on premium food) and losing some things I previously felt entitled to like alcohol and going out. At the same time I did not have to cut the same spending budget on my tools.

I'm not saying reducing the spending of the federal government is just as easy, but 2.8 percent of discretionary spending is very reasonable. People here in DC area are freaking out because they rode out the recession nicely on the back of federal spending, and now they are about to feel the pain of the rest of the US. How can anyone with half a brain look at our budget deficit/national debt and NOT understand why both the sequester AND the tax hikes should be a part of the painful but necessary solution?

3/1/2013 12:35:54 AM

Sounds like you looked at your overall budget and made selected cuts to achieve overall savings.

Sounds pretty reasonable.

Too bad sequestration doesn't allow anything like that.

3/1/2013 12:43:47 AM

It's more like, imagine your raise and therefore your allowed expenditures were 2.8% less than you originally expected, you know since there aren't any actual cuts, just reductions in expected increases.

Only in federal spending does a smaller increase equal a decrease.

Oh, and also they are selective. Maybe not as selective as you'd like or targeted in the manner you would prefer, but it's only a reduced increase in discretionary spending. It doesn't touch mandatory spending or in any way do anything about the biggest drivers of our debt or a massive and ever growing portion of our total expenditure.

^^ What he said is also something we should keep in mind. When the country's wealthiest counties are all around the DC area it says something about the way in which federal spending has benefited federal workers in a massively disproportionate amount. Yes, increased spending by those workers has been a nice boost to the consumer economy, but ultimately federally created tax payer funded jobs aren't really a very good way of stimulating real, sustainable growth.

[Edited on March 1, 2013 at 1:06 AM. Reason : sfsdf]

[Edited on March 1, 2013 at 1:07 AM. Reason : sdfssdfdf]

3/1/2013 1:01:27 AM

I suppose they're selective in the sense of selecting everything (mandatory and discretionary).

Quote :

"When the country's wealthiest counties are all around the DC area it says something about the way in which federal spending has benefited federal workers various government contractors, corporations, and those who lobby for them in a massively disproportionate amount"

fify

3/1/2013 1:23:27 AM

Yes, all of those should have been included too, as well as military.

3/1/2013 1:32:45 AM

I can assure you it's not government employees making those counties wealthy.

Is this the part where we bitch about government employees being overpaid, incompetent assholes?

3/1/2013 1:52:36 AM

No, but federal workers did not face the same level of layoffs that privately employed people did during the recession. Real estate bubble did not affect them nearly as much as people in other parts of the country. And, let's face it, there is plenty of higher-level government employees in this area that make six digits.

3/1/2013 2:07:52 AM

Quote :

"We just had a significant tax hike"

Are you absolutely sure your taxes went up?

3/1/2013 2:19:49 AM

I cut my expenses by canceling tv (not so bad) and my phone (kind of bad).

3/1/2013 2:53:11 AM

Quote :

"I can assure you it's not government employees making those counties wealthy."

yup, it's corporate lobbyists

3/1/2013 5:50:35 AM

Just to keep a running tally:

2010 continuing resolutions: $450 billion
FY2011 budget: $200 billion
Budget Control Act: $960 billion
Fiscal cliff deal: $840 billion
Sequester: $1.2 trillion

Total: $3.6 trillion

3/1/2013 9:31:57 AM

nm

[Edited on March 1, 2013 at 12:13 PM. Reason : .]

3/1/2013 12:12:51 PM

Makes you wonder what the unemployment rate, tax revenue, and GDP would be at if it weren't for the rise of the deficit hawks in 2010.

Quote :

" In the last decade annual federal spending has doubled. You could almost explain that with the wars and such, but those are ending and we've pretty well left Iraq so how the fuck can you justify continued increases in spending, especially defense spending."

Hey a heaping load of bullshit from Kurtis, big surprise.

In dollars:


As a % of GDP:


Kurtis, are you actually willfully bullshitting when you say this stuff, or are you actually this ignorant? Anybody who supports stalling or reducing Federal spending should be lauding the shit out of Obama right now. Under him, government's grown more slowly than any President since Eisenhower. Which is a big part of why this recession has been dragging out.


[Edited on March 1, 2013 at 2:10 PM. Reason : .]

3/1/2013 1:59:56 PM

I'm sorry, from 2001 to 2011 it doubled (2001 budget was 1.83 trilliion, 2011 3.64 trillion). It has only marginally increased since then.

Yes, this combination of Obama and an incredibly intractable congress has managed to slow federal spending in the last couple of years. I would imagine the fact that there are constant battles about increasing the debt limit as well as the unpopular nature of tax increases has helped to slow federal spending.



[Edited on March 1, 2013 at 4:57 PM. Reason : sdfsd]

3/1/2013 4:43:13 PM

Most of those increases were before Obama, why does he get the blame?

3/1/2013 4:49:30 PM

It's obvious you do a lot of imagining, that's probably how you came to believe the spending was increasing wildly over the past few years.

And no, debt limit debates do nothing to slow spending. The debt limit pertains to paying back money that has already been spent, and I don't see how "the unpopularity of tax increases" would affect spending.

[Edited on March 1, 2013 at 4:57 PM. Reason : .]

3/1/2013 4:56:41 PM

I don't think I ever blamed Obama, I just pointed out that we've seen a doubling of federal spending in the last decade. Bush was horrendous on federal spending, absolutely horrendous. Now, the fact that there was an increase of 150 billion dollars in defense speding from 2009 to 2010 and that there is an increase in defense spending every year is problematic, especially if we're in withdrawal mode from current wars, and yeah, Obama deserves blame for that.

3/1/2013 4:56:56 PM

Oh yeah, just look at Obama pumpin up that defense spending.



[Edited on March 1, 2013 at 5:01 PM. Reason : .]

3/1/2013 5:01:32 PM

Really, you don't see how maybe, just maybe making it harder to get a constant increase in the amount of debt we can carry and tax increases being popular might lead to a slow down in deficit spending? That it might lead to not just having a blank check when spending is decided for the following year?

3/1/2013 5:01:55 PM

You really don't understand how spending and government debt work.

3/1/2013 5:02:22 PM

This is just delicious. For years the conservatives call Obama a tyrant and massive spender and worst president in history.

Now, when that is shown to be complete bullshit, they start taking credit for the reduction, haha

3/1/2013 5:03:23 PM

Hey, I mean the 2009 defense budge was 699 billion, 2012's was 925 billion. While Obama certainly didn't oversee a boom in defense spending like Bush, he also certainly hasn't done anything to limit its growth in a real and significant way.

http://www.usfederalbudget.us/federal_budget_estimate_vs_actual

[Edited on March 1, 2013 fat 5:13 PM. Reason : sdfsd]

[Edited on March 1, 2013 at 5:16 PM. Reason : sdfsd]

3/1/2013 5:12:21 PM

lol, Paul Ryan is already balking at a debt ceiling limit increase that should happen sometime this summer.

3/2/2013 12:09:29 AM

Hilarious our politicians think a good way to run the institution they are a part of is to sabotage it.

3/2/2013 2:20:49 AM

You guys really are insane. Kurtis lays out rational reasoning and you just Rachel Maddow your brains out

3/2/2013 7:44:36 AM

2/10 trolling, face

3/2/2013 10:28:47 AM

There really isn't a way to argue with people that find selling off the unborn to be morally palatable. They'll always say you don't understand or we have to do it in order to save the economy or whatever. It's all the same shit. Justifications for that which can never be justified.

3/2/2013 10:46:38 AM

Heres my question and it may have a simple answer..

why the hell would Obama SIGN an order that makes the cuts go into effect?

What would have happened had he not signed?

3/2/2013 2:03:22 PM

he would have been sued or prosecuted or something for failing to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" (U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 3, Clause 5): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_5:_Caring_for_the_faithful_execution_of_the_law

3/2/2013 2:09:56 PM

So he had to sign it basically, though it would have been a statement had he not.

Basically the republican plan now is to let the Government die and then they get a chance to clean up and say hey hey, we got this.

3/2/2013 2:11:39 PM

Because he's the one at the top of the agencies taking the hit...

[Edited on March 2, 2013 at 2:20 PM. Reason : beat me to it]

3/2/2013 2:20:02 PM

Either the government has to be reigned in or the economy will be destroyed.

In reality it's already too late, the economy is going to be destroyed either way but if you don't cut spending the economy will be destroyed faster.

Without some major recessions and slow growth we are in for an economic nightmare. Why do you guys want everything to collapse and be chaotic? Wouldn't you rather just have difficult but somewhat stable times instead?

3/2/2013 2:22:22 PM

Quote :

"This had led to a lot of Republicans fanning out to explain what the president should be offering if he was serious about making a deal. Then, when it turns out that the president did offer those items, there’s more furious hand-waving about how no, actually, this is what the president needs to offer to make a deal. Then, when it turns out he’s offered most of that, too, the hand-waving stops and the truth comes out: Republicans won’t make a deal that includes further taxes, they just want to get the White House to implement their agenda in return for nothing. Luckily for them, most of the time, the conversation doesn’t get that far, and the initial comments that the president needs to “get serious” on entitlements is met with sage nods."

Emphasis mine: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/02/this-is-why-obama-cant-make-a-deal-with-republicans/

3/2/2013 5:30:25 PM

good. i dont want anymore taxes and you shouldn't either.

3/2/2013 5:31:03 PM

because we're already paying enough to allow the government to provide the services we demand

wait

3/2/2013 5:32:24 PM

i dont demand most of those services and they are clearly out of control and need to be done away with.

The economy is teetering on the brink of another meltdown. Raising taxes further is suicide.

3/2/2013 6:04:01 PM

well, lets just shut down most of the government.. face doesn't demand that many things from it. And the economy will crash anyway


[Edited on March 2, 2013 at 6:47 PM. Reason : .]

3/2/2013 6:47:19 PM

not everybody wants the same amount or same kinds of services. generally speaking, the government isn't efficient with the money it gets from taxpayers as it is. they try to create more services, for various reasons, but the pot isn't big enough. the answer shouldn't always be to just add more taxes.

metaphor: the government is the kid in college that likes to go out and get wasted every other night, not pay their bills, but does barely make it to class now and then. still, they get upset that their parents aren't sending them enough money and their friends can't believe why the parents would have a problem with it.

3/2/2013 8:27:04 PM

So what's the best way to come to consensus about what services should be offered by the government, and the funding level for these services?

[Edited on March 2, 2013 at 10:19 PM. Reason : .]

3/2/2013 10:18:06 PM

^^ & ^ see that would be what someone who wanted to have a conversation about the topic in a rational manner would say.

[Edited on March 2, 2013 at 10:23 PM. Reason : .]

3/2/2013 10:23:40 PM

Quote :

"So what's the best way to come to consensus about what services should be offered by the government, and the funding level for these services?"

There isn't going to be a consensus in the United States. When you try to apply a one size fits all model to a country of 300+ million, you're going to have a lot of pissed off people. The number of pissed off people grows as federal power progresses because more toes are being stepped on.

Want less gridlock? Stop pushing for federal solutions. Accept that some states and cities are going to be better than others. Stop trying to push your vision on people that don't want it; shed the idea that you know what's best for other people.

3/2/2013 11:09:42 PM

So would we become an EU like group of states? How is that working for the EU's current economy?

[Edited on March 2, 2013 at 11:22 PM. Reason : .]

3/2/2013 11:22:03 PM

The EU to member states is like the U.S. federal government to individual states here. The crisis in Europe is rooted in the fact that poorer countries were able to take advantage of low interest borrowing through the ECB, which was made possible by the more productive economies in Europe.

The solution in Europe is the solution here: decentralization.

3/2/2013 11:42:44 PM

It would be difficult to decentralize some of government functions.

Take defense, for example. So if each state has it's own military force they are controlling individually, and our Congress decided to declare war, what if the Congressmen from a particular state voted against it based on their constituents' majority opinion? Should that state be allowed not send any troops into that particular conflict?

How about currency, should each state mint their own currency and have their own central bank guaranteeing their own fractional reserve system?

Then take, for example, decentralization of benefits. Imagine that Social Security program run by each state individually, with the benefits significantly from state to state. So you work all your life and make payments into that state's SS system, but when you get old maybe you move to another state due to better climate, or to be closer to the kids, or whatever. Would it be fair for you to receive higher or lower benefits that what your other state offered? Would all the retirees flock to a particular state with the highest benefit and possibly bankrupt its SS system?

3/3/2013 12:10:51 AM

Quote :

"Take defense, for example. So if each state has it's own military force they are controlling individually, and our Congress decided to declare war, what if the Congressmen from a particular state voted against it based on their constituents' majority opinion? Should that state be allowed not send any troops into that particular conflict?"

It's likely that the general defense would not be decentralized. But beyond that, sure why not? It's a volunteer army after all. Arguably, if they had a war and nobody came, there'd be a lot less actual war.

Quote :

"How about currency, should each state mint their own currency and have their own central bank guaranteeing their own fractional reserve system?"

Another thing that's likely to remain centralized for convenience with regards to federal taxing. But let's say it wasn't. Europe seemed to do just fine without the euro, other than for federal tax convenience there's no real reason why you couldn't have multiple states using different currencies.

Quote :

"Imagine that Social Security program run by each state individually, with the benefits significantly from state to state. So you work all your life and make payments into that state's SS system, but when you get old maybe you move to another state due to better climate, or to be closer to the kids, or whatever. Would it be fair for you to receive higher or lower benefits that what your other state offered? Would all the retirees flock to a particular state with the highest benefit and possibly bankrupt its SS system?"

Why would moving states change who pays out your benefits? If you move par way through a tax year you still owe taxes to your old state, why shouldn't the opposite hold true as well?

3/3/2013 12:32:00 AM

Quote :

"Take defense, for example. So if each state has it's own military force they are controlling individually, and our Congress decided to declare war, what if the Congressmen from a particular state voted against it based on their constituents' majority opinion? Should that state be allowed not send any troops into that particular conflict?"

Absolutely. Why in the world should people be fighting a war they are opposed to?

Quote :

"How about currency, should each state mint their own currency and have their own central bank guaranteeing their own fractional reserve system?"

I think banks and credit unions could figure something out. The Fed certainly isn't doing a good job of keeping things under control or preventing crisis. I know it's uncomfortable to think about, but not everything has to be managed from the top down. Money and currency doesn't disappear with the lack of central control, but there is more diversity and accountability.

Quote :

"Then take, for example, decentralization of benefits. Imagine that Social Security program run by each state individually, with the benefits significantly from state to state. So you work all your life and make payments into that state's SS system, but when you get old maybe you move to another state due to better climate, or to be closer to the kids, or whatever. Would it be fair for you to receive higher or lower benefits that what your other state offered? Would all the retirees flock to a particular state with the highest benefit and possibly bankrupt its SS system?"

Most likely, yes. This is why the United States and Europe have an immigration problem. The system provides so much more than immigrants' home countries that there's a strong incentive to come here and get what you can. The welfare programs in Western society are doomed to fail. We're watching it happen. A lot of people are still holding onto hope that entitlements can be salvaged and that there will be no pain, but it can't be avoided now. It's sad because people were promised something that can't be delivered.

Benefits programs are not a good idea. I think even private sector pensions are a bad idea. Pay your workers well today and they can choose to save or invest, but don't promise them retirement money so you can pay them less today. Don't promise people a government pension (like social security) when you know that they'll be pulling out far more than they pay in.

3/3/2013 12:37:15 AM

I see ya'lls points, but if you see no reason to centralize even very basic functions of the government, why don't we just create a loosely connected union of 50 independent countries? We are not bound by a single ethnic or religious bond.

3/3/2013 12:50:26 AM