Challenge to fiscal conservatives - what spending do you want to cut?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FWIW, I do think Ryan's plan is at least worth discussing.

I don't know how sustainable the current social welfare system is, and I'd rather see it retooled than eliminated.

Endless deficit spending didn't work that well for Japan (at least not to the tune of 200% debt/GDP), and I'm somewhat hesitant to advocate it here.

Another idea I've proposed is tying corporate and high-earner (incl. dividend and capital gain) tax rates to the unemployment rate. Basically, if companies start hiring, their taxes go down, at least somewhat mitigating the effects of higher labor costs. If companies start laying off American workers, there's an additional cost to doing so.

You've got the Japanese debt thing almost completely backwards: Japans massive debt was caused by decades of zero growth exacerbated by a deflationary spiral, the lack of growth wasn't caused by debt. Japan was so frightened of inflation they spent the last decade and a half strangling themselves. We're essentially primed to repeat the exact same scenario in the US.

You keep hearing from conservatives in the US that if we actually pursue stimulative policies, we'll see a) inflation; and b) debt payments begin to "take over" US GDP. Both are nonsense as you can see in the case of Japan. The problem is deflation, not inflation. And after all these years of zero-growth driving government debt, Japanese debt payments are roughly 2% of GDP. Alternately, you might want to express interest as a share of non-debt spending, which makes it around 14 percent.

It's the same economically illiterate horseshit that the scare-mongerers feed you about how the US is going to be the next "Greece". If Greek debt was held in drachma there'd be a simple way out of the situation. Its not, so there isn't.

Bottom line: the solution is to spend public money to make up for private consumption, let the Bush tax cuts expire in a year or so, allow inflation to rise to about 3-4%. And grow our way out of debt. Just as we did post-WWII.

The problem is that both parties see any inflation as a non-starter. And one party (with veto power) sees revenue increases as a non-starter. So we get the "austerity" narrative: Everyone stay at home, turn off the lights, and eat raw potatoes. Eventually we'll return to the go-go 90s. Ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Medicare - why not start out with the Ryan plan? Block grants to states that increase much lower than the current increases (is that essentially it?). Let the various states compete to see what is the best program.

By the way, I just want to point out that this is magic fairy dust. There's nothing intrinsically more "efficient" about "block grants to states that increase much lower than the current increases." What you're talking about is health care rationing, but allowing the much less efficient private sector health care field to do so.

Medicare is the most efficient health care delivery service there is. The reason our health care system is so inefficient is that we do it through the private sector. When people talk about how "expensive" Medicare is, they're pointing out that "medical care for old people is expensive" and patting themselves on the back because they think they're saying something perceptive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The administration and congress are in a desperate struggle to prop up our phantom economy. We borrow from abroad to buy products made from abroad. Our population has too many sectors that are non-competitive and consume at a high rate. The economy is out of balance with too few producing actual products and too many employed in Government, law and finance. THERE WILL BE ANOTHER DOSE OF STIMULUS. It will be the lethal dose that will decimate the dollar and crash the economy. The world is on to our game. China can decouple form us and provide for thier own huge market. Get as far away from the U.S. dollar as you can. Brace for impact.

You keep saying "brace for impact". But you have no idea what you are saying. Have you looked at the economic problems facing China?

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:#1 as for cuts, they obviously have to be in medicare, SS and defense. Discretionary spending is fine - maybe just lower the rate of increases to a manageable percentage.

Medicare - why not start out with the Ryan plan? Block grants to states that increase much lower than the current increases (is that essentially it?). Let the various states compete to see what is the best program.

But if the Ryan plan is too toxic, then raise the medicare age. Raise the SS age. Lower the inflation index. Defense can be a simple across the board cut of 5%, than lower the rate of increases or even freeze for a few years. These steps alone probably add another trillion or so in cuts.

#2 let the Bush tax cuts expire.


problem solved, back to lowering debts (as a percentage of GDP) and back to AAA rating.

You were very vague in your discussion of Medicare & SS, but the things you listed would actually get us maybe halfway there - much better than most conservatives do. The problem is, with #2 you just took yourself out of the class of "conservatives," as now defined. Even the supposed grass-roots TPers will only give up Bush's tax cuts for the rich when we pry them from their cold, dead hands.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:freeze spending. across the board cuts of 1% fro 8 years. /quote]
You realize that, in adjusted dollars, that's about a 25% cut across the board? You're good with, e.g., people on SS getting 25% less, and a military 25% weaker? Just making sure.

[Anonymous]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:#1 as for cuts, they obviously have to be in medicare, SS and defense. Discretionary spending is fine - maybe just lower the rate of increases to a manageable percentage.

Medicare - why not start out with the Ryan plan? Block grants to states that increase much lower than the current increases (is that essentially it?). Let the various states compete to see what is the best program.

But if the Ryan plan is too toxic, then raise the medicare age. Raise the SS age. Lower the inflation index. Defense can be a simple across the board cut of 5%, than lower the rate of increases or even freeze for a few years. These steps alone probably add another trillion or so in cuts.

#2 let the Bush tax cuts expire.


problem solved, back to lowering debts (as a percentage of GDP) and back to AAA rating.

You were very vague in your discussion of Medicare & SS, but the things you listed would actually get us maybe halfway there - much better than most conservatives do. The problem is, with #2 you just took yourself out of the class of "conservatives," as now defined. Even the supposed grass-roots TPers will only give up Bush's tax cuts for the rich when we pry them from their cold, dead hands.

Of course, the entertaining thing here is that there is no long-term issue with Social Security's solvency. We need to fix Medicare. That's going to involve rationing and a return to the sane tax levels of previous years.

People bring SS security into this generally because they either don't understand the problem, or they want to eliminate SS for its own sake. It's like taking your kid into the doctor, and the doctor says if you want your kid to get better, he's going to have to get a shot, and I'm also going to have to punch you in the face. Why punch me in the face? I don't like your face.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:#1 as for cuts, they obviously have to be in medicare, SS and defense. Discretionary spending is fine - maybe just lower the rate of increases to a manageable percentage.

Medicare - why not start out with the Ryan plan? Block grants to states that increase much lower than the current increases (is that essentially it?). Let the various states compete to see what is the best program.

But if the Ryan plan is too toxic, then raise the medicare age. Raise the SS age. Lower the inflation index. Defense can be a simple across the board cut of 5%, than lower the rate of increases or even freeze for a few years. These steps alone probably add another trillion or so in cuts.

#2 let the Bush tax cuts expire.


problem solved, back to lowering debts (as a percentage of GDP) and back to AAA rating.

You were very vague in your discussion of Medicare & SS, but the things you listed would actually get us maybe halfway there - much better than most conservatives do. The problem is, with #2 you just took yourself out of the class of "conservatives," as now defined. Even the supposed grass-roots TPers will only give up Bush's tax cuts for the rich when we pry them from their cold, dead hands.

Of course, the entertaining thing here is that there is no long-term issue with Social Security's solvency. We need to fix Medicare. That's going to involve rationing and a return to the sane tax levels of previous years.

People bring SS security into this generally because they either don't understand the problem, or they want to eliminate SS for its own sake. It's like taking your kid into the doctor, and the doctor says if you want your kid to get better, he's going to have to get a shot, and I'm also going to have to punch you in the face. Why punch me in the face? I don't like your face.

medicare is more of a problem, but SS is a problem as well. So if we are going to tackle entitlement reform, should reform SS at the same time while people are focused and willing.

[Anonymous]

Although it personally kills to me to say this, I agree that if we are going have social security in this country then we should be taxing ALL wages for FICA. There shouldn't be an arbitrary limit. We have a HHI of about $250,000. This would cost us about $8000/year (I think). Ouch yes it would hurt but it seems only fair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Although it personally kills to me to say this, I agree that if we are going have social security in this country then we should be taxing ALL wages for FICA. There shouldn't be an arbitrary limit. We have a HHI of about $250,000. This would cost us about $8000/year (I think). Ouch yes it would hurt but it seems only fair.

that would be a crippling tax hike and would be making a mountain out of a molehill. As indicated above, SS is not in THAT dire straights. Reasonable changes to age and indexing would solve it for another generation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:#1 as for cuts, they obviously have to be in medicare, SS and defense. Discretionary spending is fine - maybe just lower the rate of increases to a manageable percentage.

Medicare - why not start out with the Ryan plan? Block grants to states that increase much lower than the current increases (is that essentially it?). Let the various states compete to see what is the best program.

But if the Ryan plan is too toxic, then raise the medicare age. Raise the SS age. Lower the inflation index. Defense can be a simple across the board cut of 5%, than lower the rate of increases or even freeze for a few years. These steps alone probably add another trillion or so in cuts.

#2 let the Bush tax cuts expire.


problem solved, back to lowering debts (as a percentage of GDP) and back to AAA rating.

You were very vague in your discussion of Medicare & SS, but the things you listed would actually get us maybe halfway there - much better than most conservatives do. The problem is, with #2 you just took yourself out of the class of "conservatives," as now defined. Even the supposed grass-roots TPers will only give up Bush's tax cuts for the rich when we pry them from their cold, dead hands.

Of course, the entertaining thing here is that there is no long-term issue with Social Security's solvency. We need to fix Medicare. That's going to involve rationing and a return to the sane tax levels of previous years.

People bring SS security into this generally because they either don't understand the problem, or they want to eliminate SS for its own sake. It's like taking your kid into the doctor, and the doctor says if you want your kid to get better, he's going to have to get a shot, and I'm also going to have to punch you in the face. Why punch me in the face? I don't like your face.

medicare is more of a problem, but SS is a problem as well. So if we are going to tackle entitlement reform, should reform SS at the same time while people are focused and willing.

From the SSA:

"The projected point at which the combined Trust Funds will be exhausted comes in 2037 — the same as the estimate in last year’s report. At that time, there will be sufficient tax revenue coming in to pay about 78 percent of benefits."

Shall we compile a list of things we need to worry about that won't happen for another quarter century? How about this for an idea: do nothing, then in 2037, if unexpectedly high economic growth doesn't make up for the shortfall, we tweak the tax rate, and eliminate the payroll tax cap. Problem solved.

Again, like I said, this is a cheap attempt to piggy-back onto the "Medicare issue", which is itself a question of our awful, inefficient health care system. We spend egregiously more than any other nation on Earth in order to get average returns on our health care dollar. Privatizing Medicare (as conservatives want to do) would only make it worse, since the private sector *really* sucks in this regard.

[Anonymous]

that would be a crippling tax hike

says the guy who thinks a return to Clinton-era income tax rates would be "crippling". Seriously, it's as though you guys think the only role government has is to pursue endless, ruinously expensive wars, and pay rural Americans not to grow crops.

Before Medicare/SS, poverty among the elderly was America's national disgrace. We can either have our elderly eat dog food and live in refrigerator boxes, or we can have a progressive system of taxation like every other developed country does.

You can't have both.

If you want to save money, open Medicare up to every American, and allow private insurance companies to offer private supplemental plans.

[Anonymous]

I'm curious: is there really anyone out there who thinks "having SS tax deducted after $100k of income" is a crippling tax? Does PP, or is that just hyperbolical political blather?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

that would be a crippling tax hike

says the guy who thinks a return to Clinton-era income tax rates would be "crippling". Seriously, it's as though you guys think the only role government has is to pursue endless, ruinously expensive wars, and pay rural Americans not to grow crops.

Before Medicare/SS, poverty among the elderly was America's national disgrace. We can either have our elderly eat dog food and live in refrigerator boxes, or we can have a progressive system of taxation like every other developed country does.

You can't have both.

If you want to save money, open Medicare up to every American, and allow private insurance companies to offer private supplemental plans.

no, I am in favor of letting the Bush tax cuts expire. They are needed to pay our bills. A huge FICA tax increase is not needed to keep SS solvent.

as for social security, we need to reform it now, not when the fund is empty. Yeah, that is responsible governing! When the fund pays out more than it takes in, that is the time for modest tweaks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm curious: is there really anyone out there who thinks "having SS tax deducted after $100k of income" is a crippling tax? Does PP, or is that just hyperbolical political blather?

are you kidding me? that would be a huge tax. do you see the uproar over going back to Clinton era taxes? The Bush tax cuts lowered the top rate by about 4%. So taking away the cap on FICA would be another 12.4% on employers and employees. SO three times the Bush tax cuts. Just not going to happen, so don't waste time worrying about it.

Tax revenues need to go up considerable, but that won't be how they do it - either let the Bush tax cuts expire, or have a national sales tax, or modify some loopholes.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:I'm curious: is there really anyone out there who thinks "having SS tax deducted after $100k of income" is a crippling tax? Does PP, or is that just hyperbolical political blather?

Sounds huge to me. I would probably support it, but there are more progressive taxes that I would do first.

As noted, it's a little strange, b/c it's way more than SS needs; it would just guarantee that the general budget would skim from SS as it did for decades.

Given that we have no estate tax and miniscule cap gains, I would start there, then I would create a new high-end brackets with higher rates. $100k in HHI isn't that much in a lot of places, so I wouldn't start with that large a group of taxpayers.