What happens in our area if Obama loses in 2012?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:what a dumb question. first of all, nobody is really talking about slashing government spending. what they really mean, and what the left fails to grasp, is that all we need is to slow the incredible rate of increase.

Not true. Have you seen Romney's proposal? He plans to cap federal spending at 20% (it's currently at 24.2%) while not cutting defense. How will he do that by simply slowing increases?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:what a dumb question. first of all, nobody is really talking about slashing government spending. what they really mean, and what the left fails to grasp, is that all we need is to slow the incredible rate of increase.

Not true. Have you seen Romney's proposal? He plans to cap federal spending at 20% (it's currently at 24.2%) while not cutting defense. How will he do that by simply slowing increases?

well Jesus H. Christ, just because the economy grows at a certain rate does not mean the fed budget needs to go up at the same rate. that kind of thinking is what got us into this trouble. 20% is actually a pretty fair #. Much higher than historical norms, but fair considering the ageing population.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:what a dumb question. first of all, nobody is really talking about slashing government spending. what they really mean, and what the left fails to grasp, is that all we need is to slow the incredible rate of increase.

Not true. Have you seen Romney's proposal? He plans to cap federal spending at 20% (it's currently at 24.2%) while not cutting defense. How will he do that by simply slowing increases?

well Jesus H. Christ, just because the economy grows at a certain rate does not mean the fed budget needs to go up at the same rate. that kind of thinking is what got us into this trouble. 20% is actually a pretty fair #. Much higher than historical norms, but fair considering the ageing population.

You didn't answer the question. The population is growing, especially the elderly population. Costs are going up, especially medical costs. Our current spending is actually pretty low when you account for inflation. Romney won't cut defense, can't do anything about interest on the national debt, can't really do anything in the short and medium term about medicare or social security. Yet, he wants to lower the percentage of expenditures. How is he going to do that without making actual cuts? And, since those cuts will come from discretionary spending, how will those cuts not be devastating to a large number of programs?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:what a dumb question. first of all, nobody is really talking about slashing government spending. what they really mean, and what the left fails to grasp, is that all we need is to slow the incredible rate of increase.

Not true. Have you seen Romney's proposal? He plans to cap federal spending at 20% (it's currently at 24.2%) while not cutting defense. How will he do that by simply slowing increases?

well Jesus H. Christ, just because the economy grows at a certain rate does not mean the fed budget needs to go up at the same rate. that kind of thinking is what got us into this trouble. 20% is actually a pretty fair #. Much higher than historical norms, but fair considering the ageing population.

You didn't answer the question. The population is growing, especially the elderly population. Costs are going up, especially medical costs. Our current spending is actually pretty low when you account for inflation. Romney won't cut defense, can't do anything about interest on the national debt, can't really do anything in the short and medium term about medicare or social security. Yet, he wants to lower the percentage of expenditures. How is he going to do that without making actual cuts? And, since those cuts will come from discretionary spending, how will those cuts not be devastating to a large number of programs?

1. Disagree that our current spending is actually pretty low when accounting for inflation. Maybe low compared to the height of WWII.
2. Romney's plan, just like Obama's, is not rooted in reality. First, of course you cut defense. Of course you need to tackle medicare, raise taxes and might as well reform SS while you are doing the other stuff. As for discretionary spending - take a look at a couple random govt agencies that would be included in discretionary spending and look at their budgets over the years. The rate of increases has been much higher than inflation. I think most of the cuts are really much slower future growth. And to the extent they would be true cuts, they only take you back retroactively to more sensible growth numbers. Nothing is going to be devastating.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:what a dumb question. first of all, nobody is really talking about slashing government spending. what they really mean, and what the left fails to grasp, is that all we need is to slow the incredible rate of increase.

Not true. Have you seen Romney's proposal? He plans to cap federal spending at 20% (it's currently at 24.2%) while not cutting defense. How will he do that by simply slowing increases?

well Jesus H. Christ, just because the economy grows at a certain rate does not mean the fed budget needs to go up at the same rate. that kind of thinking is what got us into this trouble. 20% is actually a pretty fair #. Much higher than historical norms, but fair considering the ageing population.

You didn't answer the question. The population is growing, especially the elderly population. Costs are going up, especially medical costs. Our current spending is actually pretty low when you account for inflation. Romney won't cut defense, can't do anything about interest on the national debt, can't really do anything in the short and medium term about medicare or social security. Yet, he wants to lower the percentage of expenditures. How is he going to do that without making actual cuts? And, since those cuts will come from discretionary spending, how will those cuts not be devastating to a large number of programs?

Well that's the thing: while they'll eviscerate social programs (aside from entitlements) it'll have very little impact on spending. Because frankly, we don't spend very much on social programs (aside from entitlements). So we'll manage to cause a very large amount of suffering while not making much of a dent in the deficit. At least our lazy, shiftless single-moms and their babies will be punished for their moral turpitude, though.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
1. Disagree that our current spending is actually pretty low when accounting for inflation. Maybe low compared to the height of WWII.
2. Romney's plan, just like Obama's, is not rooted in reality. First, of course you cut defense. Of course you need to tackle medicare, raise taxes and might as well reform SS while you are doing the other stuff. As for discretionary spending - take a look at a couple random govt agencies that would be included in discretionary spending and look at their budgets over the years. The rate of increases has been much higher than inflation. I think most of the cuts are really much slower future growth. And to the extent they would be true cuts, they only take you back retroactively to more sensible growth numbers. Nothing is going to be devastating.

Rich Little used to do an impression of Reagan describing the budget. He would say the budget is like a pie. One half goes to defense, one half goes to entitlements, and one half goes to discretionary spending (I'm paraphrasing, its been over 20 years since I've heard this). It appears that skit may come back in vogue.

About Romney, Romney has been -- if nothing else -- steadfast and stalwart in staying true to his positions. The man simply does not waver. So, we have to assume that the policies he proposes today are the ones he is likely to support tomorrow. He says he won't cut defense. We must take him at his word. He will not tamper with benefits for current SS recipients. So, solving that is something that takes a generation or so. He may like to make cuts to medicare, but short of sending vast numbers of the elderly to early graves, that's also a long term problem. So, he is left with discretionary spending. It doesn't matter if the budgets of Federal programs such as the FAA, DOT, DOE, etc. have massively skyrocketed over the years. When you make the cuts necessary to reach the budget cap he proposes, those budgets will be decimated. A pie only has two halves, regardless of what either Reagan or Romney believe.

Now, saying that Romney won't actually make the cuts he proposes is different than saying he is not proposing them. Your contention was that only stupid people fail to realize that the proposals are only to slow growth. Romney's proposal is actually to cut from current levels.

[Anonymous]

Of course you need to tackle medicare, raise taxes and might as well reform SS while you are doing the other stuff.

There's something about this kind of thinking that sticks in my craw. If by "might as well reform SS while you are doing the other stuff" you're saying we should make a few marginal tweaks like eliminating the payroll cap on SS contributions, or something to that effect, good on ya.

If on the other hand you're proposing raising the retirement age, or other ways of further impoverishing seniors, that seems pretty gratuitous to me.

[Anonymous]

He may like to make cuts to medicare, but short of sending vast numbers of the elderly to early graves, that's also a long term problem.

This a total mischaracterization. The plan is to shut down Medicare as we know it, and give seniors vouchers to buy private insurance. The private insurance will of course be more expansive and cover less since seniors will have no leverage in purchasing coverage. And the only way to save money is to reduce funding for these vouchers. So the seniors will be incentivized to stay healthy. Those who cannot will be free to choose not to pay for care they cannot afford, saving them the indignity of the Death Panels.

Everybody wins.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Of course you need to tackle medicare, raise taxes and might as well reform SS while you are doing the other stuff.

There's something about this kind of thinking that sticks in my craw. If by "might as well reform SS while you are doing the other stuff" you're saying we should make a few marginal tweaks like eliminating the payroll cap on SS contributions, or something to that effect, good on ya.

If on the other hand you're proposing raising the retirement age, or other ways of further impoverishing seniors, that seems pretty gratuitous to me.

sorry, talking about the latter, not the former. of course we need to raise the retirement age. that is a no-brainer. what if the average life span goes to 125 years in the future? that was never the intent of SS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, one thing that is sure to happen is that I throw a giant.effing.party!

Me too! But hoping it's not Perry.

[Anonymous]

Check out the tables on this wiki entry, you can sort by party. Makes the issues a little clearer when you have the historical facts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Of course you need to tackle medicare, raise taxes and might as well reform SS while you are doing the other stuff.

There's something about this kind of thinking that sticks in my craw. If by "might as well reform SS while you are doing the other stuff" you're saying we should make a few marginal tweaks like eliminating the payroll cap on SS contributions, or something to that effect, good on ya.

If on the other hand you're proposing raising the retirement age, or other ways of further impoverishing seniors, that seems pretty gratuitous to me.

sorry, talking about the latter, not the former. of course we need to raise the retirement age. that is a no-brainer. what if the average life span goes to 125 years in the future? that was never the intent of SS.

We do live longer and should adjust policy for that. But we can't base policy on ridiculous hypotheticals, either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Of course you need to tackle medicare, raise taxes and might as well reform SS while you are doing the other stuff.

There's something about this kind of thinking that sticks in my craw. If by "might as well reform SS while you are doing the other stuff" you're saying we should make a few marginal tweaks like eliminating the payroll cap on SS contributions, or something to that effect, good on ya.

If on the other hand you're proposing raising the retirement age, or other ways of further impoverishing seniors, that seems pretty gratuitous to me.

sorry, talking about the latter, not the former. of course we need to raise the retirement age. that is a no-brainer. what if the average life span goes to 125 years in the future? that was never the intent of SS.

We do live longer and should adjust policy for that. But we can't base policy on ridiculous hypotheticals, either.

the average lifespan today compared to when SS was implemented is substantial. and nobody is touching benefits for current retirees - so we are realistically talking about people in their 40s (maybe early 50s) and younger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Check out the tables on this wiki entry, you can sort by party. Makes the issues a little clearer when you have the historical facts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

Congress controls spending. Interesting that the three best periods coincide with the only time republicans controlled the house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Of course you need to tackle medicare, raise taxes and might as well reform SS while you are doing the other stuff.

There's something about this kind of thinking that sticks in my craw. If by "might as well reform SS while you are doing the other stuff" you're saying we should make a few marginal tweaks like eliminating the payroll cap on SS contributions, or something to that effect, good on ya.

If on the other hand you're proposing raising the retirement age, or other ways of further impoverishing seniors, that seems pretty gratuitous to me.

sorry, talking about the latter, not the former. of course we need to raise the retirement age. that is a no-brainer. what if the average life span goes to 125 years in the future? that was never the intent of SS.

We do live longer and should adjust policy for that. But we can't base policy on ridiculous hypotheticals, either.

Actually no "we" don't live longer.

1. The retirement age has already been increased to 66, and is scheduled to rise to 67. So any further increase would mean pushing retirement back to unprecedented ages. Yes, a lot of people live to 70; how many of them are really able, easily, to work that late into life?

2. While life expectancy is rising, life expectancy at age 65 — which is what is relevant here — isn’t rising nearly as fast.

3. Finally, disparities in life expectancy have been rising sharply, with much smaller gains for disadvantaged socioeconomic groups and/or those with less education than the average. Yet these are precisely the people who depend most on Social Security.

(http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/13/live-long-and-prosper-2/)

Also:
http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/workingpapers/wp108.html