Spending cuts not expected to dent $1.5T deficit - Polidicks

Las Vegas Sun Spending cuts not expected to dent $1.5T deficit [release]The $38 billion in spending cuts agreed to last week won't prevent this year's budget deficit from setting another record high, estimated at $1.5 trillion. Most of the agreed-to spending cuts either affect future budgets or amount to accounting gimmicks that won't reduce actual spending. The Treasury Department reported Tuesday that the deficit already totals $829.4 billion through the first six months of the budget year _ a figure that until 2009 would have been the biggest ever for an entire year. For March alone, the government ran a deficit of $188 billion. President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans averted a government shutdown last week by agreeing to the largest-ever spending cuts for a single year. But David Wyss, chief economist at Standard & Poor's in New York, said those cuts amount to a "rounding error" in this year's deficit. The cuts include unspent money from the 2010 census, which is completed, and $2.5 billion from the most recent repeal of highway programs that can't be spent because of restrictions set by other legislation. They also include $3.5 billion in unused bonuses for states that enroll more children in a health care program for lower-income families. Wyss expects the deficit will surpass the record of $1.41 trillion hit in 2009. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office raised its estimate earlier this year from $1.1 trillion to $1.5 trillion. A tax-cut package negotiated in December by Obama and Republicans, which includes a one-year reduction in the Social Security payroll tax, prompted the CBO to raise its estimate. The ballooning deficit is certain to give Republicans leverage in future spending debates, starting with the upcoming vote to raise the government's borrowing authority above $14.3 trillion. The Treasury has told Congress that it must vote to raise the debt limit by summer. Without an increase, the government would not be able to meet its current debt payments, resulting in an unprecedented default on its debt. Republicans hope to use vote on the debt limit to force Obama to accept long-term deficit-reduction measures. A big fight looms over the 2012 budget, which will center on House Republicans' plan to cut $5.8 trillion over 10 years by making sweeping changes to Medicare and Medicaid. Obama is scheduled to deliver a speech Wednesday in which he will outline his own goals to achieve long-term deficit reductions. Some analysts see the House spending plan, put forward by House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and Obama's speech as the opening salvos in a battle that will likely extend through the 2012 presidential campaign. There is little expectation that major changes in the government's entitlement programs will occur until after the upcoming election. However, both parties will likely stake out their ground and seek to convince voters that they have the best formula for getting the country out of its current deficit malaise. The outcome of that debate could set the country's budget course for many years to come. "I think the debate has shifted and there is significant momentum now for making real progress in addressing our fiscal problems," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics. Other analysts are not as optimistic that the government's deficit problems are any closer to being resolved. "Nobody wants to face the facts," Wyss said. "We can't continue promising people more government spending than we are willing to pay for."[/release] [url]http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/apr/12/us-budget-deficit/[/url] I knew this was a bad deal.

Should just cut the defense spendings and the useless wars. And remove republicans from power to prevent any more of this nonsense.

Didn't they include like $1.6 trillion in tax cuts for the rich in the deal too? Or am I just bullhitting, I thought CNN said something like that

raise taxes on the rich

I won't be happy until we have a budget surplus. Everything needs to be cut to some extent.

If they don't really sort out that deficit soon, they're going to be in such trouble. Why don't they get it? It just feels like a scary situation of fiddling while Rome burns, all this quibbling over funding for Planned Parenthood and the president's birthplace. They need to just stop playing around and get that they're RUNNING A COUNTRY. It's serious and they should never be following principles to the death over small things when inaction is so harmful.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;29159770]raise taxes on the rich[/QUOTE] No, you don't understand. That would make [B]sense[/B]! We can't do that.

Glaber :buddy: i missed you so much and look, you've managed to find a better source because los vegas newspapers are known for their brutal attention to detail and accuracy

Oh, and. [Quote]The ballooning deficit is certain to give Republicans leverage in future spending debates[/Quote] [B]AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.[/B] No.

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;29159745]Didn't they include like $1.6 trillion in tax cuts for the rich in the deal too? Or am I just bullhitting, I thought CNN said something like that[/QUOTE] CNN also said this: [quote=Cnn]Relying solely on tax increases for the rich to aid in deficit reduction -- even when paired with significant spending cuts -- doesn't cut it for two reasons, said Tax Policy Center senior fellow Roberton Williams. First, the income of the top 2% of taxpayers is typically more volatile than that of taxpayers lower down the income scale, so when the economy sours, so often do those high-end income streams. That means less revenue than expected will flow into federal coffers. Second, even if that weren't true, there just aren't enough rich people to generate the kind of revenue needed to substantially reduce deficits. To show the disparity, consider some recent calculations by the Congressional Budget Office. Raising all six income tax rates by 1 percentage point would yield an additional $480 billion over 10 years. By contrast, raising the top two rates by 1 percentage point would yield just $115 billion.[/quote] [url]http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/12/news/economy/national_debt_taxes_obama/?cnn=yes[/url] I hope Zeke read this.

Well Glaber I guess America will never be a strong country ever again because of its crippling debt you might as well just kill yourself now.

[QUOTE=Glaber;29159940]CNN also said this: [url]http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/12/news/economy/national_debt_taxes_obama/?cnn=yes[/url] I hope Zeke read this.[/QUOTE] So leave the first tax bracket alone Raise the second by 1% Raise the third by 2.5% Raise the fourth by 5% Raise the fifth by 13.5% Raise the sixth by 20%

Glaber you're talking into a vacuum here

[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;29159963]Well Glaber I guess America will never be a strong country ever again because of its crippling debt you might as well just kill yourself now.[/QUOTE] Why, there's still time to try to fix the Federal Government's SPENDING Problem. Or are you still trying to apply socialist views on my country?

[QUOTE=Glaber;29160232]Why, there's still time to try to fix the Federal Government's SPENDING Problem. Or are you still trying to apply socialist views on my country?[/QUOTE] Socialist views? Hahaha, that's a good one.

[QUOTE=Glaber;29160232]Why, there's still time to try to fix the Federal Government's SPENDING Problem. Or are you still trying to apply socialist views on my country?[/QUOTE] Everytime you make socialism out to be a bad thing, you just look like a fool. Do you even bother trying to sound like you know what you're talking about?

[QUOTE=Glaber;29160232]Why, there's still time to try to fix the Federal Government's SPENDING Problem. Or are you still trying to apply socialist views on my country?[/QUOTE] You are an idiot every democratic government that looks after the people is some part socialist. Or are you one of those people that think a trickle down economy has worked for the past 25 years.

[QUOTE=Glaber;29160232]Why, there's still time to try to fix the Federal Government's SPENDING Problem. Or are you still trying to apply socialist views on my country?[/QUOTE] It's my fucking country too you entitled fool.

[QUOTE=Chevron;29160378]You are an idiot every democratic government that looks after the people is some part socialist. Or are you one of those people that think a trickle down economy has worked for the past 25 years.[/QUOTE] I sometimes wonder if the people that support Reaganomics are blind. America was booming and full of promise and then suddenly by pure coincidence it starts a steady drop into shit valley after the adoption of those economic principals. Gee I wonder why that happened.

I know that our debts are so high. But I mean, the people we owe the money to, can they actually make America pay it back if they even tried to?

Have the corporations actually pay their fucking taxes.

[QUOTE=Glaber;29160232]Why, there's still time to try to fix the Federal Government's SPENDING Problem. Or are you still trying to apply socialist views on my country?[/QUOTE] Because cutting spending will solve all of our problems- everything from inflation to unemployment and the national deficit. Neuralgia, lumbago, rheumatism, it revives the spirit and relaxes the cords and joints. :downs: Please, to you and your friends, peddle that snake oil somewhere else.

[QUOTE=Glaber;29160232]Why, there's still time to try to fix the Federal Government's SPENDING Problem. Or are you still trying to apply socialist views on my country?[/QUOTE] Right the republicans went straight for that socialist planned parenthood then. [editline]13th April 2011[/editline] completely ignoring the DoD budget

[QUOTE=Latency;29160508]I sometimes wonder if the people that support Reaganomics are blind. America was booming and full of promise and then suddenly by pure coincidence it starts a steady drop into shit valley after the adoption of those economic principals. Gee I wonder why that happened.[/QUOTE] I know, and they defend it to the death. The first easiest steps to getting America out of debt. Fix tax loopholes. Raise taxes on those who can pay. Cut half if not more of the military spending(half is something like $331 Billion a year). Don't cut education or research. See how easy that is, now where is Obama's email.

Keep in mind that most of the discretionary funding (shit that's left over after we pay for the mandatory spending) goes straight into the military. I am primarily pissed off by this. Right now, they're just wanting to cut down on entitlements like Medicare, SS, and Medicaid. I'm for boosting up the retirement age to 70, but every politician is afraid of pissing off poor people.

How about we remove all forms of socialism from America? Get rid of social security, medicare and medicaid, budget problems fixed. Really, if the sick can't get healthy without government assistance, do they really deserve to live? Maybe they should have worked harder, instead of just being welfare leeches. And social security, don't get me started there. Why should the government have to pick up the bill of these people who obviously lacked the intelligence necessary to invest earlier in life? Okay, I'll admit that we shouldn't entirely cut pensions, but we could at least make the system more efficient, by concentrating the elderly in camps, and having them produce goods (and, you know, contribute to the society which gives them food and housing). It's sink or swim guys, and some people just sink, no matter what.

[QUOTE=Chevron;29160672]I know, and they defend it to the death. The first easiest steps to getting America out of debt. Fix tax loopholes. Raise taxes on those who can pay. Cut half if not more of the military spending(half is something like $331 Billion a year). Don't cut education or research. See how easy that is, now where is Obama's email.[/QUOTE] And bring back industry to the United States, rather than send it overseas. Get American citizens back to work in American factories. [editline]14th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Contag;29160766]How about we remove all forms of socialism from America? Get rid of social security, medicare and medicaid, budget problems fixed. Really, if the sick can't get healthy without government assistance, do they really deserve to live? Maybe they should have worked harder, instead of just being welfare leeches. And social security, don't get me started there. Why should the government have to pick up the bill of these people who obviously lacked the intelligence necessary to invest earlier in life? Okay, I'll admit that we shouldn't entirely cut pensions, but we could at least make the system more efficient, by concentrating the elderly in camps, and having them produce goods (and, you know, contribute to the society which gives them food and housing). It's sink or swim guys, and some people just sink, no matter what.[/QUOTE] And while we're at it, we'll remove government grants for businesses who are just opening their doors. They say after all that we need to stop giving so many handouts... so... I guess, if they really mean what they say, they won't mind, right? I mean, that is assuming they mean what they say...

The military has begged for lower budgets. The USMC got a budget cut not too long ago that actually did them a lot of good because it cancelled a lot of wasteful programs and allowed them to spend the money on smaller, more useful tools. The problem is the lobbyists for companies like H&K, Boeing, Colt, Lockheed and the like. [editline]13th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Contag;29160766]And social security, don't get me started there. Why should the government have to pick up the bill of these people who obviously lacked the intelligence necessary to invest earlier in life?[/QUOTE] Actually, other tax payers pick up the bill for those people.

[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;29160770] And while we're at it, we'll remove government grants for businesses who are just opening their doors.[/QUOTE] That's a great idea. Capitalism runs on competition, not government assistance, and if these companies aren't competitive enough to survive, then that's their problem.

[QUOTE=Chevron;29160672]I know, and they defend it to the death. The first easiest steps to getting America out of debt. Fix tax loopholes. Raise taxes on those who can pay. Cut half if not more of the military spending(half is something like $331 Billion a year). Don't cut education or research. See how easy that is, now where is Obama's email.[/QUOTE] I'd imagine there would be quite a lot of work involved in that, but the hardest part would seem to be getting it past the Republicans.