Get HuskerMax™ on your iPhone. Click here for details. Get tickets for all home and away games here.
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 48

Thread: Mandatory Spending--Interest and Entitlements make up 64% of budget

  1. #16
    Husker Fan

    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Posts
    40,716
    Quote Originally Posted by ChitownHusker View Post
    Guilty as charged.
    YAY!

  2. #17
    All Big 10

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    18,620
    Quote Originally Posted by Huskers57 View Post
    tangoy tangoy...I'm all for entitlement reform.
    If your not for abolishing all forms of "entitlements," you're not for reform, at least according to some here.

  3. #18
    Husker Fan

    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Posts
    40,716
    The SYSTEM is broken in every way imaginable. There has to be reforms ACROSS THE BOARD. That is undeniable.

  4. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by tango View Post
    And it will only get worse with the $1 trillion deficit spending increasing the national debt each year. The increased debt increases, in turn increases interest expense. Mandatory increases in entitlement obligations are the primary reason for the annual deficit spending. And it only gets worse as the baby boomers reach retirement age. SS and Medicare spending has got to be dealt with to avoid a Greece-like situation in the US in the next 3 to 5 years.

    Budget Shortfall Looks Out of This World


    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...hatsNewsSecond




    That underscores the government's fiscal challenge as it looks to bring long-run deficits to heel. It also highlights dangers for both stock and Treasury investors that will become more apparent later this year—austerity of some flavor likely lies ahead, creating a fiscal drag that could sap economic growth, and with it, stock prices. But if government fails to react, today's superlow Treasury yields may be wildly underestimating the risks facing investors.

    The reduction (the Obama Budget) is largely dependent on the elimination of tax breaks—no sure thing. And it is tough to make up the difference through spending cuts. Strip away mandatory spending, interest payments and defense appropriations, and only about 19% of the current fiscal year's budget is truly discretionary. Even shutting down everything outside that mandatory and defense bucket would have left a deficit of nearly $700 billion in the current fiscal year.

    They also don't include off-balance-sheet liabilities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.Whatever the mix of higher taxes or spending cuts, a big fiscal drag will hit economic growth.
    What are your suggestions to fix medicare, medicaid and ss tango?

  5. #20
    Junior Varsity
    HuZkurZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    6,676
    Quote Originally Posted by cm husker View Post
    If your not for abolishing all forms of "entitlements," you're not for reform, at least according to some here.
    And some just want to tax the "uberrich", that's a give away for one I am referring to, which won't solve anything and continue to chide anyone who dares offer a plan yet never offers their own plan.......Hey, I'll bet you voted for Obama, didn't you?
    Quote Originally Posted by Warhorse View Post
    Thank God for Obama saving and transforming our economy albeit slower than any (including him) would like.

  6. #21
    Ayyy!
    huskrthill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Approximately 41° 12' 19" N, 96° 9' 29" W
    Posts
    39,915
    Quote Originally Posted by cm husker View Post
    If your not for abolishing all forms of "entitlements," you're not for reform, at least according to some here.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  7. #22
    Junior Varsity
    HuZkurZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    6,676
    HWJ, haven't we been over this before? Do you not remember or just being a stooge?
    Quote Originally Posted by Warhorse View Post
    Thank God for Obama saving and transforming our economy albeit slower than any (including him) would like.

  8. #23
    All Big 10

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    18,620
    Quote Originally Posted by HuZkurZ View Post
    And some just want to tax the "uberrich", that's a give away for one I am referring to, which won't solve anything and continue to chide anyone who dares offer a plan yet never offers their own plan.......Hey, I'll bet you voted for Obama, didn't you?
    Are you speaking gibberish?

    I'll respond to the only portion I understood. No, I did not vote for Obama and will not vote for him this coming election. I'll either vote for Romney or sit it out.

  9. #24
    All Big 10

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    18,620
    Quote Originally Posted by huskrthill View Post
    "Some" is too broad? Would "a few" be better?

    Undeniably, there are a few poster here who are for abolishing welfare (SS and the medi's are also on the block).

  10. #25
    All Big 10

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    18,620
    Quote Originally Posted by tango View Post
    Do you not see that mandatory spending is going to consume the entire Federal revenue in a few years? Your posts reflect the same ignorance as CM's posts. Most conservatives want tax reform with entitlement reform. Democrats/liberals want increased taxes on such a small portion of taxpayers that it will have very, very little effect on deficit spending. And when entitlement spending reform is brought up by Conservatives you bring out the video of grandma being pushed off the ledge. It is no wonder the vitriol is so grand.
    Now you're just going way off into the weeds. Who brought up the "death panel" strawman when a serious discussion of cost/benefit analysis was ongoing?

    As far as my ignorance goes, please explain what the ultra conservatives such as yourself (i.e. not traditional, mainstream conservatives) would be ok with in terms of raising taxes? Your idea of "tax reform" is to make the tax system more regressive.

    By the way, your facts are just so incoherently wrong that it's impossible to even attempt to correct them all.

  11. #26
    All Big 10
    FLA4NEB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Central FLA
    Posts
    18,162
    Quote Originally Posted by cm husker View Post
    Now you're just going way off into the weeds. Who brought up the "death panel" strawman when a serious discussion of cost/benefit analysis was ongoing?

    As far as my ignorance goes, please explain what the ultra conservatives such as yourself (i.e. not traditional, mainstream conservatives) would be ok with in terms of raising taxes? Your idea of "tax reform" is to make the tax system more regressive.

    By the way, your facts are just so incoherently wrong that it's impossible to even attempt to correct them all.
    You could tax nearly all the wealth of the top 15% and barely put a dent in the deficit...that is before you factor in the effect the high tax rate would have on the economy and then add in the growth rate of the budget. Taxing is not the exit to our problem, drastically cutting spending thru actual cuts in the budget and real reforms of entitlements.

    As for this how regressive term...anything that reforms the tax code and broadens the tax base will be pegged as regressive. It is meaningless term at this point. For people that use it it usually only means tax changes in one direction and that is tightening up the tax code.

    How does our progressive tax code stand under the concept of equality under the the law?
    I am Fred Lawrence Anderson and I approve this post.

  12. #27
    Guest
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Denver, Colorado
    Posts
    3,295
    Quote Originally Posted by cm husker View Post
    "Some" is too broad? Would "a few" be better?

    Undeniably, there are a few poster here who are for abolishing welfare (SS and the medi's are also on the block).
    Probably as many as those here who pretend to be what they are not.

    I don't know that I've seen many conservatives here with a serious problem with balance; that is until someone decides that the scale needs to reside in--and be managed by--the left.

    It's a sad commentary when people demand more taxation to balance the books when you look at the pitiful way the current revenues are managed. I understand the hesitation to give our government one more plum nickel without first having some accountability in place.

  13. #28
    SOFTCHARGER
    Guest
    Either tax everyone or no one at all. No exceptions.

  14. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by FLA4NEB View Post
    How does our progressive tax code stand under the concept of equality under the the law?
    Everyone is taxed equally at the same level of income. In other words, even if I make 388,400, my first $8700 is taxed at 10%, between $8700 and $35,000 is taxed at 15%, between 35,000 and $85,000 is taxed at 25%, between $85,000 and $178,000 is taxed at 28% and between $178,000 and $388,350 is taxed at 33%. Only my last fifty bucks of income is taxed at 35%.

    So everybody pays the same percentage of income tax for that level of income. The inequality in the tax system arises from all of our deductions, credits, writedowns, and rebates.
    "The distinctive mark of the Christian, today more than ever, must be love for the poor, the weak, the suffering." Pope John Paul II


  15. #30
    All Big 10

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    18,620
    Quote Originally Posted by FLA4NEB View Post
    You could tax nearly all the wealth of the top 15% and barely put a dent in the deficit...that is before you factor in the effect the high tax rate would have on the economy and then add in the growth rate of the budget. Taxing is not the exit to our problem, drastically cutting spending thru actual cuts in the budget and real reforms of entitlements.
    Growth is the answer to our problems, not draconian cuts to things like welfare and education, which just like your "tax the rich does not real good" theory, account for a small % of our budget.

    Yes, social security and the medi's need to be reformed, mainly in terms of making them more progressive and delaying/reducing benefits.

    As for this how regressive term...anything that reforms the tax code and broadens the tax base will be pegged as regressive. It is meaningless term at this point. For people that use it it usually only means tax changes in one direction and that is tightening up the tax code.
    We do not need to "broaden the base." Things like the EITC and the sharing of our rocketing (minus the recession) productivity, which means huge profits (a great thing!) for business and a decrease in labor costs (i.e. less need for workers), are extremely important things for our economy. These are the things, as Reagan recognized and spoke about, that we as a nation should pay for because they will make us stronger.

    I agree we need to "tighten the tax code" but that doesn't mean we should tax the poor and middle class more heavily.

    How does our progressive tax code stand under the concept of equality under the the law?
    Quite well, and it always has.








Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •