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

[huskrthill]

If your not for abolishing all forms of "entitlements," you're not for reform, at least according to some here.

[HuZkurZ]

HWJ, haven't we been over this before? Do you not remember or just being a stooge?

[cm husker]

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.

[cm husker]

"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).

[cm husker]

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.

[FLA4NEB]

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?

[COsker]

"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.

[SOFTCHARGER]

Either tax everyone or no one at all. No exceptions.

[ChitownHusker]

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.

[cm husker]

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.

[cm husker]

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.

I asked a question here that I heard on a debate: Would you support $1 in tax increases in exchange for $9 in spending cuts. Many on this board responded "No, if you want to raise the taxes $1, then you should have just cut spending by $10." There is no balance.

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.

We should and can fix some efficiency problems, but that's quite separate from the tax rate philosophical debate.

[cm husker]

For those claiming that raising taxes on the wealthiest makes no difference, would you consider $1T (7% of our current debt and nearly 100% of our current deficit).

Not saying we should tax the rich super heavily, but it's wrong to argue that it would have no impact.

Start with those upper income Bush tax cuts. Allowing them to expire after 2012 would generate around $800 billion in revenue, depending on how you count. Closing loopholes that primarily affect the very wealthy would add to this total, albeit incrementally. Partly eliminating the infamous “carried interest” provision, which allows hedge fund managers to pay low rates on most of their incomes, would generate around $15 billion, or maybe even more. And that's just one loophole. If we were willing to talk about new taxes on the wealthy, like limiting their itemized deductions, or new taxes on oil companies and other businesses, we could get more revenue still. Economist Jared Bernstein, formerly of the Obama Administration and now of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, detailed some of these on his blog not too long ago.Put it all together and it's easy to generate revenue in excess of $1 trillion. That works out to about a half percentage point of gross domestic product. And if that doesn't sound significant to you, think of it this way: That's $1 trillion in cuts to government programs we wouldn't have to make.
Which isn't to say those programs wouldn't, or shouldn't, get cuts. But that’s where Rubin and her allies make another error. It’s simply not the case that Obama and the Democrats have not offered to do those things. As numerous outlets (including this one) have reported, Obama last week offered House Speaker John Boehner a $4 trillion deficit deal comprised primarily of spending cuts. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s proposal, which Obama has endorsed, would start with more than $1 trillion in cuts from discretionary spending. And lest everybody forget, it was Obama and the Democrats who enacted hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicare reductions, as part of the Affordable Care Act.

[Huskers57]

quit giving a grand for a newborn child.

[HuZkurZ]

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.

You should really get up to date on current events. Ryan's plan to reform MC, the gibberish you speak of, as one example.

[HuZkurZ]

For those claiming that raising taxes on the wealthiest makes no difference, would you consider $1T (7% of our current debt and nearly 100% of our current deficit).

Not saying we should tax the rich super heavily, but it's wrong to argue that it would have no impact.

You could also argue the impact of removing a gallon of water from the ocaean.

Here's a simpler way to do it. Tax those making over $500,000 at 100%.

If the federal government had increased the income-tax rate on Americans earning more than $500,000 to 100 percent in 2009–and seized the remaining $773 billion in income it had not initially taken away from these Americans–that would have closed the federal deficit for the year to $839 billion ($838,988,236,899.90).

http://questioningwithboldness.wordp...-839b-deficit/

[cm husker]

Here's a simpler way. Just tax everyone earning over $500,000 100%

If the federal government had increased the income-tax rate on Americans earning more than $500,000 to 100 percent in 2009–and seized the remaining $773 billion in income it had not initially taken away from these Americans–that would have closed the federal deficit for the year to $839 billion ($838,988,236,899.90).

http://questioningwithboldness.wordp...-839b-deficit/

First, those sources are highly suspect.

Second, if they are even accurate, they chose to look at a year (2009) that was one of the worst in the last 100. We should probably run that comparison based on a 10 or 20 year window.

[Bamsker]

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.

Lets getback to the original point for a second. The entitlement or madatory payment section of the budget is made up of around 70% for Social Security and Medicare. This portion of the budget already has a specific tax dedicated to paying for the programs. Any discussion we makwe about the budget and taxes needs to look at the fact that nearly 40% of the overall budget is currently coverd by the FICA and medicare taxes we currently pay. Further, it is important to remember that in Washington DC, a cut is not a reduction in spending but an amount of money that is not available to spend (i.e. we were going to spend 200 million but are now spending only 100 million; so, we have created a 100 million dollar tax "cut").

[Big Red Rick]

Yawn

[Huskerwirejay]

Lets getback to the original point for a second. The entitlement or madatory payment section of the budget is made up of around 70% for Social Security and Medicare. This portion of the budget already has a specific tax dedicated to paying for the programs. Any discussion we makwe about the budget and taxes needs to look at the fact that nearly 40% of the overall budget is currently coverd by the FICA and medicare taxes we currently pay. Further, it is important to remember that in Washington DC, a cut is not a reduction in spending but an amount of money that is not available to spend (i.e. we were going to spend 200 million but are now spending only 100 million; so, we have created a 100 million dollar tax "cut").

Good point bamsker.

57% is a pay as you go plan (or most of that anyway). If we over pay, we will have to adjust one of several ways but that is a zero sum plan over time.

That leaves us with about 40% of the remainder for defense, 40% for discretion and 20% for interest.

[HuZkurZ]

You could also argue the impact of removing a gallon of water from the ocaean.

Here's a simpler way to do it. Tax those making over $500,000 at 100%.

If the federal government had increased the income-tax rate on Americans earning more than $500,000 to 100 percent in 2009–and seized the remaining $773 billion in income it had not initially taken away from these Americans–that would have closed the federal deficit for the year to $839 billion ($838,988,236,899.90).

http://questioningwithboldness.wordp...-839b-deficit/

The point is it's going to take overall comprehensive reform of Medicare, medicaid, SS and across the board cuts and some increase in taxes.