Here is what you've been waiting to hear LOL

[ManitouDan]

only in liberal la la land could Obama be a spendthift at a trillion a year deficit and reagan be a " big spender " .

[Kentucky Trojan]

Well what a surprise the great Ronny Reagan was the biggest spender of them all and of course Carter will get the blame for that http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2 ... ack-obama/

This blame game needs to stop now or we will lose what is left of our great country. Maybe not in our lifetime, but my children and grandchildren will pay the price for it 50 years from now.

[C-Bolt]

Okay we stop blaming whoever and you guys stop blaming OB I'll go along with that

[Kentucky Trojan]

Okay we stop blaming whoever and you guys stop blaming OB I'll go along with that

I am not blaming anybody.

I have stated that we all need to work together for our country.

Stop the spending across the board.

Increase the revenue by taxing the rich.

Pay down the debt.

[C-Bolt]

And I totally agree Trojan only time I put the blame game on is when certain cons blow smoke on Obama when the facts don't back it up,so from now on lets just leave names out and concentrate ways to get it down,spending is coming down now although slowly from looking at the numbers but not fast enough

[Kentucky Trojan]

And I totally agree Trojan only time I put the blame game on is when certain cons blow smoke on Obama when the facts don't back it up,so from now on lets just leave names out and concentrate ways to get it down,spending is coming down now although slowly from looking at the numbers but not fast enough

I agree.

[C-Bolt]

Now lets hope our fellow party members agree with our truce, but I bet it don't last long Trojan LOL

[abuck76]

A perfect place to start, and imho, should be the very first place to start is the Defense budget........I was discussing this with space cowboy on politics site, and I have a suggestion........We have overextended ourselves so much.............Why not post a small number of ready reponse teams strategically around the world in countries friendly to us............But only a very small number.........Bring the rest of our troops home.........You do not necessarily need to reduce the total number of troops,but it would help........If they are living in the US instead of being stationed in other countries, their dollars are being spent here , not there................Think of the reduction in spending, in such things like housing costs, food costs, medical costs........We could reduce the Pentagon budget drastically without hurting our readiness ........ :12224

[C-Bolt]

Maybe I am missing something, but why do we have all them troops and bases still over in Germany? I thought the cold war with soviets ended over 20 years ago

[Kentucky Trojan]

Maybe I am missing something, but why do we have all them troops and bases still over in Germany? I thought the cold war with soviets ended over 20 years ago

I agree.

[ManitouDan]

c bolt , you mentioned spending coming down, where ? I also see the same climbing chart .. entitlements are where we start . the big three must be changed .

[C-Bolt]

Look at trojans chart up there Dan! 1.4 in 2009 was the most then gradually decline with the exception 2011 when it rose slightly,but I agree that that is not good enough needs to come down way more to get where we want to go,I also agree some entitlements need looked at but not totally eliminated,I don't have a problem with drug testing for eligibilty,I think that would be a great idea!

[F-4 Phantom]

You can gut the entire Defense Budget and you'll still be running deficits. Increasing taxes on the "RICH" (define rich by dollars) won't get it done either. You can't get to a balanced anything unless you have a balanced approach. Everyone needs to feel the pain to understand the gravity of it all. Set up some sort of national sales tax for the sole purpose of balancing the budget and attacking the debt. Social Security, Medicare and all these other programs will need to be addressed. I don't know the answer but capping the limit on what millionaires are entitled too is a start. We have been like a bunch of drunken Sailors since the 40s and it is now time to pay the bills.

Defense Spending: There are approximately 1.5M active duty members. Only about 200K are permanently stationed overseas, primarily in Europe (50K + in Germany), Afghanistan(approximately 70K) and the Pacific (Japan and South Korea primarily). The footprint around the globe is small compared to the "Cold War" days. Once the war in Afghanistan is over, the forces need to be cut to pre-9/11 levels and maybe more. Because of regional threats, it would be detrimental to our overall security to gut forces in Europe and the Pacific. The bases and forces currently stationed are there as a deterrent for those countries wanting to cause regional problems and they are also there to support conflicts in North Africa/Middle East. They also serve as a launching point in the event of an all out conflict. One could argue let the region fend for themselves, but with the global economy and dependence on oil, you must keep shipping lanes open and the radicals isolated or else the entire globe goes into decline. Same goes in the Pacific. North Korea and China are a serious threat to region stability and are spending billions in military upgrades. The 30K or so troops in South Korea is a small force used as a deterrent and to hold the line until reinforcements are deployed. I don't see how you can downsize in this region without putting the region in jeopardy. There is something to the peace through deterrence deal.

One could argue you could cut the active duty forces below a million folks, institute a draft to where able bodied citizens must serve two years on active duty and they serve an additional 6 years on inactive reserves to be called up in the event of a national emergency.

[Kentucky Trojan]

You can gut the entire Defense Budget and you'll still be running deficits. Increasing taxes on the "RICH" (define rich by dollars) won't get it done either. You can't get to a balanced anything unless you have a balanced approach. Everyone needs to feel the pain to understand the gravity of it all. Set up some sort of national sales tax for the sole purpose of balancing the budget and attacking the debt. Social Security, Medicare and all these other programs will need to be addressed. I don't know the answer but capping the limit on what millionaires are entitled too is a start. We have been like a bunch of drunken Sailors since the 40s and it is now time to pay the bills.

Defense Spending: There are approximately 1.5M active duty members. Only about 200K are permanently stationed overseas, primarily in Europe (50K + in Germany), Afghanistan(approximately 70K) and the Pacific (Japan and South Korea primarily). The footprint around the globe is small compared to the "Cold War" days. Once the war in Afghanistan is over, the forces need to be cut to pre-9/11 levels and maybe more. Because of regional threats, it would be detrimental to our overall security to gut forces in Europe and the Pacific. The bases and forces currently stationed are there as a deterrent for those countries wanting to cause regional problems and they are also there to support conflicts in North Africa/Middle East. They also serve as a launching point in the event of an all out conflict. One could argue let the region fend for themselves, but with the global economy and dependence on oil, you must keep shipping lanes open and the radicals isolated or else the entire globe goes into decline. Same goes in the Pacific. North Korea and China are a serious threat to region stability and are spending billions in military upgrades. The 30K or so troops in South Korea is a small force used as a deterrent and to hold the line until reinforcements are deployed. I don't see how you can downsize in this region without putting the region in jeopardy. There is something to the peace through deterrence deal.

One could argue you could cut the active duty forces below a million folks, institute a draft to where able bodied citizens must serve two years on active duty and they serve an additional 6 years on inactive reserves to be called up in the event of a national emergency.

http://useconomy.about.com/od/fiscalpol ... Budget.htm

The Federal government plans to take in $2.902 trillion for FY2013. Most of the taxes are paid by you, either through income or payroll taxes:
•Income taxes contribute 46.8%.
•Social Security, Medicare and other payroll taxes are 33%.
•Corporate taxes are only 12%.
•Excise taxes, custom duties and other revenue make up the remaining 8.2%.

For FY 2013, budget spending is estimated at $3.803 trillion -- much more than the revenue being taken in. A whopping 60% of the budget must go towards mandatory programs, such as Social Security, Medicare and Military Retirement benefits. These expenditures are mandated by law, and cannot be changed.

Just over a third of the budget can be divvied up among all the discretionary programs which the President and Congress negotiate the amount each year. However, two-thirds of this is budgeted for military spending.

The remaining 6.5% of the budget must pay the interest on the national debt. The U.S. has been lucky because interest payments are currently very low, thanks to a flight to safety that has increased demand for Treasury notes. When the economy gets better, Treasury yields will rise -- and so will interest payments.

[F-4 Phantom]

So, how do we go about getting everything balanced, besides putting ALL Americans to work to dramatically increase revenue?

[Kentucky Trojan]

So, how do we go about getting everything balanced, besides putting ALL Americans to work to dramatically increase revenue?

Increase the marginal tax rate on the wealthiest Americans.

Decrease spending across the board (including Entitlement spending such as Social Security, Medicare, and Military Retirement Benefits).

Pay down the debt.

[F-4 Phantom]

There is a lot of talk about changing the military retirement system, especially as it pertains to age on when you can start receiving it and possibly going to a 401K type system. I do believe ALL federal employees pay/benefits will need adjusting. The active duty military is 1.5M but that does not count all the other civilian GW/GS type workers (800K+). So, as the AD forces are cut, the civilian workforce needs to be cut at least proportionally if not more.

[abuck76]

Social Seciurity is not in the converstaion.........Social Security does NOT add to the deficit.............. :12224

[abuck76]

"Politics ultimately infects the analysis these days, but it's hard to argue with the numbers. Perry sums up the situation: "Private sector jobs have been increasing at 91,000 per month since the recession ended in June 2009. Government jobs have contracting by 18,000 per month on average over that period, which is bringing down the overall monthly job increases to only 74,000 on average."

We can debate the finer points of whether the shrinking payrolls in government is productive or part of the problem, but let's at least recognize the facts as reported. Unfortunately, even that basic standard is too high for some folks. Yes, we need to promote policies that will enhance private sector job growth. The question is whether cutting government jobs further in the here and now will advance this cause?"

This is the conundrum................. :12224


http://www.capitalspectator.com/archive ... vernm.html

[Kentucky Trojan]

Social Seciurity is not in the converstaion.........Social Security does NOT add to the deficit.............. :12224

http://www.jec.senate.gov/republicans/p ... f64fda10cb

Social Security Can Add to the Federal Budget Deficit: When total federal government spending exceeds total federal government taxes, there is a federal budget deficit. When Social Security spending exceeds Social Security taxes, there is a Social Security deficit. Because Social Security is a government program, its deficit adds to the total deficit. This is basic arithmetic.

Many people believe the reason Social Security will go broke is because Congress “raided” the trust fund and spent the money on other things. That’s not true. The trust fund will be exhausted in 2036 because that’s when all of the money Congress “stole” from Social Security will be fully repaid. The truth is, Social Security is unsustainable in its current form because the amount of benefits paid or scheduled to be paid is greater than the amount of taxes collected or scheduled to be collected.

Until policymakers and the public recognize the Social Security trust fund for what it really is – an unfunded claim on future general revenue – the long-term viability of the program will remain in doubt.