Fiscal Cliff: 10 Ways Obama, Congress Could Trim Without New Income Taxes, Entitlement Cuts

Dear dazbog,
(I just love to reach agreement with fellow members.)

But this, I'm not too sure about:

Remember the nine Billion in aid to Iraq that seemed to simply vanish





" I had heard the number was three, not nine, and the money didn't vanish, it was recovered. Their paperwork didn't show the actual flow of the money. None was lost."

I couldn't present a better example Charles. I'm fairly certain we both assume we obtained our info from
reliable sources. Nine billion vs Three billion. Humm, that is indeed a problem ! " .... didn't show the actual flow of money'
None was lost " Come on Charles, Really ? Really ! The larger picture would indicate ( to me ) the general public has absolutely no real data upon which to base their opinion. WE DON'T KNOW ! I'm fairly confident Congress is in the same boat.

Foreign aid IMHO can easily be accomplished through private donations. I know, on the surface that sounds silly.

www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/59357/carol-c-adelman/the-privatization-of-foreign-aid-reassessing-national-largesse

"What such criticism fails to take into account is the new landscape of foreign aid. Current measures of a nation's largesse only count funds doled out by the government, thus ignoring the primary way in which Americans help others abroad: through the private sector. In the last decade, U.S. government aid has been far outstripped by private donations -- from foundations, private voluntary organizations (PVOS), corporations, universities, religious groups, and individuals giving directly to needy family members abroad. There is no comprehensive measure of how much Americans donate overseas, but a conservative estimate, based on surveys and voluntary reporting, puts annual private giving around $35 billion. Even this low-ball figure is more than three and a half times the amount of official development assistance (ODA) given out in a year by the U.S. government. In the third wave of foreign aid, it is private money that is making the difference."

Unfortunately one must cough up forty bucks to read the entire article.

Additionally Charles I'm a bit miffed, Congress has yet again failed to contact ME for my input on the alleged " Fiscal Cliff "

reply to post by bobs_uruncle

Dear bobs_uruncle,

I hope I'm not one of the psychopaths that need to be cleaned from the gene pool? Oh, wait a second, I'm 60. The gene pool doesn't care about me anymore. Whew, I'm safe.

Would you do me the favor of checking my thinking on some numbers? Now I don't really care much if I'm exact, but I'd like to be in the right order of magnitude.

We take in about $3.5 trillion and spend about $5 trillion. We're running an average annual deficit of $1.5 trillion over the last four years. To eliminate the debt in 10 years we'd need an additional $1.5 trillion each year.

To accomplish all this, we would have to double the total income of the US government for each of the next ten years and not increase spending even a drop. Sorry, I don't see any way at all to do this, unless they confiscate everything everybody earns.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by dazbog

Dear dazbog,

I missed a couple of your points.

Of course the government should bring you on as an advisor and analyst. Of course with the budget cutting problems, and all the people running around trying to cut spending, your salary will be about $8 an hour, but you will be helping the country.

The question of private foreign aid confuses me a little. Here's something Wiki coughed up:

The 2010 United States federal budget spent $52.7 billion out of $3.55 trillion (1.5%) on foreign aid. $15.0 billion was military; $37.7 billion was economic aid (of which USAID received $14.1 billion).

Aid from private sources within the United States in 2007 was probably somewhere in the $10 to $30 billion range. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) estimated that net private grants from the United States to developing countries totaled $12.2 billion that year.

en.wikipedia.org...

One unresolved question is whether to count the remittances from immigrants back to Mexico as private foreign aid. If so, that amount alone is equal to, or greater than the government's economic aid.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by gladtobehere


I totally agree with you that we should close over seas bases and bring the troops back home, but my worry is what do we do with them? Do we put them on other bases. If so we are still paying them the salary and overfilliing the base forcing the bases to have to build more housing and get more food in all which cost money. If you release the troops will they be able to find a job or turn into people who cant find work. There are a lot of things to consider than just bringing the troops from over seas bases home.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by bobs_uruncle

 

Dear bobs_uruncle,

I hope I'm not one of the psychopaths that need to be cleaned from the gene pool? Oh, wait a second, I'm 60. The gene pool doesn't care about me anymore. Whew, I'm safe.

Would you do me the favor of checking my thinking on some numbers? Now I don't really care much if I'm exact, but I'd like to be in the right order of magnitude.

We take in about $3.5 trillion and spend about $5 trillion. We're running an average annual deficit of $1.5 trillion over the last four years. To eliminate the debt in 10 years we'd need an additional $1.5 trillion each year.

To accomplish all this, we would have to double the total income of the US government for each of the next ten years and not increase spending even a drop. Sorry, I don't see any way at all to do this, unless they confiscate everything everybody earns.

With respect,
Charles1952

Are you psychopathic or a banker Charles? If you answer yes to both those questions, you probably aren't LOL. Sociopaths and psychopaths generally believe they aren't. And we are all getting up there, I am not far behind you.

On the numbers, dissolve the FED, return energy control, prisons, education, etc. back to the government, meaning kill the privatization as it has been the death of countries and colonies. Get some income reform going on government employees, especially senators and congressmen, anyone with a ridiculous "golden parachute." Stop the corporate welfare program! That will I believe increase the governments income by something in the range of 1.5 to 2.0 trillion, shut down most of the offshore military bases and pull back from all the rediculous wars, that should free up another trillion or so. Penalize companies for going offshore with jobs rather than rewarding them as is presently done. Put money back into the manufacturing sector and increase the job base to increase tax revenues. I would have to run all the numbers and if I have the time I'll do it and lay down what might be an effective plan. Keyword there would be "might." The US government (any government) hides a lot of data and cherry picks numbers according to agenda, so if I get garbage in from government sites, it will unfortunately generate garbage out.

Cheers - Dave

Originally posted by bobs_uruncle

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by bobs_uruncle

 

Even assuming that your percentages are correct, and I don't think they are, you've eliminated 75% of the deficit. That means 25% remains. With that, the debt will continue growing, albeit at a slower pace. The idea of paying off the debt in 10 years is not within the realm of possibility.

So you don't believe that the US could scrape together between 700 billion and 1.5 trillion a year to get rid of the entire debt in 10 years (that is if the debt is actually around 15 trillion)? I think the US can ;-) I don't care about CDS or derivitives, that is not a problem of the US citizens in general terms, that is a greedy bankster problem. So let the chinese and other nations deal with the problems of wall street et al burning them, in a more permanent manner. I think they still hold public executions for mass fraud over there. If I were in power and the chinese wanted the wall street or european or whomever banksters, I send them all and I wouldn't think twice about it.

The gene pool must be cleaned of psychopaths from time to time with the chlorine of plumbers, scrub brushes of maintenance personnel and the occasional toilet snake.

Cheers - Dave

OK, we are running a deficit of 1.2 trillion a year. The debt is almost 16.5 trillion. To pay down 1.5 trillion a year that would require an additional 2.7 trillion a year.

The entire federal income - all taxes is only 2.2 trillion. Taxes cannot be raised that much - the economy would simply stop functioning - and that assumes you can keep the interest rates where they are now - and that is impossible for 10 years.

So to answer your question - NO it is not remotely possible to pay off the debt in 10 years. Maybe it could be done in 70 or 80 years if everyone actually wanted to do it. But almost nobody does, no politician wants to cut any spending, because they are far more concerned about getting reelected than doing the right thing for the country.

Actually attempting to pay it down would be the wrong thing for the country at this point. We would be far better off declaring a chapter 7 bankruptcy over a chapter 13 because several future generations would be made to suffer for something they had no hand in. Quite frankly anyone that has bought US debt the last 4 years deserves to lose money - It was a stupid investment that they deserve to take a loss on, because it was clear then the debt would never be paid off.

I'm betting a big gas tax being the price is low whats another fifty cents a gallon thats one of the things coming our way.

reply to post by bobs_uruncle

Dear bobs_uruncle,

I'm neither a banker or a psychopath. If I were a banker, I'd have money, and if I were a psychopath, I'd be quite happy with life. As my mini-profile says, I'm just a guy.

I'm grateful for your long list of ideas on balancing everything and paying off the debt. May I take a quick look at them?

Dissolving the Fed confuses me. My understanding is that it's a controversial issue with various factions saying it's good or bad. First, I can't see anything on the horizon that makes such a dissolution politically possible. Second, I don't think anyone's got an accurate figure on how much such an action might cost or save.

Get some income reform going on government employees, especially senators and congressmen, anyone with a ridiculous "golden parachute." Stop the corporate welfare program! That will I believe increase the governments income by something in the range of 1.5 to 2.0 trillion, . Penalize companies for going offshore with jobs rather than rewarding them as is presently done.

Ok, so your first idea is to raise taxes anywhere you can think of, because that's what all these ideas are.

return energy control, prisons, education, etc. back to the government, meaning kill the privatization as it has been the death of countries and colonies.

The vast majority of prisons and schools, at least through high school, are already government owned. So it seems that your suggestion is for the government to take over any large and useful industries, thinking, I suppose, that the government will be more efficient and less costly?

shut down most of the offshore military bases and pull back from all the rediculous wars, that should free up another trillion or so

Shutting down the entire military completely won't save more than $800 million. Is that what you're suggesting?

And, finally, for whatever businesses you haven't nationalized,

Put money back into the manufacturing sector and increase the job base to increase tax revenues.

Let's spend money in places that the private sector doesn't think is profitable enough to invest in themselves. Sounds like Solyndra. Besides, we're raising revenue here, not spending.

So, altogether, the plan is to raise taxes, confiscate businesses, and shut down the military. That might not be politically popular.

I like your heart and the fact that you're concerned, but we might have to try a different path.

With respect,
Charles1952