The General
Footballguy
What was the deficit doing after Obama dodged putting us into huge recession with stimulus packages (a necessity and started under W)?
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
The deficit is over a trillion dollars a year. (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
The Commish
Footballguy
I think you do. If you really don't it's because looking at the details and understanding the circumstances prevents a genuine apples to apples comparison of the situation. If you keep it at "this number is bigger than that number" and don't dig any further it provides for a perceived better talking point....ignorance is bliss.
msommer
Footballguy
You may have been told that there would be no math but 25% is not half of 37%.
So, are you going to answer the question?
The Commish
Footballguy
You have certainly stayed consistent in this narrative. The problem is the "national debt addition" is far greater every year so far than "the last year Obama added". He had a $585 billion deficit in his last year. Each deficit since is as follows: $665B, $779B, $1T+ (projected in 2019). So, in TWO years, this administration has almost doubled the deficit of Obama's last year and this was all done during a blistering hot economy where deficits should be melting away....at worst remaining similar.
Yes, I am assuming you are, again, using "debt" where you should be using "deficit" because hoping that the national debt stops dead in it's tracks and doesn't go any higher than it was the day Obama left office simply ignores how interest works, so I'm trying to work with you here. By the standard you set forth in this post, this can be labeled damn near anything but a huge success.
Gawain
Footballguy
Ugh math
So at 37% of 1.6T, your source has the USA spending 592B.
To make that 25% of world expenditure, we're down to 360B spend on a world expenditure of 1.44T
This would be a 39% reduction in military spend. So the USA would still be below India, Russia and SA in terms of % of GDP spent for military and on par with China.
That 232B dollars is almost enough to completely defund the Navy, so for that money we have the ability to put aircraft carriers in multiple regional hot spots, such as Taiwan and the Persian Gulf.
We want the Navy and the ability to project force, so maybe we end all ISIS activities and Overseas fundings and recoup 74 Billion. Only 158 billion more to cut. The total Army budget is 194B, so we could reduce to 1/6 of the size. Probably not the answer we want. Air Force is 134B, we could just rely on Naval planes...
If just want to cut evenly, there are about 1.32M active duty across all 4 branches, so we could kick 330K active duty folks out of service.
I'd rather keep our volunteer army and look for efficiencies in the entitlement programs that are 4X the above spend.
ETA: I actually had world spend rising a bit as well. If it's a pure drop, we're down to a USA spend of 337B on a global spend of 1.345T and we can eliminate the entire nuclear triad as well.
Last edited by a moderator:
You baffle me. Several weeks ago in the debt thread I proposed raising taxes (funneling 50% of proceeds to debt/deficit reduction), cutting the military by 10% and putting a temporary moratorium on discretionary spending until the debt/deficit was somewhat under control. I pointed out that would mean a period of reduced growth/economic contraction.
You trashed the idea saying we couldn't arbitrarily cut military spending and we needed to spend gazillions on climate change, health care, etc.
So instead of starting yet another Trump-bashing thread (yes, saying "wasn't great but now it's exploded" is passive-aggressive Trump-bashing), maybe put forth a practical idea or two?
zoonation
Footballguy
In the beginning, I "credit" Bush. Obama inherited a total mess and they had to spend to get out of it. But as the economy recovered and grew, the deficit came way down. Like Tim said, I think it got as low as 400 million.
Then Trump inherits an economy that is humming, but spends like a drunken sailor and takes in less revenue by way of taxes so the rich can get even richer. His long term "plan", if you can even call it that, is to totally gut entitlements and other government programs. Totally gut them. After he gets re-elected though. No way those deep cuts start before 2020.
It was all there in his budget.
Stealthycat
Footballguy
Stealthycat
Footballguy
cut everything 10% across the board, spending ..... remove programs that are useless
don't touch taxation - that never solves debt
zoonation
Footballguy
Like I said, initially the Obama administration had to spend a lot to stimulate (and bail out) the economy, which was in a massive recession. I think between 2008-11 the deficit was as high as 1.4 trillion annually. But as the economy grew, that number came way down.
Trump inherited a hot economy and has more than doubled the deficits that Obama was running at the end of his term.
Last edited by a moderator:
Disagree. That is a GOP sales tactic.
Besides, simple logic would say that if (and the CBO agrees) tax cuts results in increased deficits, then the opposite would be true (earmarked specifically toward debt reduction).
msommer
Footballguy
They will be refreshed after 4 years where they shamefully redistributed wealth back to the rich. Rinse and repeat.
The Commish
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
What do you mean by this? Deficits and debt occur when you spend more than you have/take in. When you reduce how much you take in, it is a direct impact to your debt issue. Conversely, if you raise taxes and keep spending the same, that increases the amount you're taking in and allows a surplus to begin to pay off the debt. This can also be achieved by spending less at existing levels. Problem with the second part is that's not going to be true for much longer as interest payments continue to get larger and larger.
Stealthycat
Footballguy
show me where raising taxes actually helped lower debt ........ I'll wait, because when there is more money coming in, Govts at every level simple spend it (and more)
skol asylum
Footballguy
Obama vs Trump in 15 charts:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/08/20/trump-v-obama-economy-charts/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/08/20/trump-v-obama-economy-charts/
dkp993
Footballguy
skol asylum
Footballguy
The federal government spends regardless of how much money is coming in so this argument doesn't make alot of sense.
Obviously a combination of tax increases and spending cuts is needed. Tax those that can afford it to lessen the effect on the economy. That 1% that hold 50% or whatever the latest numbers are is extremely unhealthy for the economy. They can afford to shoulder more of the burden. Cut spending in areas where it affects less people. Military spending as mentioned many times is ridiculously out of control. Start there.
Long Ball Larry
Footballguy
sho nuff
Footballguy
Exactly...and its not a zero sum thing either. Providing a better trained and educated work force is beneficial to the nation. But yeah...free college overall is ridiculous. Ive been on the trade school/community college thing for a while and still think that is where the focus should be. And agree with KD on incentivizing teachers.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
There is an inverse correlation between taxes and spending. This is the original, but several have tried to dismiss the idea by rerunning the numbers and so far the hypothesis has held.
If you discount government, people demand more of it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hawkeye21
Footballguy
How would the incentives or subsidies work for people going into teaching? I think this could be beneficial but I also worry about some possible negatives.
Steve Tasker
Footballguy
dkp993
Footballguy
E Street Brat
Footballguy
Hawkeye21
Footballguy
When it comes to teachers my biggest concern is if it would lower the quality of teachers. The thing with most teachers now is that you know almost all do it out of the love for teaching young people. I'd be a little concerned that some would do it more for the incentives. This is just a theory though, it may not actually happen.
dkp993
Footballguy
Fair concern, the flip side is there are lots of people who would make great teachers but choose to do it in other fields that earn better money.
Hawkeye21
Footballguy
I agree. As long as the benefits outweigh the negatives it could certainly be worth doing.
E Street Brat
Footballguy
Okay, lets do this, Be forewarned it's gonna hurt.
Kill the baseline spending increase.
Reduce Military by 20%
Reduce all other government spending by 10%
No new spending.
Corporate tax rate up to 20%
Tax Cap Gains at the same rate as income.
Increase all tax brackets by 4%
Kill the EIC
Kill the home mortgage deduction
Kill all charitable deductions,
Stick with this plan until the debt is paid, then institute a balanced budget +/- 5% amendment.
Kill the baseline spending increase.
Reduce Military by 20%
Reduce all other government spending by 10%
No new spending.
Corporate tax rate up to 20%
Tax Cap Gains at the same rate as income.
Increase all tax brackets by 4%
Kill the EIC
Kill the home mortgage deduction
Kill all charitable deductions,
Stick with this plan until the debt is paid, then institute a balanced budget +/- 5% amendment.
Not a bad start. Military can be cut more. And the cap on payroll taxes should either be eliminated or at least phased back in for very high earners.
But I can't get behind a constitutional amendment. Need the freedom to deficit spend to fight a recession.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
I'm actually good with most of this...I always get nervous when we start messing with the real estate business. I might be more inclined to increase the % on corp tax rates and military spending and forego messing with mortgage deduction.
E Street Brat
Footballguy
E Street Brat
Footballguy
As a recent first time home owner i don't like it either but it's gotta be equally painful for all. Class warfare is killing us.
To use a round number, let's call the budget 4T. 5% gives you $200B. If we see something like 2008 again that's an absurdly small stimulus.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
I am practically there. We will never be able to reduce spending. Look at the hysteria when govt workers get furloughed for a couple weeks that they usually will end up getting paid for.
At this point screw it. Spend spend spend. Lets have some fun and give everybody lots of free stuff.
timschochet
Footballguy
First off I think Trump should be bashed for cutting taxes. Again and again and again. It was a dumb idea and he pushed it through and he’s awful. So I don’t mind starting new threads bashing him. Not the main point of this thread but if Trump gets bashed along the way fine by me.
Second I didn’t so much trash your idea as I pointed out my concerns about it. I’m concerned about the effect of spending cuts. I agree we need to have some but I don’t know where. And I have no practical solutions to offer. I’m honestly flummoxed.
The solutions offered by E Street Brat for example: I agree with some, disagree with others. But it doesn’t matter. All of us know no Congress will dare make such cuts, or such large tax hikes, because the public will NEVER accept them. The main reason we’re in this situation in the first place is because politicians feared, correctly, that the public would refuse to accept minor tax hikes and minor cuts. Now they’re going to accept major ones? Not a chance. They’ll throw these guys out of office and elect more Trumps with false promises.
Thunderlips
Footballguy
E Street Brat
Footballguy
I see your point. I didn't look at the math and I'm talking budget not a full scale FED Reserve rescue like in 2008.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Then a single flat tax rate. Make it on consumption if you'd prefer and buy into the FairTax reasoning, but it needs to be significantly higher than 23%. Maybe as high as 60% as the study that Hillary quoted in 2008 stated (but for different reasons).
Replace all non healthcare, non education welfare spending/tax expenditures both for individuals and corporations including Social Security with a basic, minimum income. Whether it is poverty level or "living wage" can be debated. To keep the promise of SS add a "retirement bonus" which helps us all.
Replace the hodge podge of spending for healthcare with a program where base level premiums come out of taxes. If you think that private insurers can offer better policies for the same as an enhanced Medicare for All than allow private companies to run qualifying plans like the current Medicare Advantage plans.
Replace government spending on college education by creating an education account for every child that is funded using the difference between the UBI payment to a single adult and the UBI payment made for a dependent child. Make this available for college (or trade school or other equivalent) education anytime. For those that never or only partially tap into it for education, set an age where they can start to tap into it for other purposes . Obviously this will need to be phased in over 18 years or so.
Sure there is still other spending - K-12 education, infrastructure, defense, etc. some of which are federal, some not but I think the four items above would go a long way to leveling the playing field economically, creates and environment to unleash the creative forces into society, removes the simply lazy from getting in the way of the workforce, and creates a decisive victory for the class war.
So which side wins the call war here ?
They would all win!
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Social Security: 1 Trillion: funded entirely by a dedicated payroll tax.
Medicare: 645 Billion, but 367 Billion of that is funded by a dedicated payroll tax
I'm not sure where your 3.3T number comes from; the numbers in your link indicate 2.8T or so. Almost half of which is funded by dedicated taxes.
What else are you including in your $3.3T number?
Not to ignore the rest of your response...but it doesn't matter? I completely disagree with the bolded. I also disagree with the defeatist approach.
Fundamentally the vast majority of Americans are sensible people that understand math and the principles/consequences of going into debt. As well as the principles associated with getting out of it. That is not naivete talking.
It happened all across the country during the financial crisis, specifically within many organizations that were overleveraged. People are more than willing to sacrifice (e.g. salaries frozen) individually when an organization is in peril as long as there is leadership who is a) in the boat sacrificing right along with them and b) developing a sensible plan forward.
Yes. It is a chicken/egg situation in that we elect our own officials. But if Congress/Presidency leads responsibly the public will follow (obviously that last part is not intended to be patronizing).
Gawain
Footballguy
Back of envelope math was 2.78T (Mandatory entitlement) + 1.36 T (Discretionary) - .72T (Dept Defense) - .09T (VA) - .05T (Home Sec)
The Commish
Footballguy
Perhaps a better approach is to change the way we collect tax revenue completely...switching to a consumption tax rather than an antiquated payroll tax.
whoknew
Footballguy
"It sucked for me so it should suck for you too" is not a very persuasive argument.
A much better argument, in my opinion, is that forgiving debt isn't a very efficient use of government funds. If you want to help the poor, give them money. But determining who is poor by measuring college loan debt is a very terrible way to do that.
E Street Brat
Footballguy
I'm on board with that, and have brought it up in other threads. Simplify the tax code and switch the IRS into a government spending auditor. This will keep a lot of people employed and can pay their own way by removing waste
jonessed
Footballguy
We didn’t really dodge a huge recession. There was a huge recession. Perhaps we dodged it being “huger”. Hard to say.
2009 $1.4T
2010 $1.3T
2011 $1.3T
2012 $1.1T
2013 $0.7T
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
So I started two threads today: the deficit is over a trillion dollars a year, and Bernie Sanders proposes a 16 trillion dollar plan to fight climate change.
It occurs to me that these two central issues, the national debt and climate change, are speeding towards each other like two runaway trains on the same track...
It occurs to me that these two central issues, the national debt and climate change, are speeding towards each other like two runaway trains on the same track...
Similar threads
