Bill Kristol tells GOP to come back to the table.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

I'm guessing he means the actual Federal government which has added jobs under Obama?

There were less than 50,000 federal jobs added under Obama. That's a paltry 1.6% increase in total federal employment levels over the course of several years. That's hardly the numbers you'd expect from a bloated, out of control government or a committed socialist.

Nor does the essentially flat federal government employment numbers change the fact that 600,000+ government jobs have been eliminated since Obama took office.

Federal Government Employees January 2009: 2,748,978
Federal Government Employees December 2011*: 2,793,424

* Most current data short of running reports on the BLS's website.

Nomad wrote:

Pork barrel spending chart

Our total federal spending in 2008 was $2.9 trillion, Nomad. Eliminating all $17 billion of so-called pork barrel spending wouldn't have even made a dent in $450 billion deficit we had that year.

Nor can you really focus on that anymore considering that the Citizens Against Government Waste folks only found $3.3 billion in pork out of $2.5 trillion the government spent in 2012.

Pork barrel spending may enrage you, but it isn't what is causing our government's financial problems.

Nomad wrote:

Spending chart

About half of all government spending is on mandatory programs, Nomad. Social Security, Medicare, and the interest on our national debt. I've yet to hear any serious plan from the GOP that actually addresses those budget items that doesn't effectively involve destroying those programs.

The other half of our government spending goes to discretionary spending, which makes up all the programs and departments the average person images about when they think about the government. Half of that goes to the military.

The rest goes to everything from NASA to the EPA to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and everything in between. As Robear pointed out, spending on those non-military programs have declined dramatically over the past decade while military and security spending has more than doubled.

Again, I've yet to hear from conservatives how they are going to reign in military spending. In fact, I've only heard the opposite: conservatives want shunt all of the sequestration cuts to non-military discretionary spending.

That means each department that is affected(not all are) gets to decide where to cut back.

I talked about this on MeFi a couple of years ago... here's a somewhat edited version of that post:

Selfless bureaucrats cut the fat first, and they tend not to prosper over the long term in government, because their departments shrink to the minimum possible size. But raises and promotions are almost always based on the size of the department they've been running. The people that are good at actually removing waste from the system are directly penalized for doing so, and are less likely to be promoted into larger departments.

Smart, successful bureaucrats, when asked to cut their departments, will always cut essential services first, and hold back as much of the waste as possible. Why? Because it makes the cuts as painful as possible to the rest of the organization, which means they're more likely to have their budgets maintained and their tiny fiefdoms continued. Their departments stay larger, so they're paid more, and are considered better prospects for promotions into even bigger departments.

This happens in private industry too, but there are limits to how wasteful a non-monopoly organization can be. Eventually, mismanagement will kill a private company, but government-funded bureaucracies can get enormously more dysfunctional before failing.

Nomad wrote:

The whole point of that chart is to show that the spending problem is not solely a Democratic or Republican issue. Just look at the next line on the chart after the one you are referring to Cheeze.

If you're only looking at a line, you're reading that chart wrong. You're supposed to look at the lines, plural, aren't you? The ratio of the lighter colored line to the darker colored line? What I'm seeing is that the lowest ratio is right at the end of seven years of budgets under a Democrat President, and the highest is after eight years of a Republican President. And then the ratio gets smaller under the new Democrat President.

That pretty much confirms it's a Republican issue.

Of course, that chart oversimplifies things but as far as you asking us to look at these charts, I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

Nomad wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

You mean the one where GDP went up more than the expenditures?

Seriously?

Yes, the one where expenditures so far outweigh the tax revenue that we continue to bury ourselves in trillions of dollars in debt. That's the one. :)

I don't see anything on that chart about tax revenue--if you want to make a point about tax revenue weighed against expenditures, why did you link a chart that shows the ratio between GDP and tax expenditures instead? Especially considering the general link between higher GDP = higher tax revenues? I think you're having a chart issue here in that people are seeing things you didn't realize were there.

In fact, speaking of tax revenue vs. spending, to go back to an earlier chart:

IMAGE(http://i1094.photobucket.com/albums/i453/czpv/CompFAIL_zps9c74252c.jpg)

the "Prevent Spending Cuts" part looks kinda tiny compared to the "Extend Tax Cuts" part.

Oh, and I should also mention: all of this argument that we're doing is pointless.

Why? Not because we're powerless to change things, because we do have a little power. Rather, it's because these numbers are lies. They are cash-basis accounting, being used for the most complex fiscal entity ever created by humanity. You must use accrual accounting to understand the real fiscal position of the government, but they (very deliberately) do not do so.

So we're just flailing uselessly with bad data. Without GAAP accounting, the standard to which we hold corporations, any argument we might have is wasted time. We're arguing about grains of sand on the beach, and we can't see the tsunami that's coming.

CheezePavilion wrote:
Nomad wrote:

The whole point of that chart is to show that the spending problem is not solely a Democratic or Republican issue. Just look at the next line on the chart after the one you are referring to Cheeze.

If you're only looking at a line, you're reading that chart wrong. You're supposed to look at the lines, plural, aren't you? The ratio of the lighter colored line to the darker colored line? What I'm seeing is that the lowest ratio is right at the end of seven years of budgets under a Democrat President, and the highest is after eight years of a Republican President. And then the ratio gets smaller under the new Democrat President.

That pretty much confirms it's a Republican issue.

Of course, that chart oversimplifies things but as far as you asking us to look at these charts, I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

You can't be serious. Even if the one side did spend a little more than the other, the numbers are so close its negligible. They are all guilty of gross financial misconduct.

edit responding to edit:

Cheeze wrote:

the "Prevent Spending Cuts" part looks kinda tiny compared to the "Extend Tax Cuts" part.

Which is why both cuts and tax increases are needed.

That's true, by the way, for Congress, too. Their arguments are useless, because they're using this same bad data. It's pure fiction. We're accumulating liabilities at tremendous speed that do not yet show in the deficit, but would most certainly show in an accrual system.

That's why they don't use an accrual system.

Nomad wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

Of course, that chart oversimplifies things but as far as you asking us to look at these charts, I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

You can't be serious. Even if the one side did spend a little more than the other, the numbers are so close its negligible. They are all guilty of gross financial misconduct.

32.6 vs. 44.7 is negligible?

Nomad wrote:

edit responding to edit:

Cheeze wrote:

the "Prevent Spending Cuts" part looks kinda tiny compared to the "Extend Tax Cuts" part.

Which is why both cuts and tax increases are needed.

Please explain why they are both needed. Not that they will both be effective--don't go moving the goalposts on me--explain to me why they are both needed.

CheezePavilion wrote:
Nomad wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

Of course, that chart oversimplifies things but as far as you asking us to look at these charts, I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

You can't be serious. Even if the one side did spend a little more than the other, the numbers are so close its negligible. They are all guilty of gross financial misconduct.

32.6 vs. 44.7 is negligible?

Nomad wrote:

edit responding to edit:

Cheeze wrote:

the "Prevent Spending Cuts" part looks kinda tiny compared to the "Extend Tax Cuts" part.

Which is why both cuts and tax increases are needed.

Please explain why they are both needed. Not that they will both be effective--don't go moving the goalposts on me--explain to me why they are both needed.

No one that I know is interested in paying more into an entity that has enormous amounts of waste and mismanagement.

Nomad wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Nomad wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

Of course, that chart oversimplifies things but as far as you asking us to look at these charts, I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

You can't be serious. Even if the one side did spend a little more than the other, the numbers are so close its negligible. They are all guilty of gross financial misconduct.

32.6 vs. 44.7 is negligible?

Nomad wrote:

edit responding to edit:

Cheeze wrote:

the "Prevent Spending Cuts" part looks kinda tiny compared to the "Extend Tax Cuts" part.

Which is why both cuts and tax increases are needed.

Please explain why they are both needed. Not that they will both be effective--don't go moving the goalposts on me--explain to me why they are both needed.

No one that I know is interested in paying more into an entity that has enormous amounts of waste and mismanagement.

You need to get out more, then

Nomad wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Nomad wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

Of course, that chart oversimplifies things but as far as you asking us to look at these charts, I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

You can't be serious. Even if the one side did spend a little more than the other, the numbers are so close its negligible. They are all guilty of gross financial misconduct.

32.6 vs. 44.7 is negligible?

Nomad wrote:

edit responding to edit:

Cheeze wrote:

the "Prevent Spending Cuts" part looks kinda tiny compared to the "Extend Tax Cuts" part.

Which is why both cuts and tax increases are needed.

Please explain why they are both needed. Not that they will both be effective--don't go moving the goalposts on me--explain to me why they are both needed.

No one that I know is interested in paying more into an entity that has enormous amounts of waste and mismanagement.

So we're talking about emotional needs, not fiscal ones.

CheezePavilion wrote:

So we're talking about emotional needs, not fiscal ones.

Best summation of our current budget if I have ever seen one.

CheezePavilion wrote:
Nomad wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Nomad wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

Of course, that chart oversimplifies things but as far as you asking us to look at these charts, I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

You can't be serious. Even if the one side did spend a little more than the other, the numbers are so close its negligible. They are all guilty of gross financial misconduct.

32.6 vs. 44.7 is negligible?

Nomad wrote:

edit responding to edit:

Cheeze wrote:

the "Prevent Spending Cuts" part looks kinda tiny compared to the "Extend Tax Cuts" part.

Which is why both cuts and tax increases are needed.

Please explain why they are both needed. Not that they will both be effective--don't go moving the goalposts on me--explain to me why they are both needed.

No one that I know is interested in paying more into an entity that has enormous amounts of waste and mismanagement.

So we're talking about emotional needs, not fiscal ones.

Do you even know the definition of the word fiscal?

fis·cal
/ˈfiskəl/
Adjective

Of or relating to government revenue, esp. taxes.
Of or relating to financial matters.

We need a legitimate governmental audit, not a therapist.

Hang on - you could tax the top like 2-3% at 100% and not close the gap, correct? So if the goal is bridging the spending gap, you either need both, or you just need spending.

Nomad wrote:

No one that I know is interested in paying more into an entity that has enormous amounts of waste and mismanagement.

And your proof that there's enormous waste and mismanagement at all levels of government is what exactly?

It's really hard to take conservatives serious with claims like that when the one department that is actually full of waste and mismanagement is the one they are always willing to dump more and more money into: Defense. That department doesn't even have basic accounting controls in place and cannot pass an audit of its finances (nor is it expected to before 2017).

OG_slinger wrote:
Nomad wrote:

No one that I know is interested in paying more into an entity that has enormous amounts of waste and mismanagement.

And your proof that there's enormous waste and mismanagement at all levels of government is what exactly?

It's really hard to take conservatives serious with claims like that when the one department that is actually full of waste and mismanagement is the one they are always willing to dump more and more money into: Defense. That department doesn't even have basic accounting controls in place and cannot pass an audit of its finances (nor is it expected to before 2017).

I think you may be lumping me into the wrong group. I'm all for a legitimate audit of defense spending as well.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

Hang on - you could tax the top like 2-3% at 100% and not close the gap, correct? So if the goal is bridging the spending gap, you either need both, or you just need spending.

But so long as the main budgetary offenders are off limits, by and large, then the solution is pointless.

Heaven help me, I am agreeing with Rick Santorum here:

"Last night's actions in the House and Senate were only our elected officials kicking the can down the road rather than make meaningful changes on spending cuts and tax reforms. As well-intentioned as it may be, the compromise passed by the Senate and House is at best a short-term band-aid and at worst a prescription for further economic decline in our country," he said in a statement.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/...

I am not going to argue that a punt is worse than nothing. But this deal is a punt. If The House and Senate keep faffing about, god help us until 2014, we face a far worse situation.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

Hang on - you could tax the top like 2-3% at 100% and not close the gap, correct? So if the goal is bridging the spending gap, you either need both, or you just need spending.

Yeah, I don't see any real solution that doesn't involve both tax increases and spending cuts. It's only a question of how much of each and what form they should take.

Nomad wrote:

I think you may be lumping me into the wrong group. I'm all for a legitimate audit of defense spending as well.

No, I think I'm lumping you in the right group.

An attempted audit of the DoD back under Clinton found that the DoD couldn't account for $2.3 trillion--or 25%--of its spending. Just imagine how big that number's gotten since we've jammed another $6 trillion through that broken system over the past decade.

If you were actually concerned with government waste, you would be calling for heads to roll at the Pentagon instead of posting charts about $17 billion in so-called pork barrel spending from four years ago.

When conservatives get as wound up about military spending as they do for social safety net spending I'll start to pay attention to them. But until then they are just stuck in an ideological loop: they hate government spending, but love the military.

Nomad wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Nomad wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Nomad wrote:

edit responding to edit:

Cheeze wrote:

the "Prevent Spending Cuts" part looks kinda tiny compared to the "Extend Tax Cuts" part.

Which is why both cuts and tax increases are needed.

Please explain why they are both needed. Not that they will both be effective--don't go moving the goalposts on me--explain to me why they are both needed.

No one that I know is interested in paying more into an entity that has enormous amounts of waste and mismanagement.

So we're talking about emotional needs, not fiscal ones.

Do you even know the definition of the word fiscal?

fis·cal
/ˈfiskəl/
Adjective

Of or relating to government revenue, esp. taxes.
Of or relating to financial matters.

We need a legitimate governmental audit, not a therapist. :)

Look, I don't enjoy arguing semantics, so just tell me how your level of emotional interest is relevant to the math of balancing a budget.

Unfortunately, people who don't have close contact with the government have no idea how much effort has gone into and continues to go into reducing WFA. It's frustrating; it's just "oh, all religions are out to make money off the sheeple" or "all businesses lie to, cheat and steal from their customers". It's a convenient way to brush off actually finding out about what's changed in the last few decades, and what still needs to be done.

In other words, we don't even know the state of the government's finances. We simply DO NOT KNOW.

Finding out where we actually stand has to be the major priority. We cannot make intelligent decisions with bad data, and we're being fed bad data.

If The House and Senate keep faffing about, god help us until 2014, we face a far worse situation.

Dude, we already face a far worse situation, we just don't know it because they're not using basic accrual accounting. The problem gets worse every year for the rest of your life. We have taken on staggering obligations. Every January 1, the problem will be worse.

There's a tsunami coming, and we are arguing about the beach.

OG_slinger wrote:
Nomad wrote:

I think you may be lumping me into the wrong group. I'm all for a legitimate audit of defense spending as well.

No, I think I'm lumping you in the right group.

An attempted audit of the DoD back under Clinton found that the DoD couldn't account for $2.3 trillion--or 25%--of its spending. Just imagine how big that number's gotten since we've jammed another $6 trillion through that broken system over the past decade.

If you were actually concerned with government waste, you would be calling for heads to roll at the Pentagon instead of posting charts about $17 billion in so-called pork barrel spending from four years ago.

When conservatives get as wound up about military spending as they do for social safety net spending I'll start to pay attention to them. But until then they are just stuck in an ideological loop: they hate government spending, but love the military.

No, you aren't. I'd love to see some proverbial heads roll at the Pentagon.

It's not like not knowing will stop anyone from making catastrophic predictions in bold and CAPS. You don't need real information for hyperbole.

Jayhawker wrote:

It's not like not knowing will stop anyone from making catastrophic predictions in bold and CAPS. You don't need real information for hyperbole.

True, but it doesn't take a Doctorate in Economics to tell someone that if they continue to spend far more than they receive in income, they are in for some big trouble.

Nomad wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

It's not like not knowing will stop anyone from making catastrophic predictions in bold and CAPS. You don't need real information for hyperbole.

True, but it doesn't take a Doctorate in Economics to tell someone that if they continue to spend far more than they receive in income, they are in for some big trouble.

I guess it takes a doctorate to tell someone how if we receive income from people who are interested in paying, that balances spending different than if they weren't interested?

CheezePavilion wrote:
Nomad wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

It's not like not knowing will stop anyone from making catastrophic predictions in bold and CAPS. You don't need real information for hyperbole.

True, but it doesn't take a Doctorate in Economics to tell someone that if they continue to spend far more than they receive in income, they are in for some big trouble.

I guess it takes a doctorate to tell someone how if we receive income from people who are interested in paying, that balances spending different than if they weren't interested?

I love to get some type of education in identifying people who just like arguing from ones who actually want to discuss differing opinions in a constructive manner.

Nomad wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Nomad wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

It's not like not knowing will stop anyone from making catastrophic predictions in bold and CAPS. You don't need real information for hyperbole.

True, but it doesn't take a Doctorate in Economics to tell someone that if they continue to spend far more than they receive in income, they are in for some big trouble.

I guess it takes a doctorate to tell someone how if we receive income from people who are interested in paying, that balances spending different than if they weren't interested?

I love to get some type of education in identifying people who just like arguing from ones who actually want to discuss differing opinions in a constructive manner. :P

If they're posting in P&C, usually they're the former

[size=1]I often include myself in the former[/size]

Here's a little more information on WFA reduction. GAO recommended $15B to $20B in possible reductions based on it's 2012 report. That's about 2.5% or 3% of the $600B deal just signed, Nomad. Unless you think that the budget is $200B, a 10% across the board cut will go far, far beyond waste and into useful programs.

It is clear, however, that more savings are to be found even if we consider the limitations GAO acknowledges in their report. Two areas especially ripe for additional scrutiny are defense spending and tax enforcement. In fact, more than one-third of GAO’s recommendations involve either consolidating defense spending or improving Internal Revenue Service tax collection.

The bulk of spending in areas GAO identifies as overlapping falls in defense programs. CAP has suggested several ways the United States can save money on defense spending. We spend close to $250 billion annually on Department of Defense programs that GAO believes could be streamlined. In particular, GAO estimates that realigning DOD’s military medical command structure to consolidate common functions would result in annual savings ranging from $281 million to $460 million. And DOD could save billions of dollars by incorporating a cost-benefit analysis of overseas military presence options prior to realignment and construction.

The potential for savings from eliminating wasteful spending on defense programs far outweighs the potential for savings in other areas.

Robear wrote:

Here's a little more information on WFA reduction. GAO recommended $15B to $20B in possible reductions based on it's 2012 report. That's about 2.5% or 3% of the $600B deal just signed, Nomad. Unless you think that the budget is $200B, a 10% across the board cut will go far, far beyond waste and into useful programs.

It is clear, however, that more savings are to be found even if we consider the limitations GAO acknowledges in their report. Two areas especially ripe for additional scrutiny are defense spending and tax enforcement. In fact, more than one-third of GAO’s recommendations involve either consolidating defense spending or improving Internal Revenue Service tax collection.

The bulk of spending in areas GAO identifies as overlapping falls in defense programs. CAP has suggested several ways the United States can save money on defense spending. We spend close to $250 billion annually on Department of Defense programs that GAO believes could be streamlined. In particular, GAO estimates that realigning DOD’s military medical command structure to consolidate common functions would result in annual savings ranging from $281 million to $460 million. And DOD could save billions of dollars by incorporating a cost-benefit analysis of overseas military presence options prior to realignment and construction.

The potential for savings from eliminating wasteful spending on defense programs far outweighs the potential for savings in other areas.

I think there is a definite distinction between cutting waste, and removing good things we don't have the money for while keeping the better ones funded from the income received, not from increasing debt levels. I support both, with the increase of tax rates as well.