Folks - any deficit reduction number has to be treated with a healthy amount of skepticism regardless of the occupant of the oval office or the composition of the house and senate. The CBO issues reports based on a set of parameters / assumptions that are requested by the individual congressperson or committee that requests the report. This doesn't mean that the CBO report reflects reality. It simply means that, if certain assumptions are true, then "X will be the result."

The bottom line is this: we're spending more than we're taking in. The scale on which this continues to occur produces a budget deficit the size of which the average individual cannot begin to relate to or comprehend. The annual deficit then further balloons the national debt. The size of the national debt is even further beyond the ability of the average person to comprehend.

Both repubs and dems have shown utter contempt for true fiscal restraint. However, of the two, it seems to fall to the party out of power to champion the issue of fiscal restraint. Once that party assumes power, however, any prior comments about restraint or overtures to same are promptly kicked to the curb in favor of consolidating political power.

Shame on all of us for allowing this to continue unabated for so long.

Nicely stated Whell. Sadly, both parties partake in deficit spending. I'd love to see a fiscally conservative party develop. The idiotic social issues that both parties pander to is just misdirection IMHO.

Fiscal policy relates to both revenues and expenditures does it not? Then why is the only issue raised here the level of spending? How does fiscal sanity correlate to a pledge to raise no taxes, including refusing to consider the elimination of tax credits?

Regards,

D-Ray

How about focusing on ways to generate more revenue? What about finding ways to make more money rather than cut? Or have we grown too lazy for that? How about serious cutting of waste and corruption within our institutions instead of simply hacking them off or reducing benefits? Why don't we just stop trying to portray our elderly as "freeloaders"? Is there anything in the Ryan budget about dealing wth the real "welfare" freeloaders? I doubt it. Oh no, instead we focus on giving more to those who have no need of it, at the expense of those on fixed incomes.

But, then, hasn't that been the plan all along?

Dave

Cutting the size of government IS a way to generate more revenue. Cutting taxes IS how to make more money. Simply hacking off many of these institutions IS serious waste cutting. Nobody's portraying Granny as a freeloader. The portrayal is of conservatives throwing her over a cliff.

Are we still relying on the Laffer curve?

Regards,

D-Ray

Don't need a curve, it's common sense. Smaller government means less debt so they don't have to print as much money, devaluing the dollar. Also means less regulation which spurs business growth.
At least with private enterprise there's some competition over who's gonna try to screw ya.

Then, what's up with the Ryan plan to eliminate Medicare? Is that not a program for the elderly? Are we planning to replace it with anything? The language I hear coming from the right, for the last thirty years, paints anyone who recieves anything from the government as a "freeloader" even when they paid into it, or worked for it.

Am I wrong in that?

Dave

I think it's a political characterization to imply that the average conservative would deny citizens benefits they have paid for. That said, the government is the worst bank there is. I'm all for phasing these programs out so people can make free decisions in a competitive market about how to finance retirement and healthcare.
I try to be realistic myself. If it goes to the government, the union, or my wife, I never expect to see a penny of it again.

Face it Don, we're not talking about screwing in a light bulb...and I've seen a lot of very intelligent people turn that into an exercise in FUBAR.

The level of deficit spending that we are currently engaged in, and are projected to be engaged in, deserve a certain level of scrutiny. I believe that in the last week either Little Timmy or Helicopter Ben came out and admitted that their policies of low interest rates combined with the weak dollar are killing savers and those on fixed incomes.

Shit, my dog could have told them that. Besides, they knew it all along, it's just reached the point that they have to admit to it or lose all credibility.

Economics isn't a fixed science. Too many variables, and too many means to respond to any situation.

I'm beginning to view economists as frogs. Their thinking is more of a reactionary nature as opposed to a constructive nature.

Poke 'em with a stick and they'll hop. Shoot 'em in the head and they'll hop halfway out into the pond. The rest of the time they sit there all glassy eyed waiting for something to come along that will fit in their mouth.

And since we're long beyond taxation as being the means to fund the government, it has become no more than the means to reward you friends and control behavior.

Chas