• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

So someone explain to me how we get a balanced budget

http://useconomy.about.com/od/usfederalbudget/p/FY-2010-Federal-Budget.htm

2010: 2.2 trillion in revenue, 3.5 million in expense. Meaning we need to cut 33% of our spending to get back to break even, correct? Is this roughly accurate or am I missing something major.

Seems like we're really fucked, huh?

You are missing something major. Economic growth of around 3-4% per annum would close the deficit significantly. Tax receipts will skyrocket, outlays will decrease as unemployment and other benefits for the poor fall. There still needs to be cuts and reforms, but the most significant obstacles to a balanced budget are a byzantine regulatory regime and tax code, a lack of credit, and a household and government debt overhang, all of which are interrelated.
 
You are missing something major. Economic growth of around 3-4% per annum would close the deficit significantly. Tax receipts will skyrocket, outlays will decrease as unemployment and other benefits for the poor fall. There still needs to be cuts and reforms, but the most significant obstacles to a balanced budget are a byzantine regulatory regime and tax code, a lack of credit, and a household and government debt overhang, all of which are interrelated.

Good post. Whatever happens this November, the economy should continue to uncoil by the end of the next term. Either it's going to uncoil b/c Romney will repeal Obamacare (and hiring will resume when pent up demand is released) or because the other shoe on Obamacare will finally drop and people will be able to assess where we are on its real costs.
 
Those numbers are highly suspect.

Yeah, and some actual choices aren't included. However, I think it's good as a way of thinking about where the choices are. Just a serviceable exercise.

It's not like I'm linking to Pete Peterson's toy because he and I are ideological bros.
 
You are missing something major. Economic growth of around 3-4% per annum would close the deficit significantly. Tax receipts will skyrocket, outlays will decrease as unemployment and other benefits for the poor fall. There still needs to be cuts and reforms, but the most significant obstacles to a balanced budget are a byzantine regulatory regime and tax code, a lack of credit, and a household and government debt overhang, all of which are interrelated.

This. Growth is the way out.

You've left off any urban issues. The inefficiencies of suburbia have real economic consequences.
 
LOL. Seems like I've heard that one before....going all the way back to Reagan.

Republicans like to talk a lot about cutting spending....usually just before elections. Then, after the election is over, they forget about everything they said before the election.....unless the Democrats win, of course, in which case they keep talking about it. Don't believe me? Were you alive and in the country during the six years from 2001 thru 2006?

I don't know of many true conservatives who were happy with Bush's spending. The solution to that is not give the reigns of power to someone who is even worse. Obama has made Bush look like an amateur when it comes to deficit spending. Trillions of dollars added to the national debt say hello.
 
I don't know of many true conservatives who were happy with Bush's spending. The solution to that is not give the reigns of power to someone who is even worse. Obama has made Bush look like an amateur when it comes to deficit spending. Trillions of dollars added to the national debt say hello.

No true Scotsman fallacy.

And much of the trillions of added debt comes from the continuation of Bush policies:

6-21-11bud-test-f2.jpg
 
Last edited:
Bush spending post catastrophe made Bush spending pre-catastrophe look like an amateur.
 
You are missing something major. Economic growth of around 3-4% per annum would close the deficit significantly. Tax receipts will skyrocket, outlays will decrease as unemployment and other benefits for the poor fall. There still needs to be cuts and reforms, but the most significant obstacles to a balanced budget are a byzantine regulatory regime and tax code, a lack of credit, and a household and government debt overhang, all of which are interrelated.

yes, this.

how to deal with this is the crux of the biscuit, as it were. gutting government spending on medicare and medicaid to force bootstraps doesn't do jack shit to household debt and loss of home values, yet the drumbeat goes on. neither does the systematic elimination of unions and collective bargaining.

correcting outdated regulations with modernized and efficient ones, correcting outdated taxation with a more progressive and efficient one would be tremendous, I agree.

But the certainty that the cash-flush private sector craves will come from confidence in a government that cooperates and is consistent, goddamnit.
 
Do you even read what you post?

Who was in control of Congress -- for the first time since the 1950s -- when that Democrat president was leaving surpluses? But it was the big bad Congress's fault that the surpluses went away...even though it was controlled by the same party. So which is it...is it the president that has the power to create surplusses and deficits or is it the party in charge of Congress? And who's to blame when the Congress is split? Doesn't seem to be any logical connection to any of this.

And it is false that the GOP controlled both houses of Congress from 2001-2006.

1995-1996 -- Senate R, House R; D president
1997-1998 -- R, R; D president
1999-2000 -- R, R; D president
2001-2002 -- D, then R for a few months, then back to D; R; R president
2003-2004 -- R, R; R president
2005-2006 -- R, R; R president
2007-2008 -- D, D; R president
2009-2010 -- D, D; D president
2011-2012 -- D, R; D president

Organize your excuses and misstatements accordingly. Seems like almost all possible combinations are covered here.

Your partisan suppositions are without fact or merit -- that's about the only thing you got right.
 
Back
Top