Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

OK, Gnu, I'm with you in completely eliminating every single one of the government programs listed in your article. That will reduce government spending by $120 billion a year.

Now, where do we cut the other $980 billion a year in order to balance the budget?

Are we getting back to "means testing" Social Security and Medicare benefits and reducing defense spending? Where are the other costs totaling $980 billion that are candidates for cutting?

Defense spending, as much as it is hated by so many, is only 2% of the total budget. A popular place to cut, but, as we saw in the first gulf war not very smart to do. It took months to build a sufficient military force, after Clinton decimation of the budget left our services so under staffed and unequipped.

Social Security most certainly needs reform. What started a a security blanket, designed to keep the populace from poverty in retirement after the depression, has grown to another dependency at the government trough. It's the white elephant in the room that nobody wants to address, because it would cause ridicule to whoever broaches the subject and if they are a politician, would cost them their office.

Nobody, including me, wants to see their parents in their 80's, lose any of their meager SS income. But, we do need to change the whole idea of retirement so that Americans don't sit back and expect their SS deductions to be their only means of support in retirement. Retirement is NOT the governments obligation.

There are those among us, through not fault of their own, who were never in a position to support themselves, let alone save for retirement, and I will admit that some kind of support from society is needed. But there are MANY who don't need SS or a simply ripping off the system. (as I wrote in the thread "SS the new welfare". What are the numbers and cost of the people in the US, who never intended to do anything but retire at the governments expense

I personally support "means testing", after, not before the SS waste is eliminated. There was quite a row, between my Father in law and I about the subject, 20 years ago when I brought it up. I felt then, and still do now, that at some income point we need to take care of ourselves. Should we Americans not be self sufficient if possible? It seems not, when the government keeps saying "don't worry I'll provide for you" and generations have become dependent on SS as their savior.

One of the arguments that I hear over and over again is 'it's my money, I worked for it am entitled to it". The BIG ENTITLEMENT mentality!! When your children are out of school do you get tax money back? Do you get your share of defense money back if we're not at war? If you never have a fire do you get a tax refund? No to all I assume. Paying into the government, whether to SS or the general fund, does not guarantee you a return on the money put in. If in your lifetime you didn't have children, or there was no war, our you never needed the fire department, you don't get anything back for your taxes! SS is a TAX. People collecting TODAY are not collecting their own money back, but rely on other earners to pay their way.

As far as the rest of where the government can save, I believe in zero based budgeting. Start with zero and only add what passes the smell test.

I know that I will get a passionate response to my writings, but I am strong in my beliefs and have never backed out of what I believe in.

The only place where we may not agree is on the issue of Social Security. For as long as I have been alive, SS has been a contract between the government and the people based on the 1920-1940 economy. Only a few years ago the US Government changed its civil service retirement system - which formerly did not have SS contribution/deduction - to one which SS is now involved and marketed as one-third of one's overall retirement package.

For many people, SS may not be their only retirement funds, but it is indeed a significant percentage of it. Changing the rules in the middle of the game is just another raping of the little guy who has planned according to what was available.

I can understand that SS needs reformatting, but that should be for those entering the system, not those now getting ready to receive payout.

The reason why SS requires infusion from the General Treasury is because the Social Security Trust Fund has little funds - the moneys received by FICA has been diverted to the General Treasury which has given the SS Trust Fund non-negotiable Treasury Bonds instead. This fiscal sleight-of-hand has not helped the situation at all. But, here was a pile of money that Congress could tap without oversight, and Congress took full advantage of it.

Now, the interest on those Treasury Bonds needs to be paid, and some cashed in. Why is it okay to make sure that Citicorp, Bank of China, Prudential Insurance and others not only get paid, but mega-billion dollar bailouts are to be given to them because they did dumb things. Contrary, the little guy didn't make any mistakes, obeyed the law, paid the FICA each pay period, and now is to get screwed? Sorry, but if we can bail out AIG, FAnnie Mae and others, we are now supposed to tell seniors they don't count?

It's beginning to seem like this society is becoming like "Logan's Run." The most vulnerable of the population - the unborn and the senior citizens - are to be collateral damage in the Generation X's quest for pleasure.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

OK, Gnu, I'm with you in completely eliminating every single one of the government programs listed in your article. That will reduce government spending by $120 billion a year.

Now, where do we cut the other $980 billion a year in order to balance the budget?

Are we getting back to "means testing" Social Security and Medicare benefits and reducing defense spending? Where are the other costs totaling $980 billion that are candidates for cutting?

I just reviewed the numbers from the web site that I posted. The numbers are not $120 BILLION dollars, it's ONE TRILLION, NINE HUNDRED SEVENTY FOUR BILLION, FORTY TWO MILLION, TWO HUNDRED FIFTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS. nO SMALL SUM TO CUT!

[QUOTE=SteveZ;183930]The only place where we may not agree is on the issue of Social Security. For as long as I have been alive, SS has been a contract between the government and the people based on the 1920-1940 economy. Only a few years ago the US Government changed its civil service retirement system - which formerly did not have SS contribution/deduction - to one which SS is now involved and marketed as one-third of one's overall retirement package.


I do agree with your statement and should have filled out my thoughts better after saying I wouldn't want to see my folks hurt by SS cuts. The current recipients beyond a certain age (30ish) have based their retirement on their contract with the government. The rest need to be reset to a self funded retirement system of their choice. It is true that we cannot retroactively dump on a lifetime of expectations, but change has to be made in how we continue into the future.

Now that that's said, means testing can still cut SS costs. There is currently a maximum amount that can be received from SS and I don't see why beyond a maximum amount of retirement income that benefits can't be cut. I don't believe that the introduction of SS into our society in the thirties foresaw the amount of corporate retirement that is available to us today. Upper income people, golfing in Florida, rely on their SS to pay their greens fees! Hardly what was intended by the SS act. There is some level of income where if you can support yourself adequately, for instance above the mean level of retirement income in the US, that your SS benifits be reduce, to wher at some point you receive none at all. Does Warren Buffet need SS? Bill Gates? Corporate execs with golden parachutes in the millions of dollars" I feel not.

[QUOTE=gnu;183948]

Originally Posted by SteveZ

The only place where we may not agree is on the issue of Social Security. For as long as I have been alive, SS has been a contract between the government and the people based on the 1920-1940 economy. Only a few years ago the US Government changed its civil service retirement system - which formerly did not have SS contribution/deduction - to one which SS is now involved and marketed as one-third of one's overall retirement package.


I do agree with your statement and should have filled out my thoughts better after saying I wouldn't want to see my folks hurt by SS cuts. The current recipients beyond a certain age (30ish) have based their retirement on their contract with the government. The rest need to be reset to a self funded retirement system of their choice. It is true that we cannot retroactively dump on a lifetime of expectations, but change has to be made in how we continue into the future.

Social Security reformation is not an impossibility, just as tax reform is not an impossibility. Just like flying to Jupiter is not an impossibility.

Earlier I posted my ideas for budget balancing - what should go and what fiscal restraints are necessary. I stand by those, because I don't see this as "the few funding the many" who may want.

As far as education is concerned, no child should be guaranteed a college education. That just cheapens college worse than it already has been.

Health care (catastrophic) is one thing. Health care (routine) is a personal matter. I know several people who don't have health insurance because it is "too expensive," but at the same time buy a new car every two-three years, have all the latest electronic toys, and manage to vacation in fun spots each year. Why should the person who does not spend their money on the fun stuff and instead does the responsible thing, get stuck with the tab for the good-time-Charlie? It's a matter of choices - and if you make bad ones, take the subsequent hit!

Some people can get very noble about what we should or should not do for our fellow citizens, lawful alien residents and illegal alien trespassers. However, that nobility seems to always be based on "the government" or someone else picking up the tab.

Let's be blunt. The wallet is empty. All this talk about care for this, or need for that, requires money. If we don't have the money, then we don't initiate any new programs, and need to stop funding the fluff stuff.

Sorry about the rambling, but any idea to curtail Social Security, but continue the operation of the Japan-United States Friendship Commission (and other outdated federal agencies) and pay foreign aid to countries who will not take back their citizens who break our laws is utter lunacy.

I don't necessarily agree with all the cuts you suggested, but it's going to be this kind of thinking that will have to take place in Congress if we are ever going to eliminate deficit spending and begin to whittle away at the national debt. Great work! Great list. There are going to need to be some very, very tough choices.

I'd love to know how much money could be saved by the eliminations you listed, but I also recognize that coming up with those numbers would be a whole lot of work. But it could be significant.

From the list, I think I'd start with an across-the-board cut of, say 10% of all the agencies in the Legislative and Executive branches. The under the long list of Independent Agencies, some real cutting and slashing seems like it would be possible. What do some of those agencies do anyway?

If we were able to "price" the savings, and if the author of the article that started this whoile thread is right, that might only be enough to begin to whack away at the deficit. Remember, he stated that our entire tax revenues -- about $2.6-2.7 trillion -- is spent on Social Security, Medicare, defense and interest payments on the national debt. We're actually spending around $3.3 trillion. So almost by definition, whatever cuts in spending that would result from our cutting and slashing wouldn't be enough avoid a spending deficit.

But at least we can all begin to understand the depth of the spending cuts that will be necessary to avoid more deficit spending and begin to repay our debt. Personally, I believe that sometime in the Obama first term we're going to begin hearing discussion of means testing for Social Security and Medicare. There doesn't seem to be any other way to balance the budget. It's not possible to cut our interest payments on the national debt and to think we could substantially reduce defense spending while we're still fighting a war in Afghanistan and trying to replace equipment used up in Iraq doesn't seem reasonable.

The subject of "sacrifice" is almost certain to be an important element in Obama's inauguration speech. I think that's just the beginning of easing the public into the necessary spending cuts that will be life-changing but unavoidable. My guess is that the new administration will concentrate on achieving economic recovery in the first couple of years and will get on with the elimination of deficit spending after the economy is stabilized. While I'd like to see everything done at once, I know that's probably not possible.

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. " . . .Thomas Jefferson

Until the corporate culture within the Legislature and the Executive, no matter what cuts are made, adheres to Mr. Jefferson's notice, we're destined to find ourselves in the same cesspool. Are we all wise enough to heed his words?

Key within those items I listed was no new programs to be funded without a corresponding decrease (dollar value to dollar value) in existing programs. That's the discipline needed to prevent a repeat of this financial fiasco.

As has occurred over the last 40 years, the eventual further depreciation in the value of the dollar (by inflation or mandate) makes today's debt essentially smaller in the future. Ironically, that is a saving grace - provided the dollar-for-dollar obligation swapping occurs.

Here's to 2010, and a 75% "change" in the Congressional roster!

...if we are to understand what has to be done and communicate with our elected representatives as to what we want them to do. I only hope that they will listen. I'm not giving up on the hope that a lot of letters and e-mails somehow make it onto a log somewhere in each Congressman's and Senator's office as a point of reference anyway.

I'm encouraged on this initial day of the new administration that our new President seems to be seeking broader political consensus than he really needs just to pass some bill in Congress. If that pattern continues, maybe the level of political polarity, idealogical back-biting, and Congressional gridlock will decline. Without that, maybe our elected representatives really will begin to listen to what their constituencies want.

P.S. to Gnu...I erred with the $120 billion number that I used in an earlier post. I looked at a statement on the upper left of the web page you linked and read "...$10 billion per month" and missed the larger number below. The larger number is actually more encouraging in that it provides a larger opportunity for spending reductions. Maybe we won't have to make Draconian cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

Some SS information to ponder


http://www.newyorklife.com/cda/0,3254,11923,00.html

Originally Posted by gnu

Some SS information to ponder


http://www.newyorklife.com/cda/0,3254,11923,00.html

The irony - you live longer and government poaching of the SS funds becomes a problem.

As crusty as this sounds, if the article's forecasts are accurate, most of us won't be around to see the effects of the problem. The workers - who are now 40 and younger, especially those 30 and younger - may see program changes such as moving retirement eligibility age to 70 for early retirement and full eligibility to 75. As the projected life span continues to rise, that may be realistic, and the most logical of all "fixes."

Gee, those folk may live 15-20 years longer than we will - and won't retire anyway. What a problem to have!