[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Jfool

Really? Were we illiterate prior to Jimmy Carter? Our universities were in bankruptcy?

Actually: you want to look pre-1840.

Federal college grants go back at least to the Morrill Land-Grant Colleges Actsof 1862 and 1890.

I certainly was not trying to put words in your mouth: but since the DoE costs represent money that goes to states to pay for education, and since I didn't assume that you felt cash-starves states would suddely create the money that was no longer coming from the fed, I read this as "stop spending on public education".

Perhaps I misunderstood. Could you expand?

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Jfool

You seem to be saying SS is seperate, and not part of the problem. But it looks like you began by saying they are not really separate. Which is true. The government is borrowing trillions against it.

Let's imagine we magically go back in time and stop Social Security from existing. How does this help the 2011 budget?

It really doesn't. The *problem* is not Social Security. If the deficit had been covered with (say) treasury bonds instead of loans from Social Security: our situation would not be different than it is.

Social Security is not paid for by the general tax and therefore removing Social Security from history has no effect on the bottom line (yes: I know that there would be ramifications to any change... but they are unknowable).

So I say it is seperate because it is... except that it has been stolen from.

Also, by saying it is not part of the problem, you take away the potential that by reforming SS and lowering payroll taxes, we might have room in our personal finances to pay other taxes, or simply return more to the individual.

I think it's a mistake to clump those together... I'm not saying it cannot be looked at as a solution, but I do think we need to avoid tying them directly.

As I understand your inferred suggestion:
Solution to the budget (in part): Raise taxes.
Problem: That will increase the overall burden on citizens.
Solution to increased burden: Reduce / remove Social Security (and so Social Security taxes).

Is that about right?

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Napoleon17

But, I would also argue that just because cutting discretionary spending in the short term will not make a huge dent does not mean we should not do it.

I agree with you completely.

What I am saying is: We cannot discuss balancing a budget and then *only* discuss discretionary spending. We *must* discuss entitlements, the military, and tax rates *as well* or we cannot succeed.

Let's cut social security, raise the retirment age, cut medicare, cut short term discretionary spending, cut defense spending (as Ron Paul says "stop being the policemen of the world"), etc. Cut cut cut, but the big stuff is social security and medicare. Like I said, all of this could be accomplished if we just listened to the deficit commission.

Agreed. Also: let's raise the marginal tax rate.

Though I think, as I mentioned before, rather than simply cut medicade and medicare: we need to overhaul the system and seperately fund it as part of a national healthcare system. That may include a cut in services or it may not: but the expenses for the NHS system will need to be met by the taxes taken specifically for it (like social security).

With it removed from the "balanced budget" conversation: we can have a "tax burden" conversation.

[tlj009]

I certainly was not trying to put words in your mouth: but since the DoE costs represent money that goes to states to pay for education, and since I didn't assume that you felt cash-starves states would suddely create the money that was no longer coming from the fed, I read this as "stop spending on public education".

That is exactly what should happen. The Fed's should drop the DoE and the states should fund their own public education system. It doesn't make sense to me for the Fed's to tax the people of the states and then give them money back to the states to fund something that is the States responsibility in the first place. The states should tax the people directly for that purpose and leave the Fed's out of it.

[Jfool]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Actually: you want to look pre-1840.

Dept of Ed.... created by Carter.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I certainly was not trying to put words in your mouth: but since the DoE costs represent money that goes to states to pay for education, and since I didn't assume that you felt cash-starves states would suddely create the money that was no longer coming from the fed, I read this as "stop spending on public education".

Perhaps I misunderstood. Could you expand?

Deleting the Dept of Ed certainly does not eliminate spending on education... as you pointed out, we indeed spent on education long before Jimmy Carter. I am assuming when we eliminate the Federal Dept, we also reduce the burden of Federal requirements on the states. But I really don't think I need to "expand" since you misunderstood me to mean "stop spending on education".

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by jthomas1600

Slap, Jerry I'm sure you read my post so you understand, I'm not saying the loss of jobs is a reason not to cut military spending.

My point was just that the military isn't special in this regard.

as I pointed out there are companies like Lockheed Martin that subsist largely off government contracts that are mostly military in nature.

Right, but we shouldn't waste billions just to keep people in work. Do you know how much our F-35 contract with them is projected to cost us? $382 billion. You can't help but feel that something was overlooked there.

[normajean777]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Actually: it was "reduce military spending" with *examples* including two bases.

And I'm not sure. There are more than 50,000 US troops in Japan, and a similar number in S.Korea. The cost of *relocating* the Okinawa base alone is $10billion (Okinawa's voters set to test Japanese-US relations | World news | The Guardian)

But no: I am not saying that closing the bases in Korea, Japan, Quatar, Germany, and Iraq would save $1.5 Trillion... but it's a very good start.

Ok perhaps the amount of foreign bases could be halved. Still the majority of cuts need to come from elsewhere.

[jthomas1600]

Originally Posted by tlj009

That is exactly what should happen. The Fed's should drop the DoE and the states should fund their own public education system. It doesn't make sense to me for the Fed's to tax the people of the states and then give them money back to the states to fund something that is the States responsibility in the first place. The states should tax the people directly for that purpose and leave the Fed's out of it.

In theory, I'm supposed to agree with this since I'm a conservative and all, but I see a huge problem here as far as equality goes. There are some states that would see the quality of their education drop immediately. Soon after that, everybody in those states that was educated and had enough money to move would do so further depriving the state of money for education. I think there would be some areas of our country that you wouldn't want to drive through not long after the DoE was de-funded. I might be in favor of slowly transferring more of the responsibility back to the states, but it would have to be done slowly, carefully, and I'm not sure it could ever be done completely.

[tlj009]

In theory, I'm supposed to agree with this since I'm a conservative and all, but I see a huge problem here as far as equality goes. There are some states that would see the quality of their education drop immediately. Soon after that, everybody in those states that was educated and had enough money to move would do so further depriving the state of money for education. I think there would be some areas of our country that you wouldn't want to drive through not long after the DoE was de-funded. I might be in favor of slowly transferring more of the responsibility back to the states, but it would have to be done slowly, carefully, and I'm not sure it could ever be done completely.

Nothing is ever done fast when talking about the government. Still, I don't see the quality of education dropping that much unless, of course, the states refuse to up their taxes to provide the same funding the the Fed's provide now. The reduction would simply be the personal on the Federal level. And there are parts of the country that I don't really want to drive through right now.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by tlj009

That is exactly what should happen. The Fed's should drop the DoE and the states should fund their own public education system. It doesn't make sense to me for the Fed's to tax the people of the states and then give them money back to the states to fund something that is the States responsibility in the first place. The states should tax the people directly for that purpose and leave the Fed's out of it.

Originally Posted by Jfool

Deleting the Dept of Ed certainly does not eliminate spending on education... as you pointed out, we indeed spent on education long before Jimmy Carter. I am assuming when we eliminate the Federal Dept, we also reduce the burden of Federal requirements on the states. But I really don't think I need to "expand" since you misunderstood me to mean "stop spending on education".

So to clarify the proposed solution:

"We should solve the federal deficit problem (in part) by making the states pay for it"

It's an interesting take to be sure... though I think it solves the literal problem without addressing at all the spirit of the problem (a husband who solves his over-spending problem by making his wife pay the mortguage).

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by normajean777

Ok perhaps the amount of foreign bases could be halved. Still the majority of cuts need to come from elsewhere.

We are not going to entirely solve the deficit by military cuts. (no one area will solve it).

But why "majority" and why "half"? This seems to be far more "from the gut" then based on an analysis of current spending and needs.

I mean I certainly don't know the total of what should or should not be cut from the military budget, but there do seem to be a lot of low-hanging fruit.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Jfool

Some of the EPA $10.5 billion could be trimmed, for sure. I am not anti-evnironmental, but their budget only rises as our environment becomes more healthy.

I don't know enough about how groups like the EPA and BLM overlap nor the details of their function.

I feel certain that *any* large agency could be more efficient. I suspect we have some (FDA?) that lack sufficient reasources (whether that means money is unclear) to work to the extent that I believe they should.

But yes, of course, there is discretionary spending that should be cut. There are departments that should be restrctured. There are departments that should be conslodated.

TARP, Stimulus, CFK ...

I don't know what CFK is. The other two are not ongoing expenditres (not part of the deficit). Also TARP looks to be a relatively small lossTroubled Asset Relief Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). But really, my main point is that these are not actuall in a current budget, and so cannot be cut now.

Although it is outdated, this kind of news is what generates the outrage among taxpayers. We don't need to sacrifice security nor see our poorest starve in order to balance the budget.

I agree.

[tlj009]

So to clarify the proposed solution:

"We should solve the federal deficit problem (in part) by making the states pay for it"

It's an interesting take to be sure... though I think it solves the literal problem without addressing at all the spirit of the problem (a husband who solves his over-spending problem by making his wife pay the mortguage).

It would likely eliminate 5,000 Federal employees without creating 5,000 State jobs. What would their average salary be? $60,000+ per year? So the savings would be $300 million or more. I guess that you could argue that these 5,000 people actually have a necessary job that the State would have to provide, but I really doubt it.

United States Department of Education - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Then we could move on to the EPA, which has about the same job to do as the DEQ at the State level with 18,000 employees. Or maybe the Department of Energy. Sure controlling nuclear waste is important, but does it take 16,000 employees and 93,000 working under contract? How many nuclear reactors are in this country? I actually like USDA, but come on 105,000 employees.

[Jfool]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

So to clarify the proposed solution:

"We should solve the federal deficit problem (in part) by making the states pay for it"

It's an interesting take to be sure... though I think it solves the literal problem without addressing at all the spirit of the problem (a husband who solves his over-spending problem by making his wife pay the mortguage).

It sounds like your assumption is the Dept of Ed's function is to fund schools. And that the funding would need to come from somewhere else if we eliminated the Dept. If so, you couldn't be further from the mark. Schools were funded prior to 1979. The Dept was CREATED, on top of an existing, functional education system that had been run by the states for decades. Eliminate the Federal Dept of Ed, not "schools".

[Jfool]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I don't know enough about how groups like the EPA and BLM overlap nor the details of their function.

I feel certain that *any* large agency could be more efficient. I suspect we have some (FDA?) that lack sufficient reasources (whether that means money is unclear) to work to the extent that I believe they should. But yes, of course, there is discretionary spending that should be cut. There are departments that should be restrctured. There are departments that should be conslodated.

If congress/president only had the backbone.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I I don't know what CFK is. The other two are not ongoing expenditres (not part of the deficit). Also TARP looks to be a relatively small lossTroubled Asset Relief Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). But really, my main point is that these are not actuall in a current budget, and so cannot be cut now.

"Cash for Klunkers".

You can't keep arguing that this or that is not part of the problem. These are all part of our debt, which we owe, along wth interest. If we keep saying "this is seperate" or "that is a one time thing" then we get to where we are today.... NO DISCIPLINE and NO CLUE as to how bad the problem is.