NYT Blog: Keep Your Government Hands Off My Government Programs!

[Larry]

You can cut Defense spending in half and we will still have a budget problem because, unlike defense, Medicare/Medicaid spending is outpacing the growth of our economy.

And you can cut Medicare in half and we still have a budget problem, because denial isn't just a river in Egypt.

Defense isn't the whole problem. But it is part of it.

[mardi gras skin]

Unless I'm mistake' date=' I believe spending on Iraq and Afghanistan was not in the defense budget during the Bush years. It was its own category.[/quote']

The wars are included in the chart I posted.

---------- Post added February-22nd-2011 at 10:46 AM ----------

And you can cut Medicare in half and we still have a budget problem, because denial isn't just a river in Egypt.

Cut Medicare/Medicaid in half and KEEP it at that percentage of GDP (the way defense has held steady or fallen in relation to GDP) and we won't have a budget problem.

[Larry]

Cut Medicare/Medicaid in half and KEEP it at that percentage of GDP (the way defense has held steady or fallen in relation to GDP) and we won't have a budget problem.

Right, because everybody knows that when people live twice as long, then they should live on half the income, because GDP is what's important.

And because everybody knows, whenever GDP goes up, then it costs more to defend the country. Automatically.

[mardi gras skin]

Right, because everybody knows that when people live twice as long, then they should live on half the income, because GDP is what's important.

Everybody knows that, when people live twice as long, we either need to pay less or (more logically) increase the age payouts begin. Because, yes, GDP is what's important.

And because everybody knows, whenever GDP goes up, then it costs more to defend the country. Automatically.

Clearly defense spending has not kept up with GDP. So no, everybody doesn't know that.

[Larry]

Clearly defense spending has not kept up with GDP. So no, everybody doesn't know that.

But clearly, some people think that "defense spending as a percentage of GDP" is a significant number. Therefore some people think that.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Unless I'm mistake' date=' I believe spending on Iraq and Afghanistan was not in the defense budget during the Bush years. It was its own category.[/quote']

You're not mistaken, that's how Bush fudged the numbers to hide the cost of the war, and to kick the cost down the road to our children. The reason the budget deficit exploded under Obama was because he brought those numbers back into the budget, and the really dishonest thing that the GOP did was scream that Obama blew up the budget and began running huge deficits, when it had been happening all along but they didn't care so long as that money was being used to shoot people.

[mardi gras skin]

But clearly, some people think that "defense spending as a percentage of GDP" is a significant number. Therefore some people think that.

Clearly, government spending as a percentage of GDP is significant. No reasonable person would argue otherwise. But defense spending has dropped in relation to GDP so, clearly, defense spending does not automatically increase as the GDP goes up. No one in this thread said it does so I don't know why you brought it up.

Again, defense spending isn't the problem.

---------- Post added February-22nd-2011 at 11:30 AM ----------

You're not mistaken, that's how Bush fudged the numbers to hide the cost of the war,

Regardless, the chart I posted includes the cost of the wars. So, whatever Bush did, we still know that defense spending has been on a long slow decline for quite a while now.

[Madison Redskin]

Clearly, government spending as a percentage of GDP is significant. No reasonable person would argue otherwise. But defense spending has dropped in relation to GDP so, clearly, defense spending does not automatically increase as the GDP goes up. No one in this thread said it does so I don't know why you brought it up.

Again, defense spending isn't the problem.

Whether the defense budget is increasing or decreasing, as a percentage of the GDP, is irrelevant. The important question is whether we are spending a reasonable amount on defense. You're assuming that because we are spending roughly the same on defense (as a percentage of GDP) as we did 10 years ago, we are spending a reasonable amount on defense. That's quite the logical leap.

I would argue that spending $3 trillion on an unnecessary war and billions upon billions on weapons systems that the DoD doesn't even want, is a problem. I would also argue that spending nearly as much on defense as every other nation on earth combined is unreasonable.

---------- Post added February-22nd-2011 at 12:01 PM ----------

ahhh we want to starve children nice.

I didn't say the GOP wants to starve children; I said they took issue with a plan to feed them. The GOP has proposed cuts to a federally-run program that provides free meals to needy schoolchildren because, according to the GOP, the program is too costly.

[zoony]

I think the most impressive thing about the graph MGS posted is the growth in GDP since 1950. Wow.

[Larry]

You're not mistaken, that's how Bush fudged the numbers to hide the cost of the war, and to kick the cost down the road to our children. The reason the budget deficit exploded under Obama was because he brought those numbers back into the budget, and the really dishonest thing that the GOP did was scream that Obama blew up the budget and began running huge deficits, when it had been happening all along but they didn't care so long as that money was being used to shoot people.

Untrue. And it's been pointed out to you dozens of times. By me, and by others.

W kept the war spending out of his budget forecasts. But we're discussing the actual numbers. And those numbers account for every dime, and always have.

Yes, the deficit really has exploded, by exactly the amount that the GOP says it did. (Now, it exploded before Obama took office. And it didn't explode because of anything that Obama or the Democrats did. But it really did explode.)

[Larry]

Clearly, government spending as a percentage of GDP is significant. No reasonable person would argue otherwise. But defense spending has dropped in relation to GDP so, clearly, defense spending does not automatically increase as the GDP goes up. No one in this thread said it does so I don't know why you brought it up.

Again, defense spending isn't the problem.

Because some moron keeps insisting that defense spending contributes nothing to the deficit, and "backing it up" by pretending that if defense spending didn't go up compared to GDP, then it didn't go up.

Regardless, the chart I posted includes the cost of the wars. So, whatever Bush did, we still know that defense spending has been on a long slow decline for quite a while now.

Regardless, defense spending has been on a long steady increase for quite a while now.

[mardi gras skin]

Because some moron keeps insisting that defense spending contributes nothing to the deficit, and "backing it up" by pretending that if defense spending didn't go up compared to GDP, then it didn't go up.

You suck at reading comprehension Larry. Seriously, you might be the worst on the board. Of course defense contributes to teh deficit. The penance we spend on NPR funding contributes to the deficit. Every dollar we spend could be said to deficit spending. But defense spending ISN'T the problem. Our budget is accelerating out of control relative to the GDP while our defense spending has decreased relative to GDP. This isn't complicated but obviously you want to make it complicated to fit some agenda.

Regardless, defense spending has been on a long steady increase for quite a while now.

You're going to show a graph of nominal dollar value with no adjustment for real dollar value and call me a moron? When you decide to be thick headed, you are an absolute brick wall.

[zoony]

MGS, is your point that the growth in GDP represents inflation? And that defense spending has only risen since 1950 due to inflation?

[Larry]

You're going to show a graph of nominal dollar value with no adjustment for real dollar value and call me a moron? When you decide to be thick headed, you are an absolute brick wall.

You suck at reading comprehension. Seriously, you might be the worst on the board.

Notice the words, on the side of that chart, labeled "$ bln 2005"? The number "2005" is there because those numbers have been adjusted for inflation to 2005 levels.

But defense spending ISN'T the problem.

You keep insisting that defensing spending isn't the problem, and "supporting" it by pointing that when GDP went up, defense spending we up, but not as much.

I do not think this means what you think it means.

There is no law of nature that says that when GDP goes up, then defense spending should go up at the same rate.

----------

Like comparing things to GDP? Here's a few that are kind of related to GDP:

(Note: The vertical axis on the lower two charts don't start at zero.)

Obviously, we should double corporate taxes, increase income taxes by a third, and reduce social security taxes by 2/3. Right?

Heck, if income taxes were bringing in 11% of GDP, like they were from 1950 - 80, we wouldn't have a deficit this year.

So, if we just repeal all of the tax cuts beginning with Reagan, personal and corporate, then that wouldn't be a tax hike, because it would just be keeping revenues at a constant percentage of GDP, right?

----------

Now, if you want to assert that the growth of spending on Medicare and SS are our biggest future problem, then I'll wholeheartedly agree with you. These programs are huge problems, both because they're huge already, and because as the laws stand right now, they're designed to go up automatically, much faster than inflation, forever.

At least at present, we don't fund Defense spending that way. Congress actually has to approve increasing defense spending. Whereas with entitlements, it literally takes an act of Congress just to slow down the rate of growth.

(And because of the political reality that whoever votes to do that will be guaranteed to be attacked by the other Party, for "cutting" whatever it is.)

If you want to argue that defense spending isn't as big a problem as Medicare/Medicaid, I'll wholeheartedly agree with you.

(I list SS a bit differently, because, while SS spending is also scheduled to go up automatically, at least SS has somewhat paid for itself in advance. SS has money set aside to cover the future spending, at least for a while. But still, even that's a problem, just not quite as immediate as the others.)

[mardi gras skin]

MGS, is your point that the growth in GDP represents inflation? And that defense spending has only risen since 1950 due to inflation?

No, I hadn't dealt with inflation until Larry brought a chart showing nominal dollar value into the discussion.

My point is that the federal government has a pool of money to draw taxes from. As the gross domestic product increases, out national wealth increases and the pool of money the federal government has to spend increases assuming they continue to tax us at a similar rate. If defense spending decreases relative to GDP it represents less and less a burden to the public compared to the past.

I would love to see cuts in the defense budget. I know there is waste. But I'm not foolish enough to think we can cut the defense budget enough to make up for the rapid increases in other areas of the budget. Even if we drop defense spending to 3% of GDP and hold it there that won't be enough cost savings to absorb the line items that are increasing faster than our nation's collective wealth is increasing.

If out GDP is growing at 10% annually, a 10% annual increase in Medicaid manageable. If GDP is growing at 3% and Medicaid is growing by 15% annually, we have a major problem.

[TheLongshot]

Another thing that people don't realize that is affected by cuts in government spending is jobs. For example, where I'm working right now, two weeks into my new position I found out that my position is getting cut because there is a movement to cut down government contractors. (Something which always goes in cycles, between saving money and being able to get the job done.) That is certainly putting my job at risk, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Tax cuts don't mean much if I don't have a job because of it.

That isn't to say that fat shouldn't be cut, but there are consequences. It is why I wish this type of talk happens in better times when one can find jobs outside of the government realm. Instead, it is usually the opposite that happens.

[mardi gras skin]

Gotta run but you left this one out Larry:

Revenue has remained more or less constant relative to GDP since the 1950's. Whatever pot we decide to draw from, total revenue has remained constant.

Meanwhile, our government expenses are climbing relative to GDP. That can't continue. Those line items that are increasing faster than our ability to produce more wealth are killing us.

[Larry]

No, I hadn't dealt with inflation until Larry brought a chart showing nominal dollar value into the discussion.

Meaning "I hadn't tried to use inflation to avoid facts until Larry brought a chart showing inflation-adjusted spending into the discussion".

[Madison Redskin]

I would love to see cuts in the defense budget. I know there is waste. But I'm not foolish enough to think we can cut the defense budget enough to make up for the rapid increases in other areas of the budget. Even if we drop defense spending to 3% of GDP and hold it there that won't be enough cost savings to absorb the line items that are increasing faster than our nation's collective wealth is increasing.

If out GDP is growing at 10% annually, a 10% annual increase in Medicaid manageable. If GDP is growing at 3% and Medicaid is growing by 15% annually, we have a major problem.

Not a single person who has posted in this thread has argued that cuts to the defense budget will solve our problems. Rather, a number of people have noted that the defense budget should be cut AND Congress should cut to entitlement spending.

[DCsportsfan53]

What I find so astounding about the last page or two is that Larry and Mardi Gras have essentially been agreeing with each other this whole time yet continue to misunderstand each other and essentially argue semantics and what the definition of "is", is.

[mardi gras skin]

Not a single person who has posted in this thread has argued that cuts to the defense budget will solve our problems. Rather, a number of people have noted that the defense budget should be cut AND Congress should cut to entitlement spending.

Great. And some people in other threads think NPR's budget should be cut. A lot of people have a lot of ideas about what should be cut.

But to say, "look defense spending is big so that's the problem with our out of control budget" is wrong. Defense spending has decreased relative to our national wealth and our federal revenues.

[Madison Redskin]

But to say, "look defense spending is big so that's the problem with our out of control budget" is wrong. Defense spending has decreased relative to our national wealth and our federal revenues.

Again, no one is saying that defense spending is "the" problem with our out of control budget. It is part of the problem. I would also argue that, regardless of the debt crisis, spending nearly as much as the rest of the entire world on defense is unreasonably excessive.

[The Sisko]

Especially if you don't have to pay for them.

Yesterday, I read a piece. (Probably while I was following the links above.) It was talking about how a big part of the situation we're in, today, is due to a philosophy that was popular among conservatives 30 years ago, referred to as "starve the beast".

The theory was that the way to curb the government was tax cuts, and lots of em. That if the government doesn't have any money, then it won't grow, and will actually shrink.

Funny, I've been thinking about this for the last six or eight months or so. I thought I was the only one that remembered it though.

By the 90's or so I'd bought into this idea hook, line, and sinker. Nowadays, not so much.

Ah geez, now Medicare's gonna have to put out so more money for Thiebear's paranoia treatments. That's a lot of dough in psychopharmocology.

:ols:

I absolutely agree and, as I noted in another thread, Obama punted the issue of cuts to entitlement spending to the GOP. I generally agree with your proposals regarding Social Security and I realize that cuts to Medicare/Medicaid will likely be necessary as well.

As he should have. The GOP assailed him as a big govt. liberal, pinko, tax-and-spend communist, etc. and Obama was supposed to then turn around and pay the political price for proposing cuts to entitlements? I doubt even the most rabid Tea Party nitwit would think Obama is that stupid.

Had the GOP made even token efforts at being bipartisan and dealing in good faith on other issues, I think Obama would have been game to have the discussion. However under the circumstances, he's handled this in exactly the right way, i.e. let the GOP figure out how to get themselves out of the fiscal austerity corner they've painted themselves into. I can't wait to see what happens to the GOP/Tea Party's alleged "mandate" in the 2012 election. :munchout:

We spend nearly as much on defense as we do on Medicare/Medicaid. We will end up spending $3,000,000,000,000.00 (let alone the tens of thousands who have been killed and wounded) to fight the war in Iraq. But defense spending isn't a problem? Why is spending $3,000,000,000,000.00 on the Iraq War a problem, but a proposal to spend a tiny fraction of that amount on feeding malnourished kids a problem?

I think most of us can understand the need to allocate adequate resources to defend the country and keep us safe. Unfortunately the problem with W's Iraq fiasco was that it did neither. Rather, it was part of his, and by extension, God's plan to get back that bad man that tried to kill his Daddy. :doh:

I still can't believe I voted for that moron not once, but twice. :doh: :doh:

Another thing that people don't realize that is affected by cuts in government spending is jobs...

That isn't to say that fat shouldn't be cut, but there are consequences. It is why I wish this type of talk happens in better times when one can find jobs outside of the government realm. Instead, it is usually the opposite that happens.

Many have given Obama a lot of grief over the stimulus. Likewise there's also been a lot of crowing in this country over the profligacy of Greece, Ireland and other E.U. governments and the need for us to avoid their fate. However I think many in this country don't realize just how bad things could have been during this latest downturn.

The Latvians better than perhaps anyone know from personal experience that cutting govt. spending too radically can have negative effects. Just imagine how Obama would be getting skewered if instead of the stimulus plan he'd instead cut the budget to keep our debt levels down. So instead of the 10% unemployment rate we actually experienced, we instead ended up with unemployment of 20% or more. Yeah, that'd go over well. Just ask Hoover.

Interestingly, many of the people I work with have expressed similar sentiments that the govt. needs to stop spending so much. I haven't had the heart (or cojones) to remind them that their employers are receiving Federal grant $$ that more than covers their salaries. Of course all Federal spending is bad...unless it fattens your personal wallet....in which case the spending in question is an incredibly valuable program that has all sorts of benefits and should never be cut.

[Major Harris]

What I find so astounding about the last page or two is that Larry and Mardi Gras have essentially been agreeing with each other this whole time yet continue to misunderstand each other and essentially argue semantics and what the definition of "is", is.

larry goes down that road A LOT.

[Bang]

larry goes down that road A LOT.

Make up your mind. Is it a road, or a lot?

~Burp