budget cuts...

[Ignatius J.]

Good. We all agree Ted's post is right. Since Ted's post is unambiguous (in some posts you seem to argue that even if A+B>D, we still have a deficit, which is wrong, but it's unclear), we can put this dumb argument to rest.

Now, lets all list programs we want cut.

I'll start.

Airline subsidies.

[Ignatius J.]

Baculus,

Your post is wrong in many ways. No one should advocate going back to some kind of standard. It's bad monetary policy.

For you to quote jefferson on this subject is a bit foolish. You're implicitly stating that Economics has made no progress in what 200 some years.

Good luck defending that statement.

[Funkyalligator]

We need to reduce the size of the federal government and get them out of the states business....also we need to revamp the entire tax system....I doubt there is a single member of congress that even understands the current tax systems....politicians spend money like crazy but don't have to deal with the real world consequences of their actions....as a citizen I want to see politicians held accountable for the billions in tax breaks and such that are given away to major corporations....especially the corporations that have shifted their company "legally" overseas so they don't have to pay US taxes.....

[Funkyalligator]

Actually I agree with reverting back to gold standard....why shouldn't we...it would prevent the government from spending like drunkin idiots like they've been doing for years....

[Baculus]

Baculus,

Your post is wrong in many ways. No one should advocate going back to some kind of standard. It's bad monetary policy.

For you to quote jefferson on this subject is a bit foolish. You're implicitly stating that Economics has made no progress in what 200 some years.

Good luck defending that statement..

Wrong - how? Jefferson's statement is INCREASINGLY relevant, considering the number of mortagages and land seizures by banks that this nation has experienced. And a return to a standard is SMART economics. Please point out specific areas where I am wrong. And it was Alan Greenspan himself who has written, in an article in 1967, that this nation needs to return to a gold standard. (http://www.usagold.com/gildedopinion/Greenspan.html) This nation's economic advancement has little to do with our Federal government spending in an out of control fashion via the Federal Reserve. Investment and capital earning can all occur under a standard-backed monetary system.

Do you realize that one of the nation's largest, and longest, prosperous, and stable increase was during the late 1800's during a time when the United States was still on a gold standard? A gold standard is sound ecoomic policy and would prevent the issues that are at the heart of this entire thread. If the government cannot spend, i.e. borrow and spend, more than its economic base, then you do not have a deficit. BTW, fractional lending has been around for a long time, but it did not become a defacto part of our monetary system until the estabishment of the Fed (after a couple of previous attempts).

If I am wrong, then show me how. If I am wrong, then tell that to the many economists who advocate a return to the gold standard as sound, stable economics. (Did you know that Ronald Reagan was, at times, also an advocate of returning to the gold standard?) Instead of taking a shot at me, then explain me further details - BTW, did you bother to read the link I provided on the Fed, or to watch that movie (which is an hour long) that discusses the many faults of the Fed?

[Larry]

Originally posted by Art (my emphasis)

You created a deficit by spending more than you bring in.

You are right, I won't concede anything, because there's nothing for me to concede. I'm arguing clear fact and that you have positioned yourself against it is troubling to me.

I'm arguing you can't have a deficit if you don't spend more than you bring in. You have YET to show how this is at all flawed. In fact, you've EVEN AGREED with it in two posts, and yet won't allow yourself to embrace it all the way because you'll feel it'll trap you in some way.

Your equations here show you get it.

If Y is equal to or less than X, you can't have a deficit. You get it.

Given that, the only solution is to make sure Y is equal to or less than X. It doesn't matter what you do with X if Y isn't less than or equal. Please, before you sign off, tell me you know this, which will tell me you know it all.

And not one person has once argued with your (highlighted) statement.

What they have been arguing with is your religous (and completely baseless) leap from "D occurs if S > R" to "S is the only number that can be changed". Or "All the 'blame' for D lies on S". Or "Increasing R won't fix things, since no matter how much you increase R, then S might still be bigger."

Or, to use (yet) another example, both of the following statements are (logicly) identical, yet you're swearing that one statement is true and the other false:

• . . . the only solution is to make sure Y is equal to or less than X. (your quote)
  
• . . . the only solution is to make sure X is greater than or equal to Y.
  

Now, if you want to claim that part of S (call it Sb for Spending, Budgeted) is the only part of the equation D=R-S that can be directly, predictably, exactly regulated, then you'll get unanimous agreement. A $1M cut to the Home for Unwed Goldfish operating budget will produce exactly $1M in reduction in S(pending), whereas, say, a 5% increase in the federal gasoline taxes is not guaranteed to yeild exactly a 5% increase in R(evenues). (Theoreticlly, it could even lead to a decrease in those revenues.)

(Although, I'll also point out, tax rates aren't the only thing that affects revenues. A $1M cut in spending may also lead to a small reduction in revenues, too. A lot of federal spending goes to people who pay federal taxes. But now we're talking about second-hand effects.)

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Art

Well, sure, Chomerics, I'm all for not allowing spending to rise at all. I'm for spending decreasing by HUGE amounts. Though the current forecast deficit is only a hair over $400 billion, not the $600 million and climbing number you've pulled from thin air, the fact is there IS a sustainable amount of growth you can allow government to have, while maintaining a surplus.

The increase in overall government spending proposed in this budget is well within that framework. So, while I'd be thrilled with an even better solution, this is, finally, a solution that can bring about success if it's maintained.

Art, show me where I mentioned the deficit being $600 million? I never have. The $600 million dollar spending increase is the amount Bush has spent over the initial budget when he took office.

2000, in the red $200Billion

2005, in the black $400Billion

The difference is $600 Billion dollars. I would also like to add that while Bush is cutting SOME programs, he is still INCREASING funding in others. Hence, you get the $400Billion dollar deficit.

Now, this does not account Iraq, so throw in another $80 Billion dollars, and you have a whopping $480Billion dollar deficit.

And you think this is sustaniable Art? You think we are heading in the right direction? Maybe, if you look from last year to this year, but if you look at the Bush presidency as a whole, it has been as horrible example of fiscal restraint, and in fact it has been the opposite. It has been a period of increasing the federal government's size and budget. Guess that's the repubs new platform, big government huh:rolleyes:

[Ignatius J.]

So here are my basic issues:

First, the standard means that we have to tie up a bunch of gold in order to have money floating around right? In order to issue more money, the government has to go out and buy gold. Isn't that going to artificially inflate the price of gold? (I realize my understanding of the mechanics of gold standardization is weak, but I'm trying to grasp why this is a good idea)

another way that this is good is that it allows the US government to leverage the massive growth of our economy into usable revenue.

By taking out loans that can be paid off via taxes down the road, often at very good interest rates, the government is able to get money out of an asset, the stability of our economy.

The problem with standardization is that it requires goods to be holed up somewhere by someone. Something that has value has to be stashed away.

The Fed allows us to not only keep from stashing away gold, but also our good name as a debtor. The US is a great debtor, and with good reason. At the interest rates the US gets loans it SHOULD continue to borrow, because like a brand name, the US government has value, and when it takes out loans it turns that name into usable capitol that enters our economy.

Now, before I get labeled as some spending liberal, we need to cut back, go look as I cheered on every one of the cuts in the other thread and clamored for more.

We need to cut spending so that we can lower taxes. Moving to a gold standard to keep government spending in line throws the baby out with the bathwater, and what if the result is simply higher taxes?

[Art]

Originally posted by Larry

And not one person has once argued with your (highlighted) statement.

What they have been arguing with is your religous (and completely baseless) leap from "D occurs if S > R" to "S is the only number that can be changed". Or "All the 'blame' for D lies on S". Or "Increasing R won't fix things, since no matter how much you increase R, then S might still be bigger."

Or, to use (yet) another example, both of the following statements are (logicly) identical, yet you're swearing that one statement is true and the other false:

• . . . the only solution is to make sure Y is equal to or less than X. (your quote)
  
• . . . the only solution is to make sure X is greater than or equal to Y.
  

Now, if you want to claim that part of S (call it Sb for Spending, Budgeted) is the only part of the equation D=R-S that can be directly, predictably, exactly regulated, then you'll get unanimous agreement. A $1M cut to the Home for Unwed Goldfish operating budget will produce exactly $1M in reduction in S(pending), whereas, say, a 5% increase in the federal gasoline taxes is not guaranteed to yeild exactly a 5% increase in R(evenues). (Theoreticlly, it could even lead to a decrease in those revenues.)

(Although, I'll also point out, tax rates aren't the only thing that affects revenues. A $1M cut in spending may also lead to a small reduction in revenues, too. A lot of federal spending goes to people who pay federal taxes. But now we're talking about second-hand effects.)

To the contrary, Larry, you and others CONTINUE to argue with the highlighted portion because the highlighted portion is ALL I've said in this thread. Using your letters, if S > R you have deficits. Period. S is the only thing you can adjust in life and government. R is not something you can adjust in life and government.

Can the government raise taxes? Sure, but there's no guarantee that will actually assist R over any period. But, even assuming it did, we have the fact that S still must be less than R. And that's the one part of the equation not a single person addressing this issue on the other side had yet bothered to mention.

The closest has come that if government increases taxes and revenue the problem is solved. But, it's not. Not unles spending is less than the increased revenue. So, as you continue to deny that the only number that can be altered to remove deficits is S, I continue to point out to you that S is the only number that must be changed to remove deficits.

Until you can post something to me that suggests you can run deficits through making more than you spend, you are lost.

What you, and others, apparently fail to get is the examples you keep using are actually MAKING my point. You wrote:

• . . . the only solution is to make sure Y is equal to or less than X. (your quote)
  
• . . . the only solution is to make sure X is greater than or equal to Y.
  

You suggest I say one is true and the other is false. In fact, in this very thread when DJ wrote this, I said both are true, and they BOTH say the same thing. Y has to be less than or equal to X. X has to be greater than or equal to Y.

You STILL have to make X more than Y to lower deficits. Which means can never be more than X to lower deficits. And, that has been my point the entire thread. DJ went so far as to suggest spending doesn't actually cause deficits. You seem to agree.

You both are nuts.

Because you can't have a deficit if you don't spend more than you bring in. You agree with this as you led this post saying. So, why do you keep making the argument that suggests you don't actually believe what you're saying.

[Ignatius J.]

Given that we've all said S must be less than R, how is it exactly that none of us have said that?

also, in life I can adjust S. I can get a job.

Try this, point to a statement in DjTj's last post that's incorrect.

[Thiebear]

Raise your hand if you believe.

A. We Raise Taxes and it is not immediately spent.

I mean seriously the guy in Alaska wants to spend 700 million on a bridge for 5 thousand users... So it can be named after HIM to lead you to the Airport named after HIM...

In Politics this is the only math - make your constituents happy with all kinds of spending...

We should go back to the 1800ish and make the job a 2nd job.

1st job should be a "real" job. Lawyers need not apply.

[Art]

Originally posted by Ignatius J.

Given that we've all said S must be less than R, how is it exactly that none of us have said that?

also, in life I can adjust S. I can get a job.

Try this, point to a statement in DjTj's last post that's incorrect.

I already did. Among them is the statement that what you said is true. You and he said if you raise taxes in any given year you can lower deficits. That's false. It's false because it doesn't contain the rest of the statement. It's false just like stating if you lower spending in any given year you won't have a deficit.

You guys just keep wanting to present half-truths and wonder why it's so galling.

It is false that raising taxes -- revenue -- to the government solves a deficit problem. It's false because to be true you ALSO need the conjoining statement that one must keep spending lower than the increase in revenue.

Just as I said a simple, false statement like lowering spending leads to no deficits, your belief is false. I have consistently stated it doesn't matter what you do with revenue if you don't openly note you must keep spending lower.

You guys haven't actually said that. Not yet in any of your examples.

You keep saying "raising revenue" solves deficit. It doesn't. And, neither does lowering spending. Only spending less than one brings in does. Both must be true. I seem the only one willing to realize it.

[DjTj]

Originally posted by Art

I already did. Among them is the statement that what you said is true. You and he said if you raise taxes in any given year you can lower deficits. That's false. It's false because it doesn't contain the rest of the statement. It's false just like stating if you lower spending in any given year you won't have a deficit.

You guys just keep wanting to present half-truths and wonder why it's so galling.

It is false that raising taxes -- revenue -- to the government solves a deficit problem. It's false because to be true you ALSO need the conjoining statement that one must keep spending lower than the increase in revenue.

Just as I said a simple, false statement like lowering spending leads to no deficits, your belief is false. I have consistently stated it doesn't matter what you do with revenue if you don't openly note you must keep spending lower.

You guys haven't actually said that. Not yet in any of your examples.

You keep saying "raising revenue" solves deficit. It doesn't. And, neither does lowering spending. Only spending less than one brings in does. Both must be true. I seem the only one willing to realize it.

:cuss: :doh: :cry: :doh1: that is seriously what my head feels like in this thread, but I'm glad to see that after going to class and having dinner, this thread has reached a logical conclusion.

So we have this:

Half-truth: Lowering spending eliminates deficits.

Half-truth: Raising revenue eliminates deficits.

THE TRUTH: Lowering spending below revenue eliminates deficits.

ALSO THE TRUTH: Raising revenue above spending eliminates deficits.

:notworthy

... If Congress leaves spending exactly the same but raises taxes, they can eliminate the budget deficit. If Congress leaves taxes exactly the same but decreases spending, they can eliminate the budget deficit ...

:applause:

Now back to a debate about what we should actually do about it...

[December90]

... I would also like to add that while Bush is cutting SOME programs, he is still INCREASING funding in others. Hence, you get the $400Billion dollar deficit.

Now, this does not account Iraq, so throw in another $80 Billion dollars, and you have a whopping $480Billion dollar deficit.

And you think this is sustaniable Art? You think we are heading in the right direction? Maybe, if you look from last year to this year, but if you look at the Bush presidency as a whole, it has been as horrible example of fiscal restraint, and in fact it has been the opposite. It has been a period of increasing the federal government's size and budget. Guess that's the repubs new platform, big government huh:rolleyes:

Kinda funny how we were looking at spending cuts back in this 2005 thread and whining about a $480B annual deficit (can we find a fiscal quarter under Obama with a deficit that low?)

Liberals complaining to Conservatives that the "Bush deficits" were unsustainable... How the roles have switched in 6 1/2 years:)

[SnyderShrugged]

The issue that is really being avoided is the cause of much reckless spending, and that is the Federal Reserve system, whose implentation was one of the worse events that has ever happened to this nation. Not only is it unconstitutional, since only congress can print and issue money, but it has been the primary cause of the dollar being devalued over the years by using fractional banking, an unstable monetary policy. The Fed is PRIVATELY operated, whose regional heads aren't even appointed by the President, and these banks make a profit, in the millions, from issuance of our money (it is not really our money, really), at the expense of the American public for the banks own private interests. This is not conspiracy - this is fact, just one that is not often known by many folks. And one of the worst side affects of the Fed is the current problem we face - the ability for the government to spend wastefully and without end, with money being printed and issued by the Fed at an alarming rate. THAT is the issue that we face, but one that few serious folks will examine. Want to reduce government spending, the deficit and the debt? Eliminate the Federal Reserve and create a gold or silver standard, which would inhibit the ability for the Federal government to spend without check.

As Jefferson said, "If the America people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currencies, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their prosperity until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

http://www.federal-reserve.net/whatisthefederalreservebank.htm

The reduction and elimination of federal programs is all good and all, but the problem is, many other bloated programs are not being eliminated. And Bush's fiscal policies are still increasing at an alarming rate. The odd thing is, some reduction is occuring here in the States, while billions of (uncounted) dollars is being spent elsewhere, such as Iraq.

And the problem is that you cannot lower taxes without reducing government expenditures. Reagan tried this, and had to raise taxes a few years later. And the issue is that the Bush tax cuts are actually INCREASING the deficit, not decreasing it. The idea is simple - drastically reduce federal spending, and you can then lower taxes since a need for higher taxes is not needed. Did Bush do this? Heck no. He believes in deficit spending, just like Reagan. (Which, the massive increase in federal spending coincides with both administrations.)

Lowered taxes are great and ideal, but it has to go hand in hand with across the board reduction in federal spending. The problem is, there are so many bloated programs, many of which are favored by the majority republicans, that this won't happen. Like it or not, but the Republicans are the party of BIG government. The Contact With America is dead and a farce in the end.

Incidentally, here is a link to an excellent movie on the Federal Reserve. Be warned, the link will take you to a page to start downloading the movie imbedded within browser:

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/multimedia/money_fed.html

I never realized Bac was so entrenched in Ron Paul's views!