geithner on the budget

[Azazello1313]

 

 

I completely agree with you, but the question though is, just to be direct about it, what's the alternative plan? We're going to see from the House, we'll able to see from this body, whether you people can find the political will here to go deeper.

 

I guess he's right, but that sounds like a pretty clear admission that the white house totally LACKS the poltical will to go deeper.

 

what sessions and geithner are talking about in pictures.

 

I sure hope either, or both houses of congress can come up with something more serious

[Ursa Majoris]

 

 

 

I guess he's right, but that sounds like a pretty clear admission that the white house totally LACKS the poltical will to go deeper.

 

what sessions and geithner are talking about in pictures.

 

I sure hope either, or both houses of congress can come up with something more serious

We need a "flogging a dead horse" emoticon, but once again, unless these morans address the entitlements and defense, all this is pissing in the Pacific.

[Perchoutofwater]

We need a "flogging a dead horse" emoticon, but once again, unless these morans address the entitlements and defense, all this is pissing in the Pacific.

 

I largely agree, but honestly any cuts help. What you are saying is similar to saying a guy that is in a ton of debt and has negative cash flow must do something about his mortgage immediately and shouldn't even bother dropping premium channels, stop buying coffee at Starbucks, etc..... Somethings unfortunately take time to do, if they are to be done right. While I would like to see cuts in entitlements and defense as much as anyone it does need to be well thought out, and does not need to be rushed through. We've had a couple of huge bills rushed through in the last few years, and the final product has been total crap. It needs to be done, but it needs to be done right.

[Ursa Majoris]

I largely agree, but honestly any cuts help. What you are saying is similar to saying a guy that is in a ton of debt and has negative cash flow must do something about his mortgage immediately and shouldn't even bother dropping premium channels, stop buying coffee at Starbucks, etc..... Somethings unfortunately take time to do, if they are to be done right. While I would like to see cuts in entitlements and defense as much as anyone it does need to be well thought out, and does not need to be rushed through. We've had a couple of huge bills rushed through in the last few years, and the final product has been total crap. It needs to be done, but it needs to be done right.

Stop buying at Starbucks, cancel premium channels AND do something about the mortgage. I did see something yesterday where it was reported that a White House / Congress team had "opened discussions" on entitlement reform. No idea if it's actually true.

[Perchoutofwater]

Stop buying at Starbucks, cancel premium channels AND do something about the mortgage. I did see something yesterday where it was reported that a White House / Congress team had "opened discussions" on entitlement reform. No idea if it's actually true.

 

Agreed, but as I'm sure you are well aware, if you do something to rash with mortgage it could have horrible long term consequences. I agree you have to do something, but you have to make sure you do it right. You know I want these cuts but the last thing I want done is to have something rushed through like the Health Care debacle, and then have to live with the consequences of it. It needs to be done, but it needs to be done right.

[wiegie]

what sessions and geithner are talking about in pictures.

talk about a picture being worth 1000 words... nice find

 

defense cuts + entitlements cuts (meaning medicare) + tax increases = the only real way to fix the problem

[Azazello1313]

I know you guys, as responsible democrats, have to bring up cutting defense every time we talk about the "real spending". here is projected gov't spending in 2020. defense just ain't that big a piece of the pie. and it's not where our projected fiscal crisis is coming from. according to CBO:

In fiscal year 2007, defense spending totaled 4.0 percent of GDP; under CBO’s baseline assumptions, it would constitute about 3.0 percent of GDP in 2017. Since World War II, defense spending has fluctuated to a significant degree. For example, it increased during the Korean War (averaging 11 percent of GDP from 1950 to 1953), the Vietnam War (averaging 8 percent from 1962 to 1973), and the defense buildup from 1982 to 1986 (averaging 6 percent). It has risen again more recently—from 2001 to the present—to support military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and other activities related to the war on terrorism. During the intervening periods, defense spending tended to decline as a percentage of GDP. Overall, such spending has averaged about 5 percent of GDP during the past 40 years and about 4 percent of GDP over the past 20 years

 

another graph charting defense spending compared with other spending, both historical and projected

 

I am certainly open to considering proposals about how we can do more with less in our defense budget. but pretending like defense spending is the problem is simply out of touch with reality.

Edited February 18, 2011 by Azazello1313

[SEC=UGA]

I know you guys, as responsible democrats, have to bring up cutting defense every time we talk about the "real spending". here is projected gov't spending in 2020. defense just ain't that big a piece of the pie. and it's not where our projected fiscal crisis is coming from. according to CBO:

 

 

another graph charting defense spending compared with other spending, both historical and projected

 

I am certainly open to considering proposals about how we can do more with less in our defense budget. but pretending like defense spending is the problem is simply out of touch with reality.

 

That chart is obviously fraudulent.

[wiegie]

I know you guys, as responsible democrats, have to bring up cutting defense every time we talk about the "real spending". here is projected gov't spending in 2020. defense just ain't that big a piece of the pie. and it's not where our projected fiscal crisis is coming from. according to CBO:

 

 

another graph charting defense spending compared with other spending, both historical and projected

 

I am certainly open to considering proposals about how we can do more with less in our defense budget. but pretending like defense spending is the problem is simply out of touch with reality.

I'm not sure where you are getting your data from, but according to the CBO itself, defense spending was 4.7% of GDP in 2010 and is still expected to be 3.6% of GDP in 2021.

 

Also according to the CBO, defense spending was 19.94% of the overall federal budget in 2010 and it will still be 15.2% of our budget in 2021.

 

Edit: And in all years the spending on defense is greater than all other forms of discretionary spending combined. And with respect to "mandatory" spending, spending on defense is currently larger medicare spending (and will be until about 2017).

 

So, yes, defense is a big item.

Edited February 18, 2011 by wiegie

[SEC=UGA]

I'm not sure where you are getting your data from, but according to the CBO itself, defense spending was 4.7% of GDP in 2010 and is still expected to be 3.6% of GDP in 2021.

 

Also according to the CBO, defense spending was 19.94% of the overall federal budget in 2010 and it will still be 15.2% of our budget in 2021.

 

Edit: And in all years the spending on defense is greater than all other forms of discretionary spending combined. And with respect to "mandatory" spending, spending on defense is currently larger medicare spending (and will be until about 2017).

 

So, yes, defense is a big item.

 

But, spending on Social Programs/Entitlement Programs (yes I'm also including SS and Medicare in this) DWARFS defense spending.

[Azazello1313]

I'm not sure where you are getting your data from, but according to the CBO itself, defense spending was 4.7% of GDP in 2010 and is still expected to be 3.6% of GDP in 2021.

 

Umm, I gave you a link and a quote from the CBO document I was referencing. here is the link again, and here is the quote again:

 

Defense Discretionary Spending

 

In fiscal year 2007, defense spending totaled 4.0 percent of GDP; under CBO’s baseline assumptions, it would constitute about 3.0 percent of GDP in 2017. Since World War II, defense spending has fluctuated to a significant degree. For example, it increased during the Korean War (averaging 11 percent of GDP from 1950 to 1953), the Vietnam War (averaging 8 percent from 1962 to 1973), and the defense buildup from 1982 to 1986 (averaging 6 percent). It has risen again more recently—from 2001 to the present—to support military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and other activities related to the war on terrorism. During the intervening periods, defense spending tended to decline as a percentage of GDP. Overall, such spending has averaged about 5 percent of GDP during the past 40 years and about 4 percent of GDP over the past 20 years. (For a discussion of how military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan affect projected spending, see Box 4-1.)

 

I'm not sure how that squares with the numbers you cited (which I also found here. my guess is the CBO itself is using a slightly different computation of defense spending or...?? I don't know, really, but it's sorta splitting hairs -- in one document, the CBO says defense spending was 4% of GDP in 2007, projected to be 3% in 2017; in another document they say it is 4.6% in 2009, projected to be 3.6% in 2020. either way, the projected trend is down, and by the same amount (1% of GDP in both cases) over a 10 year time frame.

 

Also according to the CBO, defense spending was 19.94% of the overall federal budget in 2010 and it will still be 15.2% of our budget in 2021.

 

which was right there in the first graph I posted. and again, this just spells out that defense is already projected to be down to 15% of the budget in 10 years from 20% now.

 

you're not contradicting anything I posted, just picking nits to avoid the point -- that growth in defense spending isn't the dragon that has to be slayed here.

[SEC=UGA]

Umm, I gave you a link and a quote from the CBO document I was referencing. here is the link again, and here is the quote again:

 

 

 

I'm not sure how that squares with the numbers you cited (which I also found here. my guess is the CBO itself is using a slightly different computation of defense spending or...?? I don't know, really, but it's sorta splitting hairs -- in one document, the CBO says defense spending was 4% of GDP in 2007, projected to be 3% in 2017; in another document they say it is 4.6% in 2009, projected to be 3.6% in 2020. either way, the projected trend is down, and by the same amount (1% of GDP in both cases) over a 10 year time frame.

 

 

 

which was right there in the first graph I posted. and again, this just spells out that defense is already projected to be down to 15% of the budget in 10 years from 20% now.

 

you're not contradicting anything I posted, just picking nits to avoid the point -- that growth in defense spending isn't the dragon that has to be slayed here.

 

I agree and disagree. The defense budget doesn't have to be the ONLY dragon slayed here, but needs to be trimmed by a good bit, the 4.5 billion jet engine was a small, but good start. I'm certain there are more items such as this that can be slashed.

[wiegie]

Which was right there in the first graph I posted. and again, this just spells out that defense is already projected to be down to 15% of the budget in 10 years from 20% now.

 

you're not contradicting anything I posted, just picking nits to avoid the point -- that growth in defense spending isn't the dragon that has to be slayed here.

Allow me to point out that defense spending is actually projected to increase by more than 26% over the next decade. Nobody is arguing that defense is the only thing that matters or even that it is the most important thing--but it is definitely something that DOES matter.

[Azazello1313]

I agree and disagree. The defense budget doesn't have to be the ONLY dragon slayed here, but needs to be trimmed by a good bit, the 4.5 billion jet engine was a small, but good start. I'm certain there are more items such as this that can be slashed.

 

well, I agree with that. but if we're talking about a looming budget crisis, and you have one kind of spending that is currently 9% of GDP, projected to go up to 12% over the next 10 years, and another area that is currently 4.6% of GDP, projected to go down to 3.6% -- what you really need to do is look at the first part, no?

[wiegie]

Umm, I gave you a link and a quote from the CBO document I was referencing. here is the link again, and here is the quote again:

your document seems to be several years out of date

[Azazello1313]

Allow me to point out that defense spending is actually projected to increase by more than 26% over the next decade.

 

and in that non-inflation-adjusting method of computation, spending on SS, medicare and medicaid is projected to increase by 87% over the next decade (from $1.428T in 2009 to $2.67T in 2020).

[bpwallace49]

I agree and disagree. The defense budget doesn't have to be the ONLY dragon slayed here, but needs to be trimmed by a good bit, the 4.5 billion jet engine was a small, but good start. I'm certain there are more items such as this that can be slashed.

 

I agree. This plays into the "low lying fruit" concept. That engine was unwanted by the military, and STILL people in COngress still wanted to keep it.

 

I would love cuts to be made by every departmnet across the board, and let Congress (when they are done being little biatches) look at the really, really big items like SS and medicare medicaid for long term cuts after they vote to repeal the 1997 BEA act that prevents those entitlements from being considered "mandatory spending".

 

Unless Congress starts the process of looking at the huge entitlements, all the rest is just pissing in the wind. . . . Ryan's Roadmap time!!

[wiegie]

well, I agree with that. but if we're talking about a looming budget crisis, and you have one kind of spending that is currently 9% of GDP, projected to go up to 12% over the next 10 years, and another area that is currently 4.6% of GDP, projected to go down to 3.6% -- what you really need to do is look at the first part, no?

Here is something from the CBO that I actually found shocking: net mandatory spending as a % of GDP is expected to be 14% in 2011... and net mandatory spending as a % of GDP is expected to be 14% in 2021.

 

discretionary spending as a % of GDP is expected to be 4.4% of GDP in 2011 and then 3.1% of GDP in 2021.

[wiegie]

and in that non-inflation-adjusting method of computation, spending on SS, medicare and medicaid is projected to increase by 87% over the next decade (from $1.428T in 2009 to $2.67T in 2020).

which explains why entitlements were something that I said needed to be cut way back at the beginning of this thread

[Azazello1313]

your document seems to be several years out of date

 

and that would explain 4% of GDP becoming 4.6%, and 3% becoming 3.6% -- the smaller numbers reflect pre-recession projections of GDP against similar levels of spending. I found both sets of numbers initially, but included the older set as they were included in some historical narrative that seemed helpful.

 

either way, they tell the same story -- defense spending now (as a % of GDP) is roughly what it's been historically or slightly less, and is already projected to go down significantly from there over the next decade. it is NOT the category of spending that is threatening to create an unprecedented fiscal crisis.

[The Holy Roller]

 

what sessions and geithner are talking about in pictures.

 

That's a goldurned graph/chart/mumbo jumbo. I thought it would be pictures.

[Square]

either way, they tell the same story -- defense spending now (as a % of GDP) is roughly what it's been historically or slightly less, and is already projected to go down significantly from there over the next decade. it is NOT the category of spending that is threatening to create an unprecedented fiscal crisis.

I can find no rational reason to have a "defense" budget that is larger than every other country combined. One of your graphs has SS and Medicare grouped together at 36% and Defense at 14%. So of the big three, I don't know what it looks like when you untwine SS and medicare but if those three are the biggest areas and Defense is about a third of that, I definitely think that is an area that has to be downsized along with making all the other programs fiscally sound. Personally, I'd rather have my money paying for MRI scans instead of bombs if we only have enough money to pay for one. It seems that our "defense" budget has more to do with defending commercial interests that donate money to politicians while Medicaire and SS at least go back to Americans who have paid into those programs.

Edited February 18, 2011 by Square

[Perchoutofwater]

I can find no rational reason to have a "defense" budget that is larger than every other country combined. One of your graphs has SS and Medicare grouped together at 36% and Defense at 14%. So of the big three, I don't know what it looks like when you untwine SS and medicare but if those three are the biggest areas and Defense is about a third of that, I definitely think that is an area that has to be downsized along with making all the other programs fiscally sound. Personally, I'd rather have my money paying for MRI scans instead of bombs if we only have enough money to pay for one. It seems that our "defense" budget has more to do with defending commercial interests that donate money to politicians while Medicaire and SS at least go back to Americans who have paid into those programs.

 

We also spend more on social services than any other country in the world.

[bpwallace49]

We also spend more on social services than any other country in the world.

 

That is because we are doing it wrong.

[Ursa Majoris]

I can find no rational reason to have a "defense" budget that is larger than every other country combined. One of your graphs has SS and Medicare grouped together at 36% and Defense at 14%. So of the big three, I don't know what it looks like when you untwine SS and medicare but if those three are the biggest areas and Defense is about a third of that, I definitely think that is an area that has to be downsized along with making all the other programs fiscally sound. Personally, I'd rather have my money paying for MRI scans instead of bombs if we only have enough money to pay for one. It seems that our "defense" budget has more to do with defending commercial interests that donate money to politicians while Medicaire and SS at least go back to Americans who have paid into those programs.

Exactly. Measuring defense as a % of GDP is misleading at best.

 

And defense IS discretionary spending, not mandatory.