"Try researching this stuff before you post. You won't make yourself look so gullible about what others are saying. Remember, reading is fundamental."
You mean like this projection of Obama's 2014 budget:
I hope you will notice the numbers. They are as I said they are. Reading is fundamental. Although it is a rather tired internet cliche. Now, knowing what you're talking about won't make you look foolish.
You Just don't get it. We could cut all discretionary spending excluding defense and it still would not balance the budget. Defense and Entitlements have to be cut.
I don't know what kind of silly games you want to try to play saying the federal budget cannot be balanced, but the fact is we did it under Clinton.
Have you noticed every time you try to dispute what I say I back it up with cited facts? There is a reason for that.
You are right about Wharton. For an administrator he makes a pretty good trial lawyer.
Is this the Flyer, or did I accidentally stumble on someone's Instagram feed?
You are showing your ignorance of the economy with your last post.
First of all, all, 100% of safety net programs for the poor and low income accounts for 12% of the federal budget. Thirty percent of the federal budget accounts for all discretionary spending. But, only 12% of the entire budget is allocated for safety net programs. Social Security is technically off budget, while medicare spending is on budget. I will give you the source of why the gop try to always use social security to bolster their argument that we are spending too much.
Now, the reason why democrats stick to their guns on saying that discretionary spending is not out of control is because as a share of the federal budget, less tax breaks, it would be very, very, small or. You see, for the FY 2014 budget, there are 1.18 trillion dollars in tax breaks while there is only 1.5 trillion in all discretionary spending. The dems say cut the tax breaks and you don't have a problem with discretionary spending and you definitely don't, even now, have a problem with safety net programs for the poor and low income.
You can't really have a balanced federal budget because the federal budget is not the same as other budgets, even state and local governments. All states depend on the federal budget to shore up their shortfalls, however, the federal government on has 3 choices. They can either cut programs, raise taxes to pay for them or kick them back to the state to handle. The states have a fourth option, they can ask the federal government for help. If the federal budget were balanced by law with teeth into it, what you would have is many tax increases to pay for different things, especially disasters, etc. You would also have to cut essential programs and services that are now given. But, the federal government can take the last resort, deny states aid; in other words, let the states take care of all of their emergencies, etc. If you did either one of those things, the American people would scream bloody murder. So, having a rigid balanced budget for the federal budget is not really politically tenable, not in realistic terms.
Cats, you were wrong about the total amount being spent on discretionary spending and way wrong on the amount being spent on all social safety net programs.
Sources for total discretionary spending and tax breaks: OMB, National Priority Project
SSA and the budget: SSA.gov Agency History, Research #20, The Social Security Trusts Funds and The Federal Budgets.
How our budget is spent: Policy Basics: Where Do Our Tax Dollars Go, revised 4/13/2013 by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. (that is where the 12% comes from and on which programs it supports).
Try researching this stuff before you post. You won't make yourself look so gullible about what others are saying. Remember, reading is fundamental.
It has been clear for some time that Wharton is not very adept at running a government. He is a nice fellow but his experience is in the legal field and that doesn't necessarily prepare you to head a major governmental administration. When he was county mayor, there were a number of experienced people who had been around for years who guided the government and kept Wharton from making major mistakes. For the most part, that situation did not exist when he got to City Hall. One of Herenton's strengths was that in coming into an office he always kept a large number of experienced people from previous administrations who were effective in governmental operations. However, by Herenton's last term or so most of those people had left city government. It appeared that a number of successors that Herenton picked for appointment were not as skilled at their jobs as the people they succeded. When Wharton came into office, there were not a large number of skilled and experienced people at the upper levels of city government. At the same time, the City Council members in this term and the last term have shown themselves to be the most inept council in the history of the council. They also seem to be nice well-meaning people but they have not performed well as a council. They are the only group of council members who believed for about six months that they had passed an 18-cent property tax increase when in fact they did not pass a tax increase. At the same time, the Wharton administration knew that the increase had not been passed but the mayor and top administration officials never alerted council members or the public that no increase had occurred.
I am a dyed in the wool democrat. Senator Alexander is a republican and I don't support him, however, I am not ready to crucify him for what his senior staffer is accused of.
If he didn't know, he didn't know and this is a type of thing that one doesn't necessarily suspect from working with a person. There is too much of this blaming people for things before all the facts are in.
If Alexander didn't know, then, he took the appropriate action once these charges were filed.
As far as clearances, that is the purview of the Department of Homeland Security. Most sexual perversions, illegal, are hidden from view when a person is investigated for a clearance.
Let the senator be until it is shown that he knew or suspected his staffer of something!
@ Sharyn Bovat
The investigation began in 2010. The invoices are dated 2010. When the feds got a hold of or were informed of the invoices, it doesn't really say. But, it is a damn good Question.
the Feds KNEW he bought porn in 2010 & they could have/ should have told the prominent Senator that he had a "compromised" staffer. OMG! Lamar is on a senate JUSTICE committee, Energy Committee & Dept of Defense committee I was asked about security clearances because the staffer that had a salary of 169K had access to classified info. Something is NOT kosher... Please investigate. http://haslamfbiirsraid.blogspot.com/2013/12/reid-weingarten-im-telling-james-comey.html
What's wrong with Tennessee snipes?
The only number I have adjusted was the 16M SNAP# which was a result of a not to sharp memory and running with it before checking to make sure. It makes little difference.
"All social programs that help the low income and the poor only takes up about 6.4% of the federal budget. "
What? Where did you get this number? Entitlements (64%) and interest on the debt (6%) make up 70% of the budget. Of the remaining 30% which is discretionary spending Defense spending comprises about 57% of that.
"Also, you are greatly mistaken about Snap being a generational program. Snap is based on the income of the participates, not on their family lineage. "
Are you being intentionally obtuse? What I said was SNAP is all some families have ever known and it has become generational within them. Unfortunately, it is true.
"Tax reform is needed. Programs need not be cut, at least social programs, they need to be increased."
Wrong, you can't get to a fiscally sound position without both increasing revenue and cutting spending. Doing just one won't get you there. Of course economic growth would go a long way in alleviating how much we have to do of both. But this bustling economy just keeps roaring on its fever pitch.
No talking points here OTP. how many times do you need to hear it? What did some put that at the top of YOUR list?
"Lastly, the federal budget can never really be balanced. It is like our constitution, ever expanding and growing. "
I understand now when people say you just make stuff up. Bill Clinton balanced the budget, of course he was drug there kicking and screaming by a republican Congress. Not really that is what I was talking about earlier working together for: Country before self, party or ideology. Leaders make it happen.
You constantly talk about tax reform, but, you only mean to reform taxes that don't apply to you.
Why should my tax dollars be used to give deductions to people who are buying houses when the renter, who pays just as much or more for their shelter, gets nothing? Oh, I think I understand; that mortgage interest deduction affects you and me, so, of course we need to leave that as it is. but, is it fair? No, it isn't. Homebuyers and renters are paying the same money out for shelter, why should there be a deduction for one and not the other.
Why should we write tax law in such a way that it only applies to people in certain income ranges, charitable deductions, etc., but not to everyone?
The point that I am making is you say you are for tax reform, but, in reality, anything that would impact you in a negative way, you are not for it. You can't or shouldn't have it both ways.
The U. S. is not broke or going broke! We pay less than any industrialized country in the world in total personal taxes. How can we justify ending unemployment for the long term individuals, yet build another aircraft carrier, that is not needed, to the tune of 3 to 7 billion dollars? We already have enough weapons in our arsenals, conventionally, to destroy any country in the world. Why do we need more, especially at the cost of letting our citizens go hungry or homeless? Which is more important for our stability in our way of government.
If the government is supposedly concerned about the safety and general welfare of its citizens, then, why is so much of our infra-structure in decay, road bridges, water supply, etc? Will a new aircraft carrier or a new fighter plane that has never been deployed (F-22) fix those things?
If our government does not survive, it won't be from outside but inside, internal forces that will bring it down. The increasing disparity in wages is more harmful to our way of governing than the defense of the nation. We already have more than an adequate means of protecting ourselves from foreign nations. Hell, right now, we have the capacity to see every plane launched or ship deployed around the world. There can be no Pearl Harbor sneak attack on us in this modern world today.
What is wrong with the richest nation in the world making health insurance available to every citizen? The gop don't like the ACA, but, what would they replace it with? They never say. The elections coming up won't be about repealing the ACA, the conversation will be, instead, why are the republicans trying to take away my health coverage.
You say we need more jobs and I agree. How do we get there? It is simple; stop giving preferential treatment to companies that move offshore. We still use cooking utensils, underwear, shoes, etc. Why can't we institute tax policies that make it more advantageous for companies to product these items here instead of overseas.
Cats, stop listening to the talking points of business abetted by politicians of both parties.
Tax reform is needed. Programs need not be cut, at least social programs, they need to be increased. Social security has enough money to last, paying 100% of today's benefits for another 27 years. Medicare will last another 22 years. These are the easiest fixes of all. In order to add 75 years to social security, you can increase the Fica Tax Rate by 2.2% or you can raise the tax rate by 1.1 %, take the cap off of earnings subject to social security and actually give all social security recipients a raise and still keep the program solvent for 75 years. Medicare is an easy fix too. The ACA was designed to do just that. The ACA, fully implemented, will slow the rate of increases in healthcare. The other way to solve the problem with medicare is to let medicare bargain over the price of prescription drugs. Why is it that the cost of prescription drugs costs over 50% more in the U. S. than it does in Canada, Great Britain and other industrialized countries? Hell, even the VA pays 50 or more percent less for drugs than medicare. That is because the VA is allowed to bargain with the drug manufacturers while congress passed a law that will not allow medicare to do the same.
As a taxpayer and citizen of the U. S., my tax dollars should not be used to help private corporations move jobs offshore. If a private corporation want to move, let it be 100% at their own cost. If a U. S. Corporation makes money from it's foreign based concerns, but, still avail themselves of the protections that the U. S. guarantees, then they should pay taxes on their overseas profits at the same rates as U. S. based corporations. You see, without that U. S. protection, foreign countries would lure U. S. concersn to their countries, let them operate until their local people learn the ropes and then take them, without adequate compensation. they won't do it now, because those U. S. Corporation are protected by the U. S. and the might of it's military.
Oil companies search, find and develop oil fields for production and use for profit. That is their mission, their reason for being. If they don't find and develop oil fields, then they are effectively out of business. Why should my tax dollars be used to pay them to find and develop this resource, but, they keep all of the profits? If we are going to give them tax credits for doing what they were set up to do, why not make them seel all of their oil in the domestic market? Simple, isn't it?
The push now is on more education for Americans so that they can compete for the higher paying jobs. That is bullshit! What happens to the pay of engineers or any other job classification if you have a glut of qualified people? The wages come down. As more people enter the field, the more the wages will fall. A country, any country cannot maintain a viable high standard without manufacturing. The basic products that people must have is need now and will be needed in the future. Those jobs need to be here, here in the greatest consuming nation in the world. With the natural resources we have, an American should not have to go to college for 4 years or more to make a decent living for their family. Not every one will or want to be rich. The vast majority just want to be able to care for their family. Anyway, there are not enough capacity to employ everyone in a high paying job if everyone got an advanced degree.
The problem cats, is that you and many others have got wrapped up in the talking points of big business abetted by politicians from both parties. Neither of which has the general welfare of the people at heart.
Fixes for our economic problems are really easy, but, the will to do so has been usurped by powerful interest that are only interested in their welfare.
I will ask the following question: How can China and Japan lead the world in steel and other manufacturing when they do not have the natural resources? The answer is simple; they cannot, they are only paper tigers. There economics is a house of cards, depending on the whims of the countries that have an abundance of natural resources. They are and will be an economic power only as long as we allow them to be.
Lastly, the federal budget can never really be balanced. It is like our constitution, ever expanding and growing. The federals are responsible for the safety and the general welfare of it's citizens. There are so many vagaries involved until there can never be a fixed dollar amount attached to it. Needs that were unforeseen, especially the scope of, can pop up anytime: category 5 tornados, hurricanes, contagious desease , flooding, war, etc. You can never say that we can have an adequate budget for all of these and other things. Politicians use this, we must have a balanced budget, to get you away from the simple fixes that will get us back on the road to prosperity.
You are doing it again. You are using facts from one administration and carrying them over to the next. Just because an administration changes (end) doesn't mean that their policies do not live on. Policies enacted by one president can be rolled back when a new president enters office, however, laws that were enacted by a previous administration lives on in the new presidency until congress modifies and/or repeals them.
At least you have adjusted your figures on the decrease in income during the Obama administration, but, you didn't take into account the seriousness of this recession compared to 2007 and 2009 or to any other recession in modern history except the great depression. Those decreases in real wages are attributable to pass congressional action by prior administrations, both gop and dems. They are and were on the books when Obama was sworn in, he does not have the unilateral authority to change them. If you had not cherry picked facts from your source, you would have found that real wages have been on the decline for the last 30 years. This was and is a direct result of manufacturing jobs been moved offshore. The policies that allowed this goes all the way back to the signing of NAFTA under Clinton.
You say that we should only fund programs to the extent that we can afford. I agree with this in the abstract, but, in reality, it does not work. It is not a question of whether we can afford various programs, it is the priority that we place on certain programs. All social programs that help the low income and the poor only takes up about 6.4% of the federal budget. Is that too high? Why can't we afford to spend 6.4% of the budget on programs that provide a safety net for our poor and low income?
Snap is the most successful program the government has ever implemented, save social security and medicare. Snap programs actually put more money into the economy than it takes out. The multiplier effect in the dollars spent on Snap far outweighs the cost and the amazing thing is that the error and fraud rate is only 1%. There is no other program in government, either federal or state, that has a rate equal to or lower than the fraud/abuse rate of Snap.
Also, you are greatly mistaken about Snap being a generational program. Snap is based on the income of the participates, not on their family lineage. If one does not have enough income, they qualify for Snap. It is just that simple. Most of the families that receive Snap benefits work; they are not free loaders. You have to remember that welfare benefits are only paid for 5 years to a family, not forever. This was the result of Welfare Reform signed into law by Bill Clinton. There is no time limit on Snap because it focuses on income rather than a specified time. When more people are out of work or the wages decline to the point where more people fall below the poverty line, Snap recipients increase. When more are employed and wages actually rise, Snap recipients decline. This is true regardless of who is in the oval office.
TARP was a program to save the banks and financial institutions enacted under the Bush administration, not Obama's. Get your facts straight. The stimulus under Obama has been proven to have created over a million jobs. That is a fact. But, even that program was not enacted the way Obama wanted it to be. The congress cut and allocated money the way they wanted to do it. Bailing out GM and Chyrsler was done under Obama. It has now been seen as an unqualified success. These two auto giants have added 1 million jobs because of that bailout, the government actually made money from this bailout. I don't know where you are getting your information from, but, it seems to be one-sided.
But at least the stock market is rolling at all time highs, benefitting the wealthier among us.
I'm still shocked we haven't seen more outrage from the Dems over QE. You would think that fiscal policy benefitting the top 20% or so, and the 1% most, would be a GOP trickle down idea, but I haven't seen many Dems railing on the Fed policy.
You'd think at least the Occupy Wall Street faction would be out in full force blasting QE, but you don't see that either. Maybe the housing market will see an extra boost though with all these folks buying third homes with their stock market gains.
"In January 2009, the month President Obama entered the Oval Office and shortly before he signed his stimulus spending bill, median household income was $54,983. By June 2012, it had tumbled to $50,964, adjusted for inflation. (See the chart nearby.) That's $4,019 in lost real income, a little less than a month's income every year.
Unfair, you say, because Mr. Obama inherited a recession? Well, even if you start the analysis when the recession ended in June 2009, the numbers are dismal. Three years after the economy hit its trough, median household income is down $2,544, or nearly 5%.
Add the authors: "The overall decline since June 2009 was larger than the 2.6 percent decline that occurred" during the recession from December 2007 to June 2009. For household income, in other words, the Obama recovery has been worse than the Bush recession."
It occurred to me I might not have fully made my point, or as OTP see's it lambasted enough.
You still don't "get me." Real conservatives pay their bills. You carry the debt you can afford. Tax reform has something I have hollering about it seems like forever. We should return to the rates under Reagan for a start The Obama/Bush tax cuts are a mistake. (Obama extended all of them once and made 98% PERMANENT later he OWNS them as much as Bush does)
But that is only one part of the equation. We can't get to a fiscally sound position with revenue enhancement alone, there must be spending cuts. The piddly "sequester" cuts were not nearly enough and they are being undermined as I type. Entitlements and Defense have to undergo drastic cuts it is simple math.
But, Cats, everyone thinks that could lead to another recession and people will suffer, you ask? Yes, and if we don't do it eventually even more people will suffer. If we do do it we can start to have a real recovery not a jobless one.
You rail against trickledown economics, since he was elected President, Obama's "recovery" has see the top 1%'s income increase by 11.2% while the other 99% has seen a DECREASE in income of 0.4%. If the bottom 99% are financially worse off since President Obama was elected (intelligent people know it is an average of incomes) just where is the trickle to come from?
You accuse me of lambasting the President. If stating facts is lambasting, I plead guilty. (By the way the 16M on SNAP was probably a bit high it was unintentional more like a little over 14M it was an honest mistake by me.)
SNAP is another thing people often misunderstand about me. I do not begrudge those who are incapable of providing for themselves or those who need it as a temporary bridge between jobs or until they get a better job. It has too often become a generational way of life for the capable. But the real answer to our SNAP problem isn't cutting the benefits paid, but providing an economy that produces JOBS so that the 14 million more won't need it and we can work on reducing the rest.
Look up "TARP" and "shovel ready" while your at it throw in "green energy" see how many jobs the stimulus produced.
You want a raise in the minimum wage so do I. I also want a raise in US revenue through tax reform cutting deductions and loopholes so an effective rate for all including corporations more closely mirrors their assessed rate.
BTW, We should allow overseas corporate profits to be brought home and taxed at a reduced rate as long as those profits are used for job creation. Tax first, rebate after the actual job production has been proven, I'm not stupid. You won't find that on anyone's "talking points" list. I thought it up all on my own.
If the fact that corporate profits and social welfare spending are both at all time highs doesn't convince you who benefits most from welfare programs, nothing will.
Both of the parties in question benefit, but one benefits more, but the question remains; at whose expense?
I'm sorry, but, Julius Jones will have to get to those stores on his/her own.
Hell, I love my people, but, I would rather send my love from afar.
Shea, Pull my finger.
"I think we've all gone to the grocery store....." I also have to doubt you've actually been to the (do you mean ghetto)stores you describe. I do and coincidentally have run people out of handicapped spots, in large part just because I was having a bad day.
I'm sure OTP would be pleased to show you around one if you pay for the security, or just grow a pair.
By Joe Boone
download this issue
click here to see more »