|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 1, 2013 15:10:53 GMT
Yes, paying one's bills is top priority in being fiscally responsible. But when one is overspending to the point, they are actually only paying on the interest of that debt, it's past time to do some cutting. Just think of what happens when an individual is over-spending. They are charging on all their credit cards and their debt swells and is a huge worry to them. They make "X" amount of salary, which won't change all that much over the next few years. So unless they win the lottery or have a rich Uncle who leaves them lots of money.....what does a smart person do? They cut their spending. They continue to make payments on those credit cards, but they cut spending so that they are not adding to that total debt and in fact, they will try to pay some on that principle too.....so as to decrease the debt. So....individuals have to be responsible...and so do governments.
Congress is the representative of the People of the United States and when it authorizes an expenditure it creates an obligation of the People of the United States to pay for that expenditure. While the Congress has the obligation to collect the revenues necessary to pay the authorized expenditures the American People are responsible for actually paying for the expenditures, not the Congress.
So when the Congress authorizes $3.5 trillion in spending the question is whether a the People have enough income to pay for that expenditure and the fact is that we do. I recently looked up gross personal income in the United States and it was almost $13 trillion (less than the GDP) and even with the necessary living expenses of the American People there is ample excess income to pay that $3.5 trillion in federal expenditures.
There's more than enough money to pay for even a $5 trillion annual budget but that doesn't imply that the Congress should authorize $5 trillion in spending.
I do agree that we need to pragmatically address spending by government to reduce it to what is necessary and eliminate that which is unnecessary but there is no question that Americans produce enough wealth to fund the current expenditures.
We can afford to pay the bills. We may not like them and we certainly have to figure out a fair way for the government to derived the revenue necessary to pay the bills but Americans can afford to pay the bills because we have enough personal wealth creation every year to fund the authorized expenditures of Congress as well as enough to pay down the national debt.
Fiscal Responsibility require that the Bills be Paid and we have enough wealth creation annually in the United States to Pay the Bills.
That was what I addressed in my Federal Tax proposal. I addressed that we have more than enough wealth created annually to "pay the bills" and then addressed where that revenue needs to be derived from. It was not an endorsement for unnecessary spending but it paid for it anyway. Addressing necessary and unnecessary spending comes after first paying the existing bills (authorized expenditures).
I like using the analogy of a home mortgage which is typically the largest expenditure by a home owner. We might have a loan with a high interest rate that is consuming a large percentage of our income. That high interest rate can represent "unnecessary" spending if we can secure a lower interest rate. We don't stop paying the mortgage while we attempt to refinance to a lower interest rate to reduce our unnecessary spending. It would be fiscally irresponsible to not pay the mortgage when we have the income to pay it.
The People of the United States have the aggregate income to "pay the mortgage" and then we can work to "refinance the mortgage" to eliminate the unnecessary spending. The only real question is "which Americans have the excess income to pay the mortgage" because we don't have equal income distribution. This is where "fair taxation" becomes the issue because we can afford the "pay the mortgage" but not all Americans are equally able to do that.
Democrats, Republicans (including Tea Party Republicans) are all fiscally irresponsible because they don't advocate "Paying the Bills" even though Americans produce more than enough personal wealth to "Pay the Bills" and "Paying the Bills" is a fundamental necessity for Fiscal Responsibility.
As noted in the 2012 Presidential Election only Gary Johnson proposed a balanced budget his first year in office. I don't know how he planned to do that but he was the only one that made the proposal. Not even Ron Paul made that proposal although he promised a balanced budget by 2015 but it contained cuts to both unnecessary expenditures and necessary expenditures to accomplish that. We can't throw out the baby with the bathwater to balance the US budget.
The position of "Don't Pay the Bills" is Fiscally Irresponsible but that is the Tea Party and Ted Cruz's position because they don't support paying for the currently authorized expenditures of government even though the aggregate income of Americans is fully capable of doing that. They're "anti-tax" advocates and not advocates of "fiscal responsibility" were the necessary taxes are collected to fund the authorized expenditures.
That is something that "Tea Party" movement supporters really need to think about because I've not read of any Tea Party proposals that are actually advocating fiscal responsible. They're all "anti-tax" proposals that ignore the fact that the first law of Fiscal Responsibility is to Pay the Bills. After paying the bills then it's time to work on eliminating unnecessary expenditures that would reduce the financial obligation. That would be, at best, the second law of Fiscal Responsibility although Fiscal Responsibility doesn't preclude spending on "luxuries" that are an unnecessary expenditure if it's affordable. Paying the existing bills is what must be done immediately while reducing future financial obligations is something to do after the current bills are paid.
Basically the Tea Party has placed the cart in front of the horse. Something to think about......
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Nov 1, 2013 15:31:18 GMT
I've not suggested we simply stop paying our bills. I said, cut some spending. The problem with giving the federal gov't money for programs is that they never want to cut anything; they only want to increase spending. A perfect example is the food stamp program, now called S.N.A.P. In case you are unaware, that program has ballooned by 368% over a ten-year period. And there is no way there are 45 million people in our country starving. And so now....the "temporary" expansion of the program by Obama via some Stimulus money is ending....and people are complaining, calling it a cut. And the numbers on it now should be cut as well....considering it's too easy to get the EBT cards and there are people on it who don't need to be on it. We need the program to be for it's original intended purpose. But this is how federal programs get abused when they are using that "free taxpayer money."
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 1, 2013 16:06:44 GMT
I've not suggested we simply stop paying our bills. I said, cut some spending. The problem with giving the federal gov't money for programs is that they never want to cut anything; they only want to increase spending. A perfect example is the food stamp program, now called S.N.A.P. In case you are unaware, that program has ballooned by 368% over a ten-year period. And there is no way there are 45 million people in our country starving. And so now....the "temporary" expansion of the program by Obama via some Stimulus money is ending....and people are complaining, calling it a cut. And the numbers on it now should be cut as well....considering it's too easy to get the EBT cards and there are people on it who don't need to be on it. We need the program to be for it's original intended purpose. But this is how federal programs get abused when they are using that "free taxpayer money."
If a person doesn't advocate paying the bills in the first place then they are not advocating fiscal responsibility and, are in effect, opposing paying the bills.
Pay the bills first and then Congress can negotiate what is considered to be "necessary" and "unnecessary" expenditures.
We can argue that SNAP has increased 368% over ten years but is that because of changing the criteria (i.e. lowering it) for authorizing the expenditure or because more people have fallen below the eligibility criteria? "Real Income" has been decreasing over the last 10 years for the first time in American history and dramatically decreased after the 2008 recession. If the criteria is linked to the ability of people to pay for the food they require then it is directly tied to "real income" that reflects what a person is able to purchase. The criteria is not the problem. The problem is a decline in "real income" that results in a person not being able to afford the food they require.
SNAP expenditures are not the real problem from what I've found. More people with declining "real income" that is moving them below the "poverty level" for the program is the problem. The expenditure is a symptom of the problem and not the problem itself. We need to address the problems and not the symptoms.
Social Security is a disaster IMHO because it addressed a symptom (i.e. a lack of income in old age) as opposed to the problem Congress identified in the 1930's which was about 1/2 of the People didn't invest during their working career to have the assets necessary when they were too old to work that would provide the income necessary.
Welfare that mitigates the effects of poverty is not the problem. It is a symptom of the problem because the real problem is poverty. Eliminate or reduce the poverty and it eliminates or reduces the necessity to mitigate the effects of the poverty.
We need to focus on the "problems" as opposed to the symptoms of the problem. That is what Congress is very incompetent at doing. It's always addressing symptoms as opposed to doing anything to fix the problems. Congress gives aspirin to someone with a brain tumor but doesn't treat the brain tumor that only gets worse with time. We go from "aspirin" to "morphine" because Congress is treating the symptoms as opposed to the disease.
The "Tea Party" movement is addressing the symptoms of the problems while refusing to address the problems. The "Tea Party" cannot claim to be any better than the Democrats if all it does is address the symptoms and refuses to address the problems.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Nov 1, 2013 16:44:10 GMT
"Declining real income" does not equate to starving. 45 Million people being on food stamps is 15% of our population. There is no way there are 45 million people in our country going hungry. No way. You don't even seem to care about looking in to how it's being abused from it's original intent. The fact that middle-income level students in college are on it doesn't seem to bother you. The fact that it is being abused by some so that they can spend the $200/mo they make on something else....while the U.S. taxpayers buy them food doesn't seem to bother you. The rules for getting an EBT card are not strict enough and have in fact been pushed on people. And that is wrong.
BTW, which bills are we not paying?
Other than the U.S. military who according to many top retired U.S. Generals has been allowed to go into serious decline, I can think of nothing that is NOT being paid. And the defense of the nation is the number ONE job of the federal gov't....so that is a real shame. This Commander-In-Chief, however, doesn't care.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 2, 2013 12:21:57 GMT
The rules for getting an EBT card are not strict enough and have in fact been pushed on people. And that is wrong.
BTW, which bills are we not paying?
Other than the U.S. military who according to many top retired U.S. Generals has been allowed to go into serious decline, I can think of nothing that is NOT being paid. And the defense of the nation is the number ONE job of the federal gov't....so that is a real shame.
The "opinion of the generals" is based upon what is necessary for the United States military to conduct at least two concurrent wars of foreign interventionism, providing for the national defense of other nations (that their citizens are responsible for funding), and is completely illogical when it comes to the role of the US military to: 1) Act as a deterring force to prevent any attacks, or; 2) To defend the nation in the event of an invasion or attack. Defending the United States did not include fighting the Korean War, Vietnam War, Gulf War, Afghanistan War, or Iraq War as none of those were in defense of the United States. None of those wars were in response to any attack or invasion of the United States by the countries we went to war against. They were wars of aggression and not defense by the United States.
We over-spend on the US military, period, and here are examples. We don't need 13 carrier fleets to defend any United States shores from invasion or attack. Two carrier fleets in the Atlantic and three in the Pacific are more than adequate to defend the United States from any seaborne attack or invasion. There isn't even one other carrier fleet like ours anywhere in the world. It can't be logically argue that we need to spend more on defense than the next highest spending ten nations combined if the purpose of our military is to defend us from any of those nations attacking us. Of course there isn't a single nation in the world that has any intentions of attacking or invading us and no nation even has the capability to do that successfully.
When the "generals" say the military doesn't have enough funding they're referring to the role of the US military being the World Cop and are not referring to the US military defending the United States from invasion or attack.
Borrowing to pay a bill is not paying the bill. A couple of years ago roughly 40% of all federal spending was being paid for with borrowing and while that sounds bad it's actually worse. That included Social Security and Medicare spending that is funded 100% so the borrowing only related to all of the general expenditures which account for about 2/3rds of all federal expenditures. That 40% related to about 67% of federal expenditures which means that almost 60% of all general expenditures were paid for by borrowing!!! We only collected enough in general tax revenues to pay for 40% of what we spent on all general expenditures.
We can look at general welfare programs and out of about $500 billion spent we only paid for $200 billion of it. We can look at the US military and out of $800 billion spent we paid for $320 billion of it. This cuts across all government programs and spending from the general budget that are funding by general taxation. Even this isn't the whole picture because the interest on the debt, that comes from general tax revenues, is actually paid in full annually so the percentage of "unfunded" spending (i.e. paid for with borrowing) for all general expenditures is even less.
Here's the real kicker though. Whether we agree with the spending or not the bills must still be paid and they can be paid. We have close to $13 trillion in personal income in the United States. If we exclude Social Security/Medicare that are fully funded (with almost $3 trillion in reserve) then the general expenditures are less than $2.5 trillion. That's less than 20% of available gross income. The people of the United States can afford to pay for the cost of even our inflated federal government spending. The key is in where that revenue comes from because the income is not equally spread across the board.
Here is the one place where the "Tea Party" is correct and that is that most Americans can't afford to pay more in taxes. The bottom 90% of Americans are over-taxed today. Why the "Tea Party" defends the low tax burden of those in the top 10%, or more specifically those in the top 1% that have an obscenely disproportionate amount of income, that have up to 1/2 the tax burden relative to income when compared to virtually anyone in the bottom 90% is a puzzlement for me.
Bottom line remains that we Must Pay or Bills and not by simply borrowing which just replaces one debt with another debt. We need to collect enough revenue to pay the bills regardless of what the bills are for, To do that we must increase taxation and that increase needs to focus on those that can afford to pay the taxes as opposed to those that can't afford to pay the taxes.
Refusing the collect enough in tax revenue is fiscal irresponsibility and the "Tea Party" has not made a single proposal that would pay for the authorized expenditures of Congress. That is why I correctly state that the Tea Party Republicans, Republicans in general, and Democrats are all fiscally irresponsible because not a single one of them is proposing that the federal government pay it's bills. Not one! The worst is the Tea Party because they are the most opposed to collecting enough in tax revenues to fund the authorized expenditures.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Nov 3, 2013 3:36:34 GMT
Point is Congress and the federal gov't, including both parties, has authorized TOO MUCH spending.....that they had no business doing. And the absolute most stupid thing that has happened is adding Trillions MORE through this fiasco called Obamacare. It was a ruse from the start; a lie....and now we are finding out just how big of a lie it actually was. People are *cuddle*ed....and I don't think that's going away.
And it's only Obama sycophants who agree with his Saul Alinsky path towards complete Socialism and his desire to "fundamentally change" our country that see nothing wrong with all this spending. It's the same reason that leaders like Ted Cruz and the Tea Party.....who are asking for some fiscal sanity..... are getting called "terrorists," by this administration and Democrats. That was another tactic of Alinsky......call the other guy a terrorist to hide your own intentions. Most Obama supporters, though, are either low-information type people; easily swayed........ OR they have their collective heads so far up his backside, they cannot see. It's the Chris Matthews, "I've got a tingle up my leg over Obama," attitude. But even many of those, IMO, would NOT have voted for him in 2012, except for the fact he's a good liar and things were kept from the public for that reason. Just look at how many issues we have no answers from Obama on: Fast & Furious; Benghazi; the IRS scandal; the NSA spying; and Obamacare......
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 3, 2013 12:01:43 GMT
Point is Congress and the federal gov't, including both parties, has authorized TOO MUCH spending.....that they had no business doing.
It isn't the amount of spending but instead the reasons for the spending that determines if it is "too much" spending. Of course whether the "reasons for spending" are justifiable is a matter of political debatable and like others I have my own political opinions on what should be "cut" as being unnecessary as to others. Ultimately Congress decides what is necessary and incorporates that into it's spending authorizations regardless of our personal opinions. All we can do is contact our elected members of Congress and express our opinions but Congress establishes the expenditures.That isn't what is really important though because that is a political discussion and is not the real problem.
The real problem is not funding the authorized expenditures!!!! "Not Paying the Bills" is the problem for BOTH Democrats and Republicans because it is FISCALLY IRRESPONSIBLE to not pay the bills and instead to rely on more and more borrowing to fund the expenditures. When Congress determines what the "necessary expenditures" are then we, the People of America, are responsible for paying for those authorized expenditures. We may disagree with the expenditures but we're still responsible for paying them. This is no different than a "spouse" running up a credit card bill. Regardless of whether it was necessary spending or not in the opinion of the other "spouse" the bill still must be paid.
I've proposed a revision to the tax codes that would balance the US budget in the first year of implementation that would fully fund whatever Congress determines to be the "necessary" expenditures.
Gary Johnson, the 2012 Libertarian presidential candidate, promised to balance the budget in 2014 but did not define how and didn't address what Congress would determine to be "necessary" expenditures.
Ron Paul, a 2012 Republican presidential candidate, made a budget proposal based solely upon spending cuts that didn't address whether the spending was necessary or not that might or might not have balanced the US budget by 2015 depending upon what Congress determined was necessary expenditures.
Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan have never proposed a balanced budget that would fund "necessary" expenditures that are determined by Congress.
Ted Cruz has never made a proposal that would balance the budget that would fund the "necessary" expenditures that are determined by Congress.
I'm the only person actually being FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE because I made a proposal that would literally balance the US budget regardless of what the Congress determines to be a "necessary" expenditure of the federal government. I may disagree with the spending, just like a man disagreeing with what his wife buys with a credit card, but I pay the bill because I'm fiscally responsible.
The problem is fiscal irresponsibility and that is the problem that must be addressed. Ted Cruz is not fiscally responsible, the Tea Party movement is not fiscally responsible, the Republican Party is not is not fiscally responsible, and the Democratic Party is not fiscally responsible (but the Democratic Party is the only one that has proposed increasing revenue that is required to pay for the authorized expenditures of Congress but hasn't stated how).
|
|
