Since the US budget seems to come up now and again around here, the military seems to take the biggest hit when it comes to cutting the funds. Using this nifty (surely not 100% accurate) chart, is there some reason why Health and Human Services, Social Security, and the Treasury don't feel the cuts as much? Is it one of those "Can't be an Indian giver" deals with social programs or is there some other reason?
Nifty chart series from The Washington Post
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- US Budget Basics
US Budget BasicsFollow
Jophiel wrote:
Pack your own lunch and bring nothing but Pixie Stix and Pop Rocks and get your liberty on.
We overpay our officals. Cut their wages and benefits by half!
The real answer is "Cheese."
The real answer is "Cheese."
I wonder what constitutes "Social Security and other payroll taxes." Just using the chart it makes Social Secuirty look like it's a net gain in revenues, while I sincerely doubt it is.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Tailmon wrote:
We overpay our officals. Cut their wages and benefits by half!
The real answer is "Cheese."
The real answer is "Cheese."
Don't, please. When I see the inane chatter in ding threads or about video games, I don't press you on it. But when it comes to something that matters, don't. Throwing out a red herring as a deliberate political tactic is bad, but throwing out a red herring just so you can have something to say is as bad.
If every federal elected official was to earn 0 salary from now on, the federal budget wouldn't even be dented.
.
Edited, Jan 30th 2011 8:46am by Jophiel
Edited, Jan 30th 2011 8:46am by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Smasharoo wrote:
Me: I'm going to ram this cheese right up your ***.
Well, that is the real answer.
The brief and easy answer is the word "Mandatory". Spending for those items is cemented in by legislation. Congress can change the legislation by changing (or eliminating) programs such as changing eligibility requirements but, without that, they require whatever it takes to fully fund them by law. If you want them lower, Congress has to pass legislation cutting benefits to make them cost less.
Edited, Jan 30th 2011 9:28am by Jophiel
Edited, Jan 30th 2011 9:28am by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Smasharoo wrote:
I wonder what constitutes "Social Security and other payroll taxes." Just using the chart it makes Social Secuirty look like it's a net gain in revenues, while I sincerely doubt it is.
It's just income, idiot. The money doesn't know it was derived from "payroll taxes," neither does the government. Functionally, payroll taxes don't have any actual tie with social security, that's just the fairy tale used to exclude them from calculations and the reality that the tax burden in the US is crushingly high on the lower and middle classes and virtually non existent for those earning $200,000+ annually.
No program is a "net gain". What the fuck does that even mean? People like you are the reason I can't exist in polite society:
Me: Hey we need eggs and cheese, and it'll cost $24.
You: Ok, here's $24. How much of this is for the cheese?
Me: What?
You: How much does the cheese cost?
Me: $15.
You: Well how much of the $24 I'm giving you goes to the cheese? Because if it's $10, we're losing money on the cheese.
Me: I'm going to ram this cheese right up your ***.
Cheerio.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Quote:
The real answer is "Cheese."
Jophiel wrote:
The brief and easy answer is the word "Mandatory".
i don't know what to believe anymore
Just legalize and tax the hell out of both marijuana and prostitution.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Uglysasquatch wrote:
I wonder what constitutes "Social Security and other payroll taxes." Just using the chart it makes Social Secuirty look like it's a net gain in revenues, while I sincerely doubt it is.
It actually is. We've been effectively double taxed since the 80s to account for the Baby Boomers which are just now starting to retire. That's where the $2 trillion Social Security "surplus" comes from. It's going to peak out around $4 trillion. The surplus is intended to wind down as the last of the Baby Boomers die off.
Rather than stick this surplus in a mayonnaise jar, the government buys Treasury bills with it. This is why the right likes to say that the Social Security is full of IOUs. Social Security is not in danger of running out of money. Without changing anything at all, Social Security will be able to pay 100% of benefits to all beneficiaries for the next 27 years. At that point, if nothing is done, Social Security will be able to payout ~75% of benefits.
Love,
PunkFloyd
PunkFloyd
Kavekk wrote:
Quote:
The real answer is "Cheese."
Jophiel wrote:
The brief and easy answer is the word "Mandatory".
i don't know what to believe anymore
It's really very simple, the cheese is mandatory. I think Exo would agree.
Jophiel wrote:
The brief and easy answer is the word "Mandatory". Spending for those items is cemented in by legislation. Congress can change the legislation by changing (or eliminating) programs such as changing eligibility requirements but, without that, they require whatever it takes to fully fund them by law. If you want them lower, Congress has to pass legislation cutting benefits to make them cost less.
So, then it is as I thought on a basic level. Congress-critters wouldn't vote to change (read "decrease funding") social programs included in the Mandatory section of the budget unless they weren't trying to be re-elected. It would seem these types of programs would get more and more bloated from a little bit added here and there on elections promises.
Jophiel wrote:
Pack your own lunch and bring nothing but Pixie Stix and Pop Rocks and get your liberty on.
klausneck wrote:
Since the US budget seems to come up now and again around here, the military seems to take the biggest hit when it comes to cutting the funds. Using this nifty (surely not 100% accurate) chart, is there some reason why Health and Human Services, Social Security, and the Treasury don't feel the cuts as much? Is it one of those "Can't be an Indian giver" deals with social programs or is there some other reason?
Nifty chart series from The Washington Post
Nifty chart series from The Washington Post
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
varusword75 wrote:
Elinda,
No. I think it proper that the govn stay the f*ck out of peoples lifes and let them handle feeding, clothing, and sheltering themselves. You know that whole freedom and independence thing.
Quote:
Don't you think it proper that as a society advances it put more of it's resources into feeding, clothing, educating
No. I think it proper that the govn stay the f*ck out of peoples lifes and let them handle feeding, clothing, and sheltering themselves. You know that whole freedom and independence thing.
Quote:
Quote:
it's populace than sending them off to other countries to kill and get killed?
Depends on who they're killing and why. It's easy to wish we didn't have to spend federal tax dollars on a military but difficult when you're actually dealing with an army of radical muslim terrorists bent on the destruction of western civilization.
Edited, Jan 31st 2011 6:18pm by Elinda
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
varusword75 wrote:
Elinda,
No. I think it proper that the govn stay the f*ck out of peoples lifes and let them handle feeding, clothing, and sheltering themselves. You know that whole freedom and independence thing.
Depends on who they're killing and why. It's easy to wish we didn't have to spend federal tax dollars on a military but difficult when you're actually dealing with an army of radical muslim terrorists bent on the destruction of western civilization.
Quote:
Don't you think it proper that as a society advances it put more of it's resources into feeding, clothing, educating
No. I think it proper that the govn stay the f*ck out of peoples lifes and let them handle feeding, clothing, and sheltering themselves. You know that whole freedom and independence thing.
Quote:
it's populace than sending them off to other countries to kill and get killed?
Depends on who they're killing and why. It's easy to wish we didn't have to spend federal tax dollars on a military but difficult when you're actually dealing with an army of radical muslim terrorists bent on the destruction of western civilization.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Ugly,
Well get the liberals to let us drill here and maybe we would get the f*ck out.
Well get the liberals to let us drill here and maybe we would get the f*ck out.
Quote:
No. I think it proper that the govn stay the f*ck out of peoples lifes and let them handle feeding, clothing, and sheltering themselves. You know that whole freedom and independence thing.
Yeah, fuck the children who are fool enough to be born into poverty.
Quote:
Well get the liberals to let us drill here and maybe we would get the f*ck out.
On this I actually agree with you. The libs need to stop being treehuggers just to appeal to the hippy demo. Off-shore drilling is completely safe. What do they think could go wrong? Oh, wait...
varusword75 wrote:
Ugly,
Well get the liberals to let us drill here and maybe we would get the f*ck out.
Well get the liberals to let us drill here and maybe we would get the f*ck out.
Let's see, oil being a fungible commodity, the oil drilled here would go into the general oil market. Then it would be purchased by companies, just like it is today. So "our" oil isn't really "our" oil, and the little drilled here compared to other places would affect the market very little.
Unless of course, you are advocating that we have a government controlled oil system, where all the oil drilled in the US actually stays in the US. You stinking commie!
The $100 billion the GOP promised to cut out of the budget has already been reduced to $50 billion. First they said the 2011 budget wasn't as large as they first though so they only need to cut $85bil. But since it'll be a short budget year, they can pro-rate much of that and cut only $50bil. So there ya go -- $100bil in cuts for the low price of only $50bil removed from the budget.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
varusword75 wrote:
Ugly,
Well get the liberals to let us drill here and maybe we would get the f*ck out.
Well get the liberals to let us drill here and maybe we would get the f*ck out.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
varusword75 wrote:
No. I think it proper that the govn stay the f*ck out of peoples lifes and let them handle feeding, clothing, and sheltering themselves. You know that whole freedom and independence thing.
But who you want to stick your **** into and how many babies you want to have is where the government really needs to throw their weight around. Freedom and independence, indeed.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
Uglysasquatch wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
Ugly,
Well get the liberals to let us drill here and maybe we would get the f*ck out.
Well get the liberals to let us drill here and maybe we would get the f*ck out.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Recent Visitors: 392
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (392)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- US Budget Basics
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC