IOUSA

[dashingly]

http://www.agorafinancial.com/iousa.html

Did anyone go to this last night?

[SpoofyChop]

I won't go to see it because it would be preaching to the choir. I definitely think the debt is sickening.

On the other hand, unlike Warren Buffet who "explained" that taxes need to be higher on CNBC this morning while talking about the movie, I think spending on stupid shit needs to be lower.

Like our "anti-terrorism" payments to Pakistan, the Iraq War, bridges to nowhere, etc.

[alexlitel]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_TjBNjc9Bo

There's a 30-minute version up on YouTube.

[WarrenM]

So, having watched the 30 minute version I can conclude that ... we're fucked? I mean, there was basically no solution offered other than, "Fix it, kthx". Oy.

[alexlitel]

So, having watched the 30 minute version I can conclude that ... we're fucked? I mean, there was basically no solution offered other than, "Fix it, kthx". Oy.Well, they have a contest with mtvU to design a game that suggests fixes for the fiscal crisis. Debt is fun!

[Robert Sharp]

On the other hand, unlike Warren Buffet who "explained" that taxes need to be higher on CNBC this morning while talking about the movie, I think spending on stupid shit needs to be lower.


Why the false dilemma? We should do both.

[Kraaze]

For the spending decrease proponents, what spending are you suggesting we cut? I know it's easy to point to some of the sillier items in the federal budget but the pure pork stuff is only a very tiny share of the budget. As far as I'm aware, spending cuts large enough to be more than a token gesture would require cutting into social services or military spending. Which one (or perhaps both) do you feel is expendable?

[MarinusWA]

After viewing this I'm more convinced then ever that the USA is going to default. Either flat out or through hyperinflation.

58 trillion is a lot less if you start printing 100 million dollar bills.

[Malcolm Tucker]

I love how the fact that you guys spend two thirds of your money on the Army is just not up for discussion.

[Talisker]

I love how the fact that you guys spend two thirds of your money on the Army is just not up for discussion.
I don't love that fact.

[Jason McCullough]

Military spending is only 620 billion out of 2.8 trillion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget,_2007), including veteran's benefits. Including the off-budget current war fighting of 115 billion annually brings it to ~750 out of 2,900 billion, or 26%.

Personally I think we could get by spending half that and still rule the world, but it's not 67% of the budget.

[rhinohelix]

Which one (or perhaps both) do you feel is expendable?

I think there is plenty to "scale back" in the social services arena, given that is where the vast majority of monies are spent. The upward socio-economic creep of statist "welfare" and the entitlement mindset amongst all areas of the middle class has been one of the more dangerous outgrowths of the Great Society programmatic structure left over from the last great expansion of the government's social role.

End baseline budgeting. You don't have to actually "cut" as in reduce spending, although I think that rolling back budgets to 2004 levels wouldn't cause an apocalypse anywhere but in the media. Just freeze spending for two budget cycles and make the government do what every other enterprise on the face of the earth does, find efficiencies and get by with what you have. Who else gets an automatic raise every year and when they don't get what they expect, cry havoc and release the havoc of suffering because they only got 5% more than they had last year.

I don't have the exact numbers in front of me but one reason California is going bankrupt is their budget is something like 48% higher than it was in 2000. I know costs have gone up but 48% in 8 years?

Of course, the Democrats are ascending and have never met a government program they didn't like and no Republican has the stomach for such a fight. The last time the Republicans advocated a slowing of government growth from 10% to 7%, they were crucified as wanting to let old people die and starve kids. One of the largest criticisms of the current Administration is that in a time when we controlled both Houses of Congress and the Executive branch, we did nothing to even limit the pell-mell rush towards insolvency and reckless spending. In fact, many decided they liked it.

PR people will howl bloody murder when their little piece of the pie isn't one to grow and the public will react like junkies who don't have their smack when told they will have to do more for themselves rather than less for a change.

In the end, choices will have to be made, though.

Edit: While military spending is 26% of the year to year budget, isn't it at some century-low point as a percentage of GDP?

[Kraaze]

I think there is plenty to "scale back" in the social services arena, given that is where the vast majority of monies are spent.

What little googling I've done has turned up that military spending is pretty close to 2/3 of the budget when one combines all the actual military expenditures on equipment and personnel with the cost for benefits for veterans. But perhaps you have some better sources.

[Malcolm Tucker]

Jason, what about this (http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1941)? - Still not two thirds, but a lot more than 26%.

[Jason McCullough]

To estimate the size of the entire de facto defense budget, I gathered data for fiscal 2006, the most recently completed fiscal year, for which data on actual outlays are now available. In that year, the Department of Defense itself spent $499.4 billion. Defense-related parts of the Department of Energy budget added $16.6 billion. The Department of Homeland Security spent $69.1 billion. The Department of State and international assistance programs laid out $25.3 billion for activities arguably related to defense purposes either directly or indirectly. The Department of Veterans Affairs had outlays of $69.8 billion. The Department of the Treasury, which funds the lion’s share of military retirement costs through its support of the little-known Military Retirement Fund, added $38.5 billion. A large part of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s outlays ought to be regarded as defense-related, if only indirectly so. When all of these other parts of the budget are added to the budget for the Pentagon itself, they increase the fiscal 2006 total by nearly half again, to $728.2 billion.

Ooh, nice, he's got a point there. Technically there's a lot of quibbles - homeland security is mostly pre-existing non-defense organizations, and I think his interest calculation method is off, but it's good stuff.

[Malcolm Tucker]

I just remembered where I got my 2/3 figure from: That awesome graphic called Death and Taxes (http://www.wallstats.com/deathandtaxes/). Problem is, that's discretionary spending, not the entire budget. My bad.

[rhinohelix]

I just remembered where I got my 2/3 figure from: That awesome graphic called Death and Taxes (http://www.wallstats.com/deathandtaxes/). Problem is, that's discretionary spending, not the entire budget. My bad.

That makes more sense, so so much of the budget is non-discretionary.

[bigdruid]

I think there is plenty to "scale back" in the social services arena, given that is where the vast majority of monies are spent.
While technically true, what you fail to mention is that the "social services" you speak of (30-odd percent) consists primarily of medicare and medicaid.

Are you really saying we should start balancing the budget by cutting health benefits? Really? That's the best we can do? Because I'd personally start by having fewer wars and raising taxes before I'd decide to stop treating sick people.


Like our "anti-terrorism" payments to Pakistan, the Iraq War, bridges to nowhere, etc.
And, exactly how much would we save by this? Have you done the math? McCain prattled on about ending earmarks, etc, when the reality is that even if you eliminated *all* earmarks (many of which are actually valid budget expenditures) you'd only save like $18BB.

There are 4 ways to balance the budget: Cut social security, Cut medicare/medicaid, cut defense, or raise revenues. While cutting out other stuff *sounds* nice, it doesn't make a significant dent in the budget. At least rhino's approach (cut medicare/medicaid/social security) would work, even if I think it's obscene.

[Mordrak]

Are you really saying we should start balancing the budget by cutting health benefits? Really? That's the best we can do? Because I'd personally start by having fewer wars and raising taxes before I'd decide to stop treating sick people.


And, exactly how much would we save by this? Have you done the math? McCain prattled on about ending earmarks, etc, when the reality is that even if you eliminated *all* earmarks (many of which are actually valid budget expenditures) you'd only save like $18BB.

There are 4 ways to balance the budget: Cut social security, Cut medicare/medicaid, cut defense, or raise revenues. While cutting out other stuff *sounds* nice, it doesn't make a significant dent in the budget. At least rhino's approach (cut medicare/medicaid/social security) would work, even if I think it's obscene.

How much could we save by actually allowing the government to negotiate prescription prices for medicare/medicaid? We spend more than any other country on healthcare, yet don't have universal health insurance, and our only plan is to cut it back more. *sigh* So what efficiency are we getting from not having a single payer system again?