The Fiscal Cliff

[bmb777]

Originally Posted by Clemens

wrong again

no, you are wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_...tered_nominees

[bmb777]

Originally Posted by Leonardite

Dayton, you can't reason with Liberals and sometimes I wonder why you even try.

true story.

[DaFamousPurpleSuit]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

Social security is the definition of a Ponzi Scheme.

This...

[AHSIllini32]

Deficit Talk from the NYTimes

[AHSIllini32]

Originally Posted by Leonardite

Dayton, you can't reason with Liberals and sometimes I wonder why you even try.

Yes, because clearly "moderates" are easily reasoned with...:rolleyes::laugh:

[DaytonIllini]

Originally Posted by AHSIllini32

Yes, because clearly "moderates" are easily reasoned with...:rolleyes::laugh:

To be clear I am not a moderate. I am virulently liberal on most social issues and wildly conservative on issues of economics and liberty. Being at the poles on all issues doesn't allow you to average your positions and call yourself moderate.

[Charleston]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...id_116129.html

"By all means, let's avoid the "fiscal cliff": the $500 billion in tax increases and federal spending cuts scheduled for early 2013 that, if they occurred, might trigger a recession. But let's recognize that we still need to bring the budget into long-term balance. This can't be done only by higher taxes on the rich, which seem inevitable. Nor can it be done by deep cuts in defense and domestic "discretionary" programs (from highways to schools), which are already happening. It requires controlling the welfare state. In 2011, "payments for individuals," including health care, constituted 65 percent of federal spending, up from 21 percent in 1955. That's the welfare state."

We won't be able to get enough revenue by soaking the rich to fix a deep-rooted, structural problem.

[illini80]

The solution is clearly to have everyone pay their share and to invest in America. Problem solved.

The Democrats love when the Republicans offer actual ideas, because they can attack them and it takes the focus off of the fact that they have yet to offer a solution of their own. And they will never do so. Because they would much rather do exactly what they have done the last 2 years and get easily re-elected.

[DaytonIllini]

This isn't hard to solve. It just is going to hurt. But as long as we are playing games by protecting 98% of the citizens from paying up we are in trouble.

We Spend $6.3 trillion dollars a year.

Govt Pensions $1.1T
Govt Healthcare $1.1T
Education $0.9T
Defense $0.9T
Welfare $0.6T
Everything Else $1.6T

But we only bring in $5.0T a year.

So we are $1.3T in the hole. You can get up to $100B of that by increasing taxes on the rich to Clinton era levels. That leaves $1.2T in deficit. In 2006 our deficit under Bush was about $160B. So we need to come up with $1T a year in savings to get us down to the heyday of the Bush era. Good luck with that.

You are going to have to increase the age to social security and medicare.
You are going to have to means test social security and medicare so that those with assets of say $100K or more don't get the full amount making it a true welfare program.
You are going to have to cut defense spending to something more reasonable. Let's say cut it in half.
With those draconian changes you are still with a deficit of around $500B a year. You can close that somewhat with a consumption tax on everyone. Whether you call that a VAT or a carbon tax or bump up the payroll taxes is up to you but it is going to have to come.

Instead though we have one party, the Republicans, who want to cut taxes on everyone. The other party wants to cut taxes on everyone except the wealthy.

They are both appearing dumb but they know they cannot do what they are saying. That makes them deceitful. It makes their constituents dumb.

People, you are going to get rocked by an economic shock the size of which you never contemplated. You are likely to find out just how close to poor people you actually are. It is going to be ugly and as soon as it begins it will likely happen very quickly. Because once the markets get a whiff that the bonds won't get paid back OR that they will be paid back in devalued sheckles we will see a huge increase in the cost of financing our debt.

[bmb777]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

To be clear I am not a moderate. I am virulently liberal on most social issues and wildly conservative on issues of economics and liberty. Being at the poles on all issues doesn't allow you to average your positions and call yourself moderate.

I'd say a more accurate comment would be don't bother to try to reason with AHS Illini. it's pointless and a waste of time.

[Sure Shot]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

This isn't hard to solve.

We Spend $6.3 trillion dollars a year.

But we only bring in $5.0T a year.

So we are $1.3T in the hole.

This is not a 5th grade math problem. It is a dynamic, changing, hyper-interconnected system.

There is no elementary route to closing a 1.3 trillion gap that doesn't make that baseline 5 trillion of revenue get smaller. Austerity slows growth. That's a bright-line truism.

The question no one is asking is how do we prepare ourselves to meet 2025 on 2025's terms? Because if our answer to that question isn't adequate, there is no way out no matter how much pain you're willing to inflict.

And you would think that would be a more powerful message than the dinner-theatre morality play of the 99% versus the Job Creators, but here we are.

[DaytonIllini]

Originally Posted by Sure Shot

This is not a 5th grade math problem. It is a dynamic, changing, hyper-interconnected system.

There is no elementary route to closing a 1.3 trillion gap that doesn't make that baseline 5 trillion of revenue get smaller. Austerity slows growth. That's a bright-line truism.

The question no one is asking is how do we prepare ourselves to meet 2025 on 2025's terms? Because if our answer to that question isn't adequate, there is no way out no matter how much pain you're willing to inflict.

And you would think that would be a more powerful message than the dinner-theatre morality play of the 99% versus the Job Creators, but here we are.

Well here is another truism for you. We spent only $4.9T in 2007 and had a robust economy. We obviously don't need to spend $6.3T at the federal level.

That was:

$0.8T Pensions
$0.9T Healthcare
$0.8T Education
$0.7T Defense
$0.4T Welfare

[Sure Shot]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

We spent only $4.9T in 2007 and had a robust economy.

I know you understand that it's not that simple. I know you know that the budget priorities and underlying commitments that were in place in 2007 remained virtually unchanged in 2012. Would you rather just lob context-free grenades from a distance or actually engage on this? Because a claim that we can just go back to 2007 and that all of our substantive commitments will magically cost the same in 2013 dollars is the same type of Candyland nonsense that you get so huffy about when your chosen enemy does it.

[DaytonIllini]

Originally Posted by Sure Shot

I know you understand that it's not that simple. I know you know that the budget priorities and underlying commitments that were in place in 2007 remained virtually unchanged in 2012. Would you rather just lob context-free grenades from a distance or actually engage on this? Because a claim that we can just go back to 2007 and that all of our substantive commitments will magically cost the same in 2013 dollars is the same type of Candyland nonsense that you get so huffy about when your chosen enemy does it.

You really think we needed to double our welfare spending? That we still need to be spending almost $1T on defense even though the wars are winding down? That all the discretionary increase that occurred is necessary?

See.

I don't.

It is sort of amazing that you cannot find a 2-5% trimming of costs in the government. You do realize that over the past few decades our business sector has aggessively become more efficient and productive while our public sector has done none of the cost cutting and seen none of the efficiency gains that were available to it. Why? Because it didn't have to. It is my opinion that any supervisor anywhere in any business can have their budget cut by 2-5% without adversely affecting the product they put out.

[Sure Shot]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

You really think we needed to double our welfare spending? That we still need to be spending almost $1T on defense even though the wars are winding down? That all the discretionary increase that occurred is necessary?

See.

I don't.

It is sort of amazing that you cannot find a 2-5% trimming of costs in the government. You do realize that over the past few decades our business sector has aggessively become more efficient and productive while our public sector has done none of the cost cutting and seen none of the efficiency gains that were available to it. Why? Because it didn't have to. It is my opinion that any supervisor anywhere in any business can have their budget cut by 2-5% without adversely affecting the product they put out.

A 5% cut in government spending would get us to $5.9ish Trillion, nowhere near the $4.9 number from 2007 you quoted.

And I'm not philosophically opposed to any of these cuts, my question is where are we trying to go with them? How is America an economically competitive, socially vibrant and physically healthy nation in 10, 20, 50 years and what role does government have to play in getting there? A balanced budget is good, but it's no panacea. And it comes with real cost. A 5% decrease in Social Security payments, or welfare checks, or military R&D, or state highway funding, you name it, has real consequences. "Leaner and meaner" doesn't work in those contexts, the federal government is not a law firm or a marketing agency.

[DaytonIllini]

Originally Posted by Sure Shot

A 5% cut in government spending would get us to $5.9ish Trillion, nowhere near the $4.9 number from 2007 you quoted.

And I'm not philosophically opposed to any of these cuts, my question is where are we trying to go with them? How is America an economically competitive, socially vibrant and physically healthy nation in 10, 20, 50 years and what role does government have to play in getting there? A balanced budget is good, but it's no panacea. And it comes with real cost. A 5% decrease in Social Security payments, or welfare checks, or military R&D, or state highway funding, you name it, has real consequences. "Leaner and meaner" doesn't work in those contexts, the federal government is not a law firm or a marketing agency.

You misread or I miswrote. We will bring in more than $5T in revenue this year. There is no reason to get down to $4.9T. My point was that you don't NEED to spend at the rate we have been spending. As recently as 5 years ago we were spending $1.5T less than we are today (and of course that ignores the off balance sheet spending we are doing at the Fed and the trillions we are guaranteeing off balance sheet through the GSE's.

And it does work to be leaner and meaner. We can do a better job with getting value for our money. Too often bids are ridiculously high for governmental services. Too often cost overruns are eaten by the government. In any other endeavor if you overrun your costs as a supplier, TOO BAD. Surely we can wring out of welfare 5% waste, fraud, abuse or malingerers.

Social Security is tough but means testing it would easily recoup 5%. Why should millionaires benefit from a welfare program? 1956Illini used to argue that he paid into it so he deserves to get it back. Well I paid into food stamps but I don't feel a need to get that money back.

We could take the pruning shears to the military in a big way. Start with the pension plan. NOBODY should get a pension for spending a mere 20 years doing ANYTHING. I don't really understand the VA and who is eligible and I hesitate to mention this so close to Veteran's Day but come on. One year in the jungle in Nam and you get free healthcare forever? Seems a little ridiculous compared to what we give other heroes like the police of firefighters. And let's not forget that not everyone in the military is exactly getting shot at. We have people sitting at the entrance to Wright Patterson AFB. Not exactly tough duty. I'd put my nurses stress level against theirs any day of the week and ten times on Monday. Can't we at least assess the cost of these programs?

Education? Are we really getting what we purchase? Ditto healthcare.

[Sure Shot]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

You misread or I miswrote. We will bring in more than $5T in revenue this year. There is no reason to get down to $4.9T. My point was that you don't NEED to spend at the rate we have been spending. As recently as 5 years ago we were spending $1.5T less than we are today (and of course that ignores the off balance sheet spending we are doing at the Fed and the trillions we are guaranteeing off balance sheet through the GSE's.

And it does work to be leaner and meaner. We can do a better job with getting value for our money. Too often bids are ridiculously high for governmental services. Too often cost overruns are eaten by the government. In any other endeavor if you overrun your costs as a supplier, TOO BAD. Surely we can wring out of welfare 5% waste, fraud, abuse or malingerers.

Social Security is tough but means testing it would easily recoup 5%. Why should millionaires benefit from a welfare program? 1956Illini used to argue that he paid into it so he deserves to get it back. Well I paid into food stamps but I don't feel a need to get that money back.

We could take the pruning shears to the military in a big way. Start with the pension plan. NOBODY should get a pension for spending a mere 20 years doing ANYTHING. I don't really understand the VA and who is eligible and I hesitate to mention this so close to Veteran's Day but come on. One year in the jungle in Nam and you get free healthcare forever? Seems a little ridiculous compared to what we give other heroes like the police of firefighters. And let's not forget that not everyone in the military is exactly getting shot at. We have people sitting at the entrance to Wright Patterson AFB. Not exactly tough duty. I'd put my nurses stress level against theirs any day of the week and ten times on Monday. Can't we at least assess the cost of these programs?

Education? Are we really getting what we purchase? Ditto healthcare.

I think you have a couple of decent ideas there. I think 5% might be a bit ambitious in terms of savings this kind of thing would wring out, but that doesn't make it any less of a good idea. There is more pressure to save in the public sector than you seem to appreciate, but there are certainly ways we can save if we're willing to be innovative.

I guess my complaint is, even if that solves our debt problems without raising taxes (which I still think is a bit fanciful), how does that address the need to modernize our society and prepare us for the globalized economy of the future?

It just seems like more of a short-term fix than a long-term growth strategy to me. And it's the latter that I think we're really lacking.

[Holdemall]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

You misread or I miswrote. We will bring in more than $5T in revenue this year. There is no reason to get down to $4.9T. My point was that you don't NEED to spend at the rate we have been spending. As recently as 5 years ago we were spending $1.5T less than we are today (and of course that ignores the off balance sheet spending we are doing at the Fed and the trillions we are guaranteeing off balance sheet through the GSE's.

And it does work to be leaner and meaner. We can do a better job with getting value for our money. Too often bids are ridiculously high for governmental services. Too often cost overruns are eaten by the government. In any other endeavor if you overrun your costs as a supplier, TOO BAD. Surely we can wring out of welfare 5% waste, fraud, abuse or malingerers.

Social Security is tough but means testing it would easily recoup 5%. Why should millionaires benefit from a welfare program? 1956Illini used to argue that he paid into it so he deserves to get it back. Well I paid into food stamps but I don't feel a need to get that money back.

We could take the pruning shears to the military in a big way. Start with the pension plan. NOBODY should get a pension for spending a mere 20 years doing ANYTHING. I don't really understand the VA and who is eligible and I hesitate to mention this so close to Veteran's Day but come on. One year in the jungle in Nam and you get free healthcare forever? Seems a little ridiculous compared to what we give other heroes like the police of firefighters. And let's not forget that not everyone in the military is exactly getting shot at. We have people sitting at the entrance to Wright Patterson AFB. Not exactly tough duty. I'd put my nurses stress level against theirs any day of the week and ten times on Monday. Can't we at least assess the cost of these programs?

Education? Are we really getting what we purchase? Ditto healthcare.

Where is this figure coming from?

[illini80]

Originally Posted by Sure Shot

I think you have a couple of decent ideas there. I think 5% might be a bit ambitious in terms of savings this kind of thing would wring out, but that doesn't make it any less of a good idea. There is more pressure to save in the public sector than you seem to appreciate, but there are certainly ways we can save if we're willing to be innovative.

I guess my complaint is, even if that solves our debt problems without raising taxes (which I still think is a bit fanciful), how does that address the need to modernize our society and prepare us for the globalized economy of the future?

It just seems like more of a short-term fix than a long-term growth strategy to me. And it's the latter that I think we're really lacking.

SureShot, you have a lot of general ideas, but I haven't seen you offer anything concrete to debate. In particular I have a problem with this quote:

How is America an economically competitive, socially vibrant and physically healthy nation in 10, 20, 50 years and what role does government have to play in getting there?

I believe that is exactly what concerns most fiscal conservatives. You think the spending is necessary to stimulate and drive the economy today and in the future. We are stimulating to the tune of $1T plus per year. That is not producing anything close to a vibrant economy today and is a burden on tomorrows economy and society. There is a fundamental problem in today's economy. What do you believe that problem is and how do you propose to fix it without borrowing from tomorrows economy which may or may not be able to afford it? You already know what I think.

[DaytonIllini]

Originally Posted by Sure Shot

I think you have a couple of decent ideas there. I think 5% might be a bit ambitious in terms of savings this kind of thing would wring out, but that doesn't make it any less of a good idea. There is more pressure to save in the public sector than you seem to appreciate, but there are certainly ways we can save if we're willing to be innovative.

I guess my complaint is, even if that solves our debt problems without raising taxes (which I still think is a bit fanciful), how does that address the need to modernize our society and prepare us for the globalized economy of the future?

It just seems like more of a short-term fix than a long-term growth strategy to me. And it's the latter that I think we're really lacking.

Well I did mention a carbon tax or a VAT in my other post. I am all for letting all the tax breaks expire.

People read my opposition to tax breaks for those over $250K incorrectly. On several occasions I have stated that the problem with that is not taxing those people (though there is pain associated with that) but that it doesn't tax enough people. We need to get teachers and bus drivers paying as well as CEO's. You simply cannot solve this problem with taxes on those over $250K. Even taxing them at 100% (assuming they kept working) leaves us with a $500-700B deficit per year.

Everyone is going to have to sacrifice to solve this. Playing politics with the 'soak the rich' nonsense simply won't work.

[DaytonIllini]

Originally Posted by Holdemall

Where is this figure coming from?

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/

Great sites with all kinds of links to other information. Tons of historical information. 2013 is projected assuming we go off the fiscal cliff I think. That is all opinion but I believe the data from 2008 to 2012 is reasonably accurate.

[Sure Shot]

Originally Posted by illini80

SureShot, you have a lot of general ideas, but I haven't seen you offer anything concrete to debate.

Guilty as charged a lot of the time. I don't claim to have all the answers, but I do think we're asking the wrong questions.

I believe that is exactly what concerns most fiscal conservatives. You think the spending is necessary to stimulate and drive the economy today and in the future. We are stimulating to the tune of $1T plus per year. That is not producing anything close to a vibrant economy today and is a burden on tomorrows economy and society. There is a fundamental problem in today's economy. What do you believe that problem is and how do you propose to fix it without borrowing from tomorrows economy which may or may not be able to afford it? You already know what I think.

Yeah, and I think you're framing it the wrong way. The bolded reflects the underlying baseline assumption that all conservatives make, that any spending is per se irresponsible debt addition and that budget balance is an issue that should override any other priorities. Both of those assumptions are faulty IMO.

As to the first, it's obvious that spending a dollar today to make two tomorrow is something that you should do every time, regardless of your current fiscal deficit, indeed even more so if you're facing a fiscal deficit. Countercyclical investment is the conventional wisdom for all businesses.

And as to the second, and kind of answering your question about what I believe the problem is, I think the long term lack of growth potential in our economy is a far greater priority than the current budget deficit, simply because it is the more likely to lead to financial ruin and societal decay. It's not like I don't understand the need to bring our budget into long-term balance, I just feel like ignoring our problems will ensure that we never get there. Gutting entitlement programs creates more problems than it solves. That, alone, is a temporary fix. As I've said, I am not philosophically opposed to right-sizing some of the big whales in our budget, so long as we are still substantially fulfilling the promise of those programs. But that's the lesser relation to the real, lasting solutions.

As for what I would prioritize, I think it can be summed up by saying I think America ought to be the most business-friendly, innovation-friendly, job-friendly country in the high-wage, high-skill world.

That means having the best educated, most productive workforce in the world, which will require investing a lot more in education than we have, and not just spending money, but rethinking the structure of the system, the calendar, the teaching methods, etc. And it doesn't stop at the school doors either, continuing education is essential in a fast-moving economic world. Education isn't just a kids thing, it's an everybody thing. Tacked onto this is the student debt crisis. Debt stifles innovation, risk-taking, and dynamism. The student loan industrial complex is a hidden tax on start-ups and small, growing businesses.

That means a world-elite 21st century infrastructure. Not just roads and bridges but wi-fi, energy efficiency, intelligent energy grids, better built communities, public transportation, etc. Internet connectivity is the big one. There is an arms race going on that is going to pay big dividends to the winners that no one seems to be paying attention to. And if there's one thing America is good at, it's an arms race.

That means tax policies that are competitive and reward innovation and above all, stateside job creation. Ideally, our tax code shouldn't make choices between business activities (which, oh by the way, it currently does ALL THE TIME), it should allow the marketplace to dictate the efficient allocation of profit and loss. However, to the extent that we can incentivize turning one job into two, I think that's just an overriding public welfare issue that justifies a bit of funny business.

That means lowering per-employee overhead costs, the biggest potential possibility of which is publicly financed health care.

I could go on and on, but I'll spare you the whole book-length version of this. The point is that the issues that we talk about: taxes, immigration, foreign policy, whatever, look very different when grafted onto that rubric as opposed to an "every dollar we spend is per se irresponsible" assumption.

And to circle back, none of this forestalls the possibility of slashing the budget in areas that aren't helping us be competitive. Short-term fiscal health is absolutely and economic competitiveness issue, and all else being equal we should get as close to balance as we can as soon as possible. Frankly, the disproportionate voting power of older people has led us to bend over backwards pandering to them. Of course means-testing Social Security and wringing savings out of Medicare are good ideas. I'd sign those bills today provided that they still fulfill the substance of those programs.

And just to close, I have no idea why this isn't the Republican Party platform. I fit so much more naturally into the Republican camp than the social-justice-first, anti-corporate Democrat one, but for most of my adult life the Republican Party has been too busy cooking up elaborate conspiracy theories, railing against gays and abortion, and bowing to the altar of Grover Norquist to even consider making economic competitiveness arguments. That oughta change, and soon.

[DaytonIllini]

Originally Posted by Sure Shot

Guilty as charged a lot of the time. I don't claim to have all the answers, but I do think we're asking the wrong questions.



Yeah, and I think you're framing it the wrong way. The bolded reflects the underlying baseline assumption that all conservatives make, that any spending is per se irresponsible debt addition and that budget balance is an issue that should override any other priorities. Both of those assumptions are faulty IMO.

As to the first, it's obvious that spending a dollar today to make two tomorrow is something that you should do every time, regardless of your current fiscal deficit, indeed even more so if you're facing a fiscal deficit. Countercyclical investment is the conventional wisdom for all businesses.

And as to the second, and kind of answering your question about what I believe the problem is, I think the long term lack of growth potential in our economy is a far greater priority than the current budget deficit, simply because it is the more likely to lead to financial ruin and societal decay. It's not like I don't understand the need to bring our budget into long-term balance, I just feel like ignoring our problems will ensure that we never get there. Gutting entitlement programs creates more problems than it solves. That, alone, is a temporary fix. As I've said, I am not philosophically opposed to right-sizing some of the big whales in our budget, so long as we are still substantially fulfilling the promise of those programs. But that's the lesser relation to the real, lasting solutions.

As for what I would prioritize, I think it can be summed up by saying I think America ought to be the most business-friendly, innovation-friendly, job-friendly country in the high-wage, high-skill world.

That means having the best educated, most productive workforce in the world, which will require investing a lot more in education than we have, and not just spending money, but rethinking the structure of the system, the calendar, the teaching methods, etc. And it doesn't stop at the school doors either, continuing education is essential in a fast-moving economic world. Education isn't just a kids thing, it's an everybody thing. Tacked onto this is the student debt crisis. Debt stifles innovation, risk-taking, and dynamism. The student loan industrial complex is a hidden tax on start-ups and small, growing businesses.

That means a world-elite 21st century infrastructure. Not just roads and bridges but wi-fi, energy efficiency, intelligent energy grids, better built communities, public transportation, etc. Internet connectivity is the big one. There is an arms race going on that is going to pay big dividends to the winners that no one seems to be paying attention to. And if there's one thing America is good at, it's an arms race.

That means tax policies that are competitive and reward innovation and above all, stateside job creation. Ideally, our tax code shouldn't make choices between business activities (which, oh by the way, it currently does ALL THE TIME), it should allow the marketplace to dictate the efficient allocation of profit and loss. However, to the extent that we can incentivize turning one job into two, I think that's just an overriding public welfare issue that justifies a bit of funny business.

That means lowering per-employee overhead costs, the biggest potential possibility of which is publicly financed health care.

I could go on and on, but I'll spare you the whole book-length version of this. The point is that the issues that we talk about: taxes, immigration, foreign policy, whatever, look very different when grafted onto that rubric as opposed to an "every dollar we spend is per se irresponsible" assumption.

And to circle back, none of this forestalls the possibility of slashing the budget in areas that aren't helping us be competitive. Short-term fiscal health is absolutely and economic competitiveness issue, and all else being equal we should get as close to balance as we can as soon as possible. Frankly, the disproportionate voting power of older people has led us to bend over backwards pandering to them. Of course means-testing Social Security and wringing savings out of Medicare are good ideas. I'd sign those bills today provided that they still fulfill the substance of those programs.

And just to close, I have no idea why this isn't the Republican Party platform. I fit so much more naturally into the Republican camp than the social-justice-first, anti-corporate Democrat one, but for most of my adult life the Republican Party has been too busy cooking up elaborate conspiracy theories, railing against gays and abortion, and bowing to the altar of Grover Norquist to even consider making economic competitiveness arguments. That oughta change, and soon.

It's a good post. It goes back to the concept I touted a few months ago that a country needs to have a vision of what we want to look like 20 years from now before it can know what short term decisions to make on various items in the agenda. Right now both parties just jockeye to be in power for the next term so they can stack the court with ideologues and make incremental progress on whatever they believe is going to get them the most votes in the next election.

What do we want energy to look like in 20 years?
What do we want healthcare to look like in 20 years?
What do we want personal liberties to look like in 20 years?
What do we see our nation's role with regard to the world over the next 20 years?

It might be unrealistic to look out 50 years but I think looking out only 50 days is suicidal.

[Sure Shot]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

It's a good post. It goes back to the concept I touted a few months ago that a country needs to have a vision of what we want to look like 20 years from now before it can know what short term decisions to make on various items in the agenda. Right now both parties just jockeye to be in power for the next term so they can stack the court with ideologues and make incremental progress on whatever they believe is going to get them the most votes in the next election.

What do we want energy to look like in 20 years?
What do we want healthcare to look like in 20 years?
What do we want personal liberties to look like in 20 years?
What do we see our nation's role with regard to the world over the next 20 years?

It might be unrealistic to look out 50 years but I think looking out only 50 days is suicidal.

And that's what's so frustrating about all the gridlock. It prevents us from asking those questions. When we're governing hand-to-mouth there just isn't enough time. The total war perpetual campaign has to end.

[Holdemall]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/

Great sites with all kinds of links to other information. Tons of historical information. 2013 is projected assuming we go off the fiscal cliff I think. That is all opinion but I believe the data from 2008 to 2012 is reasonably accurate.

The reason why I asked is that the federal budget is actually only (LOL!) 3.8T.