Deficit Commission report to be released

[caulfield12]

Well, there was also a tremendous amount of revenue coming in from capital gains taxes during those years too...and I think the defense spending levelled off (remember the idea of a "peace dividend" at the end of Cold War?), but I'd have to look at the actual figures again, seems like they went down or at least didn't continue their previous 1981-1992 rate of increase but I could be wrong.

[Balta1701]

Well, there was also a tremendous amount of revenue coming in from capital gains taxes during those years too...and I think the defense spending levelled off (remember the idea of a "peace dividend" at the end of Cold War?), but I'd have to look at the actual figures again, seems like they went down or at least didn't continue their previous 1981-1992 rate of increase but I could be wrong.

Yes, there was also significant expansion of other taxes, that wasn't the whole part of the surplus by any means and I apologize if I gave that impression. it was, however, a substantial part. The Social Security trust fund currently holds $2.5 trillion in assets. $1.5 trillion of that has been accumulated since the year 2001. Therefore, the general fund has picked up an additional $1.5 trillion in fungible assets since 2001 solely out of Social Security taxes. Given that the 10 year projected cost of the first Bush Tax cut package when it was passed was $1.3 trillion, I hope I'm effectively illustrating why those 2 issues are linked in terms of revenue/future deficits/lockboxes!

[kapkomet]

If you're smart, you'll notice the silliness here. The 2nd largest line item is reducing procurement by 15%. Of course...that is easy to say...when you don't have to actually say WHICH THINGS YOU'RE GOING TO CUT!

 

15% cut in procurement - do you know what that means?

 

They cannot order any more new (insert program here). They are eliminating programs.

 

There were actually very specific targets mentioned, but evidently not highlighted in what you read.

 

One of the suggested cuts is my paycheck (almost literally). I guess I better move on...

[lostfan]

15% cut in procurement - do you know what that means?

 

They cannot order any more new (insert program here). They are eliminating programs.

 

There were actually very specific targets mentioned, but evidently not highlighted in what you read.

 

One of the suggested cuts is my paycheck (almost literally). I guess I better move on...

I'm not sure how defense cuts are going to affect me because I'm under the same umbrella but in a different market. I'm guessing salaries are going to be flattened/compressed downwards. I don't see mass layoffs happening overnight (knock on wood)

[Balta1701]

I'm not sure how defense cuts are going to affect me because I'm under the same umbrella but in a different market. I'm guessing salaries are going to be flattened/compressed downwards. I don't see mass layoffs happening overnight (knock on wood)

Guys, there aren't going to be defense cuts. We'll be lucky if we get the stuff Gates wanted on the chopping block actually put on the chopping block.

[kapkomet]

Guys, there aren't going to be defense cuts. We'll be lucky if we get the stuff Gates wanted on the chopping block actually put on the chopping block.

 

Well...

 

let's just say I'm kind of on the inside of this one. If I had to put odds on it, I would say 45% we get the cuts, 55% we don't. Which honestly, is more then the usual odds.

[Balta1701]

Well...

 

let's just say I'm kind of on the inside of this one. If I had to put odds on it, I would say 45% we get the cuts, 55% we don't. Which honestly, is more then the usual odds.

Which Cuts, the Gates cuts or the "Deficit commission" ones?

[kapkomet]

Which Cuts, the Gates cuts or the "Deficit commission" ones?

 

 

The Gates ones are way more likely now - I'd say 75%+ odds that those happen, especially now. The deficit commission ones were the ones I was thinking about when I said 45% odds they would happen.

[Balta1701]

The Gates ones are way more likely now - I'd say 75%+ odds that those happen, especially now. The deficit commission ones were the ones I was thinking about when I said 45% odds they would happen.

I think the deficit commission leadership report is a complete joke.

 

Who do you think in Congress is going to want to be the person who "voted to cut benefits and pay for our troops" in the middle of a war?

 

I'd like to pretend that was Kaperbole, but it flat out isn't. I want to campaign against that Representative.

[mr_genius]

I think the deficit commission leadership report is a complete joke.

 

Who do you think in Congress is going to want to be the person who "voted to cut benefits and pay for our troops" in the middle of a war?

 

I'd like to pretend that was Kaperbole, but it flat out isn't.

 

I would increase permanent flight home from Iran/Iraq benefits by 5000% and frame it that way. Barely anyone supports these stupid wars anymore.

[Balta1701]

I would increase permanent flight home from Iran/Iraq benefits by 5000% and frame it that way. Barely anyone supports these stupid wars anymore.

The same people who think the deficit commission report is a wonderful idea think that the wars are a wonderful idea.

[mr_genius]

The same people who think the deficit commission report is a wonderful idea think that the wars are a wonderful idea.

 

If they liked the Iraq war, they will REALLY love this new bill. S.98667 - 'The Patriotic Unite Families and Support the Troops act of 2011 to Stop Terrorism and Create Jobs'

 

No one is voting against that.

[mr_genius]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11...graphic.html?hp

 

pretty good interactive application in the NY Times.

 

I managed to balance the 2015 and 2030 projected budgets with the numbers reconciliation coming from 25% in tax increases and 75% from spending cuts.

[Balta1701]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11...graphic.html?hp

 

pretty good interactive application in the NY Times.

 

I managed to balance the 2015 and 2030 projected budgets with the numbers reconciliation coming from 25% in tax increases and 75% from spending cuts.

The fun part of those is still none of them say "How" it would happen. Capping Medicare at GDP + 1%...how do you decide what to cut? Who gets the authority?

 

That's part of the reason why this "Panel" isn't at all a serious solution.

[mr_genius]

The fun part of those is still none of them say "How" it would happen. Capping Medicare at GDP + 1%...how do you decide what to cut? Who gets the authority?

 

That's part of the reason why this "Panel" isn't at all a serious solution.

 

someone obviously had the 'authority' to implement this stuff, someone can have the 'authority' to make cuts.

[Balta1701]

someone obviously had the 'authority' to implement this stuff, someone can have the 'authority' to make cuts.

You'll recall how controversial it was to create a very limited panel to make Medicare expenditure recommendations earlier this year. That one was tasked with deciding which treatments were best solely based on effectiveness; that should take a chunk out of costs as well, but that's somewhat incedental. Forcibly denying people care to impose a 1% Medicare cost growth when Medical costs grow by 10% a year? Such that 5-10 years in, Medicare is only paying for 1/2 of the costs of treatment?

[mr_genius]

You'll recall how controversial it was to create a very limited panel to make Medicare expenditure recommendations earlier this year. That one was tasked with deciding which treatments were best solely based on effectiveness; that should take a chunk out of costs as well, but that's somewhat incedental. Forcibly denying people care to impose a 1% Medicare cost growth when Medical costs grow by 10% a year? Such that 5-10 years in, Medicare is only paying for 1/2 of the costs of treatment?

 

Medical costs need to be reigned in as well. Yes, 1% on top of GDP increase - medicare growth maximum. Find a way to cut medical care costs. I can be on that commission too. Problem will be solved (of course).

Edited November 15, 2010 by mr_genius

[Balta1701]

Medical costs need to be reigned in as well. Yes, 1% medicare growth maximum. Find a way to cut medical care costs. I can be on that commission too. Problem will be solved (of course).

They definitely need to be reigned in...but declaring "We'll cap the growth at this rate" is just silliness.

 

Edit: I propose a panel that will decide based on how expensive people's care will be whether or not they'll get their treatment paid for. We'll call it a "life panel". I'm sure no one will come up with any alternate phrases.

[mr_genius]

They definitely need to be reigned in...but declaring "We'll cap the growth at this rate" is just silliness.

 

I disagree. Allowing medicare costs to increase at this pace is unsustainable. Cap the growth rate, increase the supply of doctors / care providers with legal immigration (you aren't a xenophobe are you?), crack down on fraud, ect. I think it is becoming very clear we need to cut medicare costs. It isn't really a fanciful option, it is a necessity.

Edited November 14, 2010 by mr_genius

[mr_genius]

They definitely need to be reigned in...but declaring "We'll cap the growth at this rate" is just silliness.

 

Edit: I propose a panel that will decide based on how expensive people's care will be whether or not they'll get their treatment paid for. We'll call it a "life panel". I'm sure no one will come up with any alternate phrases.

 

i support those panels.

[Balta1701]

i support those panels.

Unless Obama proposes them.

[Balta1701]

I disagree. Allowing medicare costs to increase at this pace is unsustainable. Cap the growth rate, increase the supply of doctors / care providers with legal immigration (you aren't a xenophobe are you?), crack down on fraud, ect. I think it is becoming very clear we need to cut medicare costs. It isn't really a fanciful option, it is a necessity.

I'd actually be in favor of increasing the number of visas. That's a worthwhile tactic.

 

Cracking down on Fraud...that's being done constantly. The idea that there are substantial cost savings there is silly. Every reform package includes a fraud crackdown. Every candidate campaigns on eliminating fraud. Everyone tries. It happens, but it's just not a huge number.

 

The one thing that isn't going to work though is any sort of cap on expenses or anything that forcibly denies care based solely on cost. No one will ever get that passed, nor should they.

[mr_genius]

Unless Obama proposes them.

 

well once they were re-coined as life panels I changed my mind.

[mr_genius]

I'd actually be in favor of increasing the number of visas. That's a worthwhile tactic.

 

Doctors should be fast tracked to a green card if they accept a certain percent of medicare patients at reasonable rates.

 

Cracking down on Fraud...that's being done constantly. The idea that there are substantial cost savings there is silly. Every reform package includes a fraud crackdown. Every candidate campaigns on eliminating fraud. Everyone tries. It happens, but it's just not a huge number.

 

That might be true.

 

The one thing that isn't going to work though is any sort of cap on expenses or anything that forcibly denies care based solely on cost. No one will ever get that passed, nor should they.

 

Certain types of caps are important and need to be reasonable. The highest paid doctors and hospitals will take a hit though.

[Balta1701]

Certain types of caps are important and need to be reasonable. The highest paid doctors and hospitals will take a hit though.

The problem is...a lot of times, how do you decide which hospitals and doctors are highly paid because they're the best ones, or because they're the only options in an area?

 

In reality...the real problem is that we established last year that no one will tolerate having the government make the decision about which doctors will be paid for, or which doctors will have to take a hair cut. We'd never have passed anything had that been proposed.