The Watering Hole

I'm sure you know about the new report by government on wasteful spending. And, I know you think cutting spending is a useless task, as Charger points out at every opportunity. But maybe you want to check out the report anyway. Here's what the report is called so you can look it up. I've been bitching about how fucked up government is for a while, this pretty much proves my point as far as cutting spending goes.

http://prairiepundit.blogspot.com/2011/03/gao-report-on-wasteful-spending-goes.html

Here's the report, if you want to read it.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11318sp.pdf

6.5 billion. Sure, let's cut it!  Note that this was signed off on by the president, passed through Congress before the Pub majority took hold, and has been praised by pretty much everyone.  I'm all for cutting waste.  My point is not and never was that we can't cut waste.  My point is that if you poll people and ask them how much of the budget is waste, they will say it's 30-40%.  In reality, 6.5 billion is right around 1% of the budget.  Defense, social security, and Medicare make up the lion's share of the budget.  Discretionary spending is a small, small piece.  No one's got the balls to tackle Medicare or Social Security or Defense.  No one, and that goes for Obama, and the Republicans, and the Democrats, and our next five presidents and next ten congresses.

Obama already passed this last year? - doesn't that nullify the premise of Hook's argument.

On numbers - the budget is ~ 3,500 Bn, the deficit is ~ 1,200 Bn.

6.5 billion is chicken feed - need to find 200 x those savings to offset the deficit by cuts alone
The US would need to reduce budget spending by 1/3 - 33% - 6.5 billion represents achieving just ~ 0.2% of that 33%  goal.

The main hope is that tax receipts go up by 50% in a  recovered economy - unlikely to do that and fill the gap but it will be responsible for > 50% of the deficit reduction over the coming years.

So the cuts in spending required are probably  more like 10% of total budget - again big deal - $6bn represents 0.6 % of that 10%.

The way I read this story is this

Obama and the Republicans agree to do what amounts to fuck all.
A political compromise, so both Dems and Reps  can pretend they are the fiscally responsible, while free to rubish the credentials of the other.
Pubs getting away with claims of their fiscal responsibility is one of US politics great mysteries.
Relies on people being ill informed and judging by what they say rather than what they do when in power.

I predict that as soon as the US shows any sign the budget deficit is narrowing, the Pubs will be calling for tax cuts to win election in 2012.
That is the repblican version of fiscal responibility - e.g. Bush  tax cuts - both orginially when handed a balanced budget and after he had fucked things up so badly they still made it priority one to keep tax cuts for the wealthy.

Expecting the republicans to sort out the deficit is like expecting Gadaffi to join NATO :)

When the bush tax cuts first went through do you think equal spending cuts should have accompanied them?

Should they have continued in the face of massive war spending?

I guess Hookbender's answer is in the Book.

I bet the cat knows...

fingers — Mar 26, 2011Obama already passed this last year? - doesn't that nullify the premise of Hook's argument.

On numbers - the budget is ~ 3,500 Bn, the deficit is ~ 1,200 Bn.

6.5 billion is chicken feed - need to find 200 x those savings to offset the deficit by cuts alone
The US would need to reduce budget spending by 1/3 - 33% - 6.5 billion represents achieving just ~ 0.2% of that 33%  goal.

The main hope is that tax receipts go up by 50% in a  recovered economy - unlikely to do that and fill the gap but it will be responsible for > 50% of the deficit reduction over the coming years.

So the cuts in spending required are probably  more like 10% of total budget - again big deal - $6bn represents 0.6 % of that 10%.

The way I read this story is this

Obama and the Republicans agree to do what amounts to fuck all.
A political compromise, so both Dems and Reps  can pretend they are the fiscally responsible, while free to rubish the credentials of the other.
Pubs getting away with claims of their fiscal responsibility is one of US politics great mysteries.
Relies on people being ill informed and judging by what they say rather than what they do when in power.

I predict that as soon as the US shows any sign the budget deficit is narrowing, the Pubs will be calling for tax cuts to win election in 2012.
That is the repblican version of fiscal responibility - e.g. Bush  tax cuts - both orginially when handed a balanced budget and after he had fucked things up so badly they still made it priority one to keep tax cuts for the wealthy.

Expecting the republicans to sort out the deficit is like expecting Gadaffi to join NATO :)

No. Because Obama has continued to spend like theirs no tomorrow.


I look at this 6.5 billion differently than you and Charger. I look at it as a starting point, the obvious starting point. If you can't do away with the kind of waste this 6.5 billion is, there is no reason to even attempt more meaningful cuts. Cut this waste first, show the people your serious, and move on to the big cuts with support from the people.

IMO, we have no choice but to make cuts across the board at this point.

This may be a small percentage of cuts looking at the entire picture, but arguing against cuts because of that is as backwards ass as government having 80 programs with the same objective.

BINGEWOOD — Mar 26, 2011When the bush tax cuts first went through do you think equal spending cuts should have accompanied them?

Should they have continued in the face of massive war spending?

First, lets take the second question. There is no one to blame for the Iraq war except Bush, imo. Their were or were not wmds. And if he did have them, he would use them. We went to war because of the opinion of this country and others that he had wmds. Apparently there was no factual evidence of wmds. So we wasted billions of dollars for nothing, kinda. Answer, no.

Now the first. Every President talks about cutting spending. And as Fingers points out, most of that turns out to be just that, talk. So he cut taxes during good times, increased spending, went to war, and didn't make any adjustments.

I don't think you should cut taxes in good times. Spending cuts or not.

I don't think it's wise to cut taxes at the same time you attempt cutting spending.

6.5 billion is a starting point, all right.  

A starting point to cutting things like NPR.

The Pubs are cutting frivolity, things that they don't like politically.  If they cut a single meaningful (amount-wise), non-politics motivated item this year, I will be beyond shocked.

this shouldn't be a pub and dem subject. It should be a cut spending subject. And if that doesn't happen, we'll be even worse off until it happens.

We'll be worse off if the jobs don't come.  Jobs?  Anyone? Pubs? Dems?

Hookbender — Mar 27, 2011
This may be a small percentage of cuts looking at the entire picture, but arguing against cuts because of that is as backwards ass as government having 80 programs with the same objective.

Who's arguing against the cuts - not Obama as he signed off on them last year.
The argument is that they are chicken feed in contrast to the problem to be solved.

Hookbender — Mar 27, 2011
No. Because Obama has continued to spend like theirs no tomorrow.

Again - he signed off on the cuts - so you are now saying they aren't anywhere near enough, which was the point being made.

If the only waste that can be identified amounts to a paltry 6.5 Bn then that means to the definition of waste needs to widen.
So what do you suggest defining as waste and  cutting then in big ticket military/education/welfare/health spend ?

Political reality for both parties means all they will do is talk about it.

The formula for closing a deficit is a combination of the following.

1. Economic Growth - far the most important as it reduces not only the absolute size of the deficit in terms of increased tax take - it closes the relative size in terms of % of GDP -  which is the headline number in terms of sustainability.

2. Fiscal - Tax and Spend - increase the former and reduce the latter.

Unfortunately #2 has a major impact on the progress of #1, if not done right it is self defeating and takes out the major weapon in armory which is growth.
This is a point you are illiterate on and just do not seem to comprehend.

Politically the fight is about #2 publically - but neither party is willing to do anything substantial - tax rises and spending cuts are not vote winners.

So both parties are relying on #1 to solve - or at least push off the day of reckoning.

Dems are praying for a major economic recovery before Nov 2012.
Pubs are praying for recession thru 2012 - and a full recovery in 2014/15 so that they can have a newly elected idiot in 2012 who gets credit for it
and can give out unfunded tax cuts to win election in 2016 and carry on this deficit ponzi scheme that has been core republican policy since Reagan.



That's the reality, the Ponzi scheme wins elections

No I understand what your saying 100%. I would just add that timing plays a key role with the tax and spend theory.

The thing I disagree with that Obama has done is continue with the bush tax cuts across the board while spending like a mad man.

If he's gonna keep the taxes the same, which I agree with at this time, the spending needed to stop and cuts needed to be made. Unfortunately, "they" drag their feet and fuck around as the debt continues to grow. It's the same thing I've been saying all this time, the spending needs to stop and and cuts need to be made. Now that even Obama is on the band wagon it seems you now agree with reducing spending but you argued with me the whole time I was bitching about it. I don't think you understand all you think you do.

If you want to fix healthcare, or even try to change it completely, the obvious thing to do is to make the current system the best it can be by fixing, again, the obvious problems. Why, because the problems are obvious to everyone, first, and because it's a hell of a lot easier and quicker to do.

Same with the debt problem. Fix what's obvious first, easier and quick, then tackle the big issues next or later.

I can't understand why you people can't get that.

charger — Mar 27, 20116.5 billion is a starting point, all right.  

A starting point to cutting things like NPR.

The Pubs are cutting frivolity, things that they don't like politically.  If they cut a single meaningful (amount-wise), non-politics motivated item this year, I will be beyond shocked.

Does government fund any conservative radio programs? If not, why should they fund a liberal one?

Hookbender — Mar 28, 2011
Does government fund any conservative radio programs? If not, why should they fund a liberal one?

Because NPR is not a "liberal" one, it's a "reality" one.

As any idiot that isn't poisoned by the right wing's invented myth of a "liberal media bias" knows, REALITY ITSELF has a "liberal" bias in the eyes of the modern "conservative", because it's based on facts.

NPR traffics in facts, therefore to these people it seems "liberal" when in fact it's just HONEST.

NPR is not salacious, it's not sensationalist, and it doesn't have to worry about pissing off a corporate sponsor because the majority of its funding is guaranteed and they're not even allowed to advertise, therefore it can be the LEAST BIASED of all news outlets in this country. And it is.

The real problem with NPR is that movement conservatives are against anything that liberals like, and anything that doesn't enrich someone who's already wealthy, especially things that elevate the intellectualism of the populace, because it makes them start to question things and actually THINK. That's why they're such big fans of bombast, sensationalism, and bullshit denialism - you know, stuff like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh...

Tripper

NPR is by far the most fair and balanced radio on the air.  That's why I like it.  I actually get "news" from it.  It also has the most balanced listenership of all radio, with roughly 34% liberal, 27% both conservative and middle of the road.  

Hookbender — Mar 28, 2011

Now that even Obama is on the band wagon it seems you now agree with reducing spending but you argued with me the whole time I was bitching about it. I don't think you understand all you think you do.
...
Same with the debt problem. Fix what's obvious first, easier and quick, then tackle the big issues next or later.
I can't understand why you people can't get that

That is bullshit, firstly nobody is arguing against these cuts, just pointing out they are "rounding error" levels compared to the budget deficit of > $1000 Bn.

I argued  in the past  against you and earlier Chase about you both only having just  discovered that the US had a big deficit problem in the first few months after Obama arrived - when the problem is decades old and it was clear in 2008 that huge deficits were going to result from the economic disaster - whoever was in power from that point on  left with such  a poisonous economic disaster as legacy.

Your solutions were just illiterate - to stop spending and bail outs right in the middle of the financial crisis would have sent the whole edifice crashing down making a bad situation  into a  Depression.
Even your guy Bush realised that as he created the bail outs in the first place.

A combination of cutting spending/raising taxes/economic growth  to close the deficit was never in question.
remember this ?
http://www.chargermusic.com/wh/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1289850365

Propose some real cuts not this chicked feed shit you keep offering.

OK. Cut waste in military, and military spending. Cut waste in medicare, social security also. There is waste there. Big time.

That good enough for ya?

You'd like it to be difficult, but it just isn't. It's simple.

If you know it is simple then you will be able to  give examples of the cuts in waste you have in mind.

Unless you are just firing bullshit from the hip

OK. Here's one for ya.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/first-stop-medicare-and-medicaid-fraud

Need more?

Needs much more - 60 bn is still less than 6% of the deficit - you really need to appreciate the scale of this - even if direct cuts are only 1/3 of the solution it means  $400bn in cuts.

I have a question though - How do you cut this criminal activity to save the 60bn ? Is that simple ?
Would it not involve spending money to police it - i.e. long before any savings are evident you would be spending more - not less.


If you have the answer to that then  your idea should be extended more widely to  abolish crime in other areas as well without cost.
as it would save money two ways - obviously the lack of fraud and criminality would be a benefit - but also you can sack all the cops as they aren't be needed.

See, you don't want to spend money now, with guaranteed results that would help this country, you'd rather let a politician spend billions of dollars hoping that it will benefit us. Repair a few bridges, runways for planes and shit. Thats more waste.

Would you rather have 80 programs that are not effective attempting to reach one objective or 1 program that is effective and another that is effective cutting fraud in medicare. 2 effective programs vs 80 ineffective programs. Which of the two choices would you choose? And would the correct answer save us money?

Its saving tax payers billions of dollars no matter how you spin it. And if you polled tax payers and made them aware of this, I think they would side with me. So far my suggestions haven't involved cutting any useful program and have saved billions of dollars before actually cutting anything. Now get real serious about cuts and we may be on to something.

Military....do we need troops in Germany today? Bases etc? Fuck no. Bring em home. Along with all the other military in foreign countries not doing shit. Do we really need to give billions of dollars a year to Israel whether we have it or not? Fuck no, cut it. Along with shit loads of other money handed out to various countries. This isn't rocket science. We don't have the money and we need to quit financing countries when we can't take care of our own damn business. When we have money, help a brother out some. But not right now. It's really that simple, man. It's also that serious.  

Well, you know politicians have their priorities...

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/03/24/richard-shelby-nasa-program/

Hook - so you are willing to spend money
to save money down the line.

How much would it be and what are the guaranteed results?
who estimated how much of this estimated fraud can be saved at what estimated cost?

Did you notice I used the word estimated ?
"Obamacare" is estimated to reduce the deficit down the line as well, yet you don't believe that estimate
so why this one?

That is why I asked for numbers - not your random unsubstantiated claims.

OK. First, show me where I said that, cause I didn't.

But, I'd answer yes, I wound be willing to spend money to save money down the line, kinda. If I started a program to stop fraud in medicare, and the estimate is that it's costing us 60B a year, I have a pretty strong 59B dollar budget the first year. You could hire a lot of folks with that kinda budget. And you have a specific positive affect probable. You can actually get a return for the investment in as short as 1 year. We know how to fix this specific problem, we have a goal. Not a theory and "hope". And we have the government tell the government that we waste 60 billion bucks a year because of fraud. Something honest from the government for a change. ;D A problem and a solution in one sentence. Its a miracle. ;D

That good enough numbers for you? ;D I'd say the odds are better than the norm of success. ;D

OK  Predident Hook who having found everything really simple since coming to power decides to spend  59Bn to save this 60Bn
but it only saves 20Bn in fraud. President Hook is now a prize asshole who raise spending by 39Bn (say Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh(

Then worse - it turns out  the estimate was wrong, it is more like 40Bn they say - of which only 20Bn can be recovered at less expense than the cost of recovery.

Insurance industry estimates that 1 in 10 claims are fraud

Hook - I see a big future for you in that industry - go sell them you miracle cure.
or does it only work in government.

I said you have a potential 59B dollar budget. You can't eliminate all the fraud, and once people start to see a huge government crackdown the loss will lessen real quick. Once you get it down to say 10 billion, scale down the program and keep after the left overs.

I don't pretend to have the perfect answers, I just see the easy, quick, common sense fixes that for some reason our government ignores.

It really doesn't make any difference about the %. 60B is 60B. And thats a lot of money.

I kinda like President Hook, by the way. ;D

Hookbender — Mar 30, 2011

I just see the easy, quick, common sense fixes that for some reason our government ignores.

It really doesn't make any difference about the %. 60B is 60B. And thats a lot of money.

We have yet to work out how you would elliminate fraud  to 0% in Medicare when it runs at a similar level as private.
You said it was simple - that means that you stated you can  nail it.


You do see simple quick fixes,  it is taken for granted that  you  are simple. :)

Big  share holders of insurance companies will be excited by HookBender.
Fresh ideas  :-X

fingers — Mar 30, 2011[quote author=Hookbender link=1301118869/25#26 date=1301524533]

I just see the easy, quick, common sense fixes that for some reason our government ignores.

It really doesn't make any difference about the %. 60B is 60B. And thats a lot of money.

We have yet to work out how you would elliminate fraud  to 0% in Medicare when it runs at a similar level as private.
You said it was simple - that means that you stated you can  nail it.


You do see simple quick fixes,  it is taken for granted that  you  are simple. :)








Show me where I said my ideas would cut fraud in medicare to 0%. I just stated on this page that their will be a number, dollar amount, of fraud.  But 60billion a year is not a acceptable number.

Is this common to liberals? When someone, not considered a liberal, makes sensible, reasonable suggestions that you have no argument against....you just start injecting shit that was never said in their post thinking that makes you look good or something? What the hell????

I said it was simple to cut waste, and it is. That in no way says my suggestions would cut wate to 0% on anything. Damn, man. Your reminding me of Pick. Ya start loosing the upper hand and just start making up shit.  ;D

Thats twice you've made up stuff and implied that I said it. I suspect that this is the second time you don't show me where I said what you seem to think I said. :D Say that 5 times real fast. ;D

Hookbender — Mar 30, 2011
I wound be willing to spend money to save money down the line, kinda. If I started a program to stop fraud in medicare, and the estimate is that it's costing us 60B a year, I have a pretty strong 59B dollar budget the first year. You could hire a lot of folks with that kinda budget. And you have a specific positive affect probable. You can actually get a return for the investment in as short as 1 year. We know how to fix this specific problem, we have a goal. Not a theory and "hope". And we have the government tell the government that we waste 60 billion bucks a year because of fraud. Something honest from the government for a change. ;D A problem and a solution in one sentence. Its a miracle. ;D

That good enough numbers for you? ;D I'd say the odds are better than the norm of success. ;D

There ya go, 59Bn budget -  along with "You can actually get a return for the investment in as short as 1 year"
implies you think it possible to cut it to zero.

as for you first question - the show me where you said you were willing to spend money one.

It was so obvious I thought you were joking - only a fool who has an "I can see Russia from my House" grasp of policy issues would think otherwise.

It is implicit that it would cost lots of $$$$ to money to close down frauds - just a question of how much

Go ask the insurance industry - they spend a large amount of money on policing fraud, and the fraud rate is still estimated at 10%.

Cuts, shmuts...     Kick the real, George:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wV1lZMTCqf8&feature=related