Vanilla Forums has been nominated for a second time in the CMS Critic "Critic's Choice" awards, and we need your vote! Read more here, and then do the thing (please).
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

The American Presidency: Gekko/Galt 2012! (Or: Ruh-roh, RomRy!)

1818284868798

Posts

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    Hevach wrote: »
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/15/its-not-clear-what-romney-would-actually-cut-to-make-his-budget-add-up/

    “[F]irst, there are programs I would eliminate. Obamacare being one of them but also various subsidy programs — the Amtrak subsidy, the PBS subsidy, the subsidy for the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities,” he told Fortune, according to interview excerpts in Playbook. Romney also wants to “tie the compensation and benefits for federal workers to those which exist in the private sector,” claiming that it would save about $47 billion a year.

    The problem is, eliminating federal supports for Amtrak and cultural programs would barely save any money. Repealing Obamacare would actually add to the deficit, given the net savings that are in the health-care law. And the savings that Romney projects for tying federal compensation to private-sector levels seem to be overblown, according to recent figures from the Congressional Budget Office. Overall, the cuts that Romney specifies would just be a drop in the bucket, and they still don’t explain how his budget would produce the savings that he promises.

    Here’s how it breaks down: In fiscal year 2012, the federal government spent $1.42 billion on Amtrak, $444 million on PBS, and $146 million on the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities. Getting rid of all these subsidies would have saved the government about $2 billion this year — chump change relative to the scale of cuts that Romney wants.

    ...

    Finally, Romney’s proposal to tie federal compensation and benefits to private-sector levels would likely produce less than the $47 billion yearly savings that he estimates. Romney is correct that compensation for federal employees is higher than private-sector workers with comparable responsibilities and education: Federal wages are 2 percent higher on average, federal benefits are 48 percent more, and overall compensation (wages and benefits) is 16 percent more, the CBO said in a January 2012 study.

    Since the federal government spends about $200 billion a year on compensation for the civilian workforce, according to the CBO, adjusting it to private-sector levels would save about $28 billion annually — significantly less the savings that Romney projects. ”Frankly, I can’t see that you come anywhere close to that kind of an annual dollar savings,” says John Palguta, vice president for policy at the Partnership for Public Service.

    Overall, how much of a dent would these cuts make? In 2013, Romney’s proposed changes would actually increase the deficit by about $4 billion, because the net savings would be outstripped by the loss in revenue due to repealing Obamacare. In later years, however, more savings would begin to accrue: If continued over a decade, eliminating spending on Amtrak, PBS, and the NEA and reducing federal compensation appears to offset the $109 billion in lost revenue from repealing Obamacare, resulting in at least $211 billion in savings by 2022. (That’s assuming that program spending levels and federal compensation remain constant over the next 10 years, so it’s just a back-of-the-envelope calculation to get a sense of the magnitude of these cuts.)

    But that’s still a very long ways off from achieving the $9.6 trillion in non-defense cuts that Romney’s budget would demand: $211 billion in spending reductions, for instance, would be about 2 percent of the total cuts necessary. What’s more, in the same Fortune interview, Romney promised that “infrastructure is going to see very substantial investments over the coming decade,” suggesting that he wouldn’t cut funds from that area either. And the other specific cuts that Romney has publicly detailed — to Planned Parenthood, foreign aid, etc. — are similarly small.

    So Romney still has a lot of explaining to do about how he would actually make the cuts that his own budget demands, as the spending reductions he’s specified so far would only make a small dent, at best.
    He could always close the *insert very popular tax break*.

    And that doesn't even include the fact that he wants to increase defense spending by leaps and bounds, expanding the troop numbers and building more warships. Even though warships are kind of archaic thing of the past at this point, and ridiculously vulnerable to cheap, modern explosives, but I digress.
    Not to mention, aren't we already overbuilding them to the point that we just sold several for scrap that hadn't even touched water yet?

    Hadn't heard about that, but I have to wonder if the Navy even wants more ships. I mean, clearly Romney just pulled a bunch of random shit out of a hat in front of some military audiences, because he thinks he can just blow smoke up people's asses for votes. I just it find comically sad that he can promise trillions in cuts out of one side of his mouth, and from the other promise billions in military spending without anyone in the media batting an eye.

    I am somewhat heartened though that policy wonks are finally starting to point out that you can't really achieve austerity without contracting the US economy in the process. And I suppose for the hyper rich it doesn't matter, but well...it's becoming fascinating how close the current political/social environment of the US is mirroring the social conditions that led up to the french revolution.

    We need to be prepared in case every other nation on earth bands together to attack us exclusively by sea.

    Edith_Bagot-DixSquigie
  • HevachHevach Registered User regular
    edited August 2012
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    Hevach wrote: »
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/15/its-not-clear-what-romney-would-actually-cut-to-make-his-budget-add-up/

    “[F]irst, there are programs I would eliminate. Obamacare being one of them but also various subsidy programs — the Amtrak subsidy, the PBS subsidy, the subsidy for the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities,” he told Fortune, according to interview excerpts in Playbook. Romney also wants to “tie the compensation and benefits for federal workers to those which exist in the private sector,” claiming that it would save about $47 billion a year.

    The problem is, eliminating federal supports for Amtrak and cultural programs would barely save any money. Repealing Obamacare would actually add to the deficit, given the net savings that are in the health-care law. And the savings that Romney projects for tying federal compensation to private-sector levels seem to be overblown, according to recent figures from the Congressional Budget Office. Overall, the cuts that Romney specifies would just be a drop in the bucket, and they still don’t explain how his budget would produce the savings that he promises.

    Here’s how it breaks down: In fiscal year 2012, the federal government spent $1.42 billion on Amtrak, $444 million on PBS, and $146 million on the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities. Getting rid of all these subsidies would have saved the government about $2 billion this year — chump change relative to the scale of cuts that Romney wants.

    ...

    Finally, Romney’s proposal to tie federal compensation and benefits to private-sector levels would likely produce less than the $47 billion yearly savings that he estimates. Romney is correct that compensation for federal employees is higher than private-sector workers with comparable responsibilities and education: Federal wages are 2 percent higher on average, federal benefits are 48 percent more, and overall compensation (wages and benefits) is 16 percent more, the CBO said in a January 2012 study.

    Since the federal government spends about $200 billion a year on compensation for the civilian workforce, according to the CBO, adjusting it to private-sector levels would save about $28 billion annually — significantly less the savings that Romney projects. ”Frankly, I can’t see that you come anywhere close to that kind of an annual dollar savings,” says John Palguta, vice president for policy at the Partnership for Public Service.

    Overall, how much of a dent would these cuts make? In 2013, Romney’s proposed changes would actually increase the deficit by about $4 billion, because the net savings would be outstripped by the loss in revenue due to repealing Obamacare. In later years, however, more savings would begin to accrue: If continued over a decade, eliminating spending on Amtrak, PBS, and the NEA and reducing federal compensation appears to offset the $109 billion in lost revenue from repealing Obamacare, resulting in at least $211 billion in savings by 2022. (That’s assuming that program spending levels and federal compensation remain constant over the next 10 years, so it’s just a back-of-the-envelope calculation to get a sense of the magnitude of these cuts.)

    But that’s still a very long ways off from achieving the $9.6 trillion in non-defense cuts that Romney’s budget would demand: $211 billion in spending reductions, for instance, would be about 2 percent of the total cuts necessary. What’s more, in the same Fortune interview, Romney promised that “infrastructure is going to see very substantial investments over the coming decade,” suggesting that he wouldn’t cut funds from that area either. And the other specific cuts that Romney has publicly detailed — to Planned Parenthood, foreign aid, etc. — are similarly small.

    So Romney still has a lot of explaining to do about how he would actually make the cuts that his own budget demands, as the spending reductions he’s specified so far would only make a small dent, at best.
    He could always close the *insert very popular tax break*.

    And that doesn't even include the fact that he wants to increase defense spending by leaps and bounds, expanding the troop numbers and building more warships. Even though warships are kind of archaic thing of the past at this point, and ridiculously vulnerable to cheap, modern explosives, but I digress.
    Not to mention, aren't we already overbuilding them to the point that we just sold several for scrap that hadn't even touched water yet?

    Hadn't heard about that, but I have to wonder if the Navy even wants more ships. I mean, clearly Romney just pulled a bunch of random shit out of a hat in front of some military audiences, because he thinks he can just blow smoke up people's asses for votes. I just it find comically sad that he can promise trillions in cuts out of one side of his mouth, and from the other promise billions in military spending without anyone in the media batting an eye.

    I am somewhat heartened though that policy wonks are finally starting to point out that you can't really achieve austerity without contracting the US economy in the process. And I suppose for the hyper rich it doesn't matter, but well...it's becoming fascinating how close the current political/social environment of the US is mirroring the social conditions that led up to the french revolution.

    Decided to look it up: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-07-15/news/30053914_1_international-shipbreaking-limited-ghost-fleet-ghost-ships
    Looks like I missed some facts on it, the builder defaulted on the contract and the Navy was stuck with two 90% finished ships that then rusted for decades before being scraped. So not a case of government waste so much as a contract gone bad. Though, from trying to find the story about those ships, apparently the James River "Ghost Fleet" contains a number of ships that went straight there after or shortly before being finished because more ships were being paid for than the Navy actually needed after WWII ended.

    Hevach on
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Yeah that poll is insane as far as Ohio and virigina, like the swing they present is way way outlier to every other poll.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    538 or bust, people.

    Stop wastin' yo time.

    Lh96QHG.png
    Marathon
  • Dark_SideDark_Side Registered User regular
    edited August 2012
    And Congress' approval rating falls to an all time low, lowest since they've been keeping track. 83% disapprove. Think about that, 83% of the country hates congress right now. That's incredible.

    Hey guess who was/is a part of the congress who's now on presidential ticket?

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/approval-congress-falls-time-low-082653179.html

    Dark_Side on
  • No-QuarterNo-Quarter Registered User regular
    A facebook friend said that GM paid back it's bailout money with another loan. Is this typical GOP horseshit, or is there some truth to it

  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    Even if they don't want "more ships" they would retire an old one and take a new one, though. why field an old 70s ship when you can have an iDestroyer? It's more intuitive.

    The Littoral Combat Ships have Roombas 8-)
    Spoiler:

    PSN: allenquid
  • TheCanManTheCanMan Registered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Yes the trillions we spend on amtrak, pbs, NEA and NEH are totally gone, see you suckers later, budget FIXED!

    Man, Romney just won my "Bullshit GOP Talking Points" bingo game.

    Yeah, let's cut all these programs that make up 0.000000000000001% of the budget. That'll set us straight.

    Ah, but Obama is planning to increase funding for all those liberal boondoggles by 10,000% each. So by cutting them, Romney will actually save... waitaminnit...

    (multiply by the derp factor...)
    (carry the hurr...)

    ...all the moneys. Deficit solved!

    "Carry the hurr" might be my favorite fake-math ever.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited August 2012
    There are some hilarious crosstabs in those polls. The best: Obama wins independents by 12 in Florida, loses the state overall.

    WAAAAAAAAAAY oversampled Republicans.

    Also, Ohio independents go to Romney by 22. Which is... a slight outlier.

    enlightenedbum on
    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • ViskodViskod Registered User regular
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    A facebook friend said that GM paid back it's bailout money with another loan. Is this typical GOP horseshit, or is there some truth to it

    While I was trying to convince one of my parents that the Obama robs medicare of billions thing is a lie they kept trying to tell me that Obama still lost over 21 billion dollars on the auto bail out. I thought that had all been paid back.

    3DS 0662 3838 5931 Pokemon X Water Safari
  • TaramoorTaramoor Registered User regular
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    A facebook friend said that GM paid back it's bailout money with another loan. Is this typical GOP horseshit, or is there some truth to it

    Even if true (which I don't think it is) isn't it better that a private corporation be in debt to another corporation than to the government?

  • HevachHevach Registered User regular
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    A facebook friend said that GM paid back it's bailout money with another loan. Is this typical GOP horseshit, or is there some truth to it

    I can't find anything online about it, but, yeah, even if it's true, it's not necessarily bad. GM's shown a good year, it's not unreasonable to tap a line of credit to pay off one loan in exchange for one with better terms.

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Yeah if GM paid back its government loan with a private loan, it would show that the toxic enviroment that prevented them from getting a loan and forced the US into doing it has changed and that was kind of the point of the auto bailout to begin with.

    spacekungfumanErich ZahnBehemothzagdrob
  • SpoitSpoit *twitch twitch* Registered User regular
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    And Congress' approval rating falls to an all time low, lowest since they've been keeping track. 83% disapprove. Think about that, 83% of the country hates congress right now. That's incredible.

    Hey guess who was/is a part of the congress who's now on presidential ticket?

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/approval-congress-falls-time-low-082653179.html
    That's doubly crazy in that the remaining 17% would be below the crazification factor

    camo_sig2.png
  • PolaritiePolaritie Oh I didn't see this box. Registered User regular
    edited August 2012
    If PBS gets money borrowed from other countries through the transitive property, then so does the Department of Defense.

    WHY IS OBAMA PAYING OUR SOLDIERS WITH CHINESE MONEY?! WHY IS OBAMA TURNING OUR VALIANT SOLDIERS INTO FOREIGN MERCENARIES?!

    You clearly don't understand how the government budgets work.

    Every line item on the budget has an associated Patriotism Value. Similar the source of every tax dollar is also assessed for its Patriotism Value. What makes the budget so difficult is that the CBO has to find the best possible match. Obviously the most Patriotic things are funded first.

    The take away point here is that the money from the people with the highest Patriot Value - that is, far right fundamentalist Christian billionaires, goes to fund the highest Patriot Value projects, like funding the CIA, building an aircraft carrier, or keeping a pot smoking hippie in jail. The complication is that money contributed by liberals, and other people with low Patriot Value, can't be used exclusively to fund anything - not even Planned Parenthood. Their money is a conduit for evil spirits, and the only solution is to include some high Patriot Value funds as a counter balance. This isn't perfect, since sometimes low Patriot Value funds accidentally find their way into what should be high Patriot Value projects, like the military, and then all of sudden you have things like Abu Ghraib and gays being let in. Borrowed money from China is the lowest possible Patriot Value, so it's only ever used for things like funding PBS, paying liberal Supreme Court justices, and the like (and look what happened when they accidentally paid John Roberts with some!)

    Conservative fungicide?

    Polaritie on
    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    spacekungfumanEdith_Bagot-DixBehemoth
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    If PBS gets money borrowed from other countries through the transitive property, then so does the Department of Defense.

    WHY IS OBAMA PAYING OUR SOLDIERS WITH CHINESE MONEY?! WHY IS OBAMA TURNING OUR VALIANT SOLDIERS INTO FOREIGN MERCENARIES?!

    You clearly don't understand how the government budgets work.

    Every line item on the budget has an associated Patriotism Value. Similar the source of every tax dollar is also assessed for its Patriotism Value. What makes the budget so difficult is that the CBO has to find the best possible match. Obviously the most Patriotic things are funded first.

    The take away point here is that the money from the people with the highest Patriot Value - that is, far right fundamentalist Christian billionaires, goes to fund the highest Patriot Value projects, like funding the CIA, building an aircraft carrier, or keeping a pot smoking hippie in jail. The complication is that money contributed by liberals, and other people with low Patriot Value, can't be used exclusively to fund anything - not even Planned Parenthood. Their money is a conduit for evil spirits, and the only solution is to include some high Patriot Value funds as a counter balance. This isn't perfect, since sometimes low Patriot Value funds accidentally find their way into what should be high Patriot Value projects, like the military, and then all of sudden you have things like Abu Ghraib and gays being let in. Borrowed money from China is the lowest possible Patriot Value, so it's only ever used for things like funding PBS, paying liberal Supreme Court justices, and the like (and look what happened when they accidentally paid John Roberts with some!)

    If you subscribe to the belief that money is fungible, you literally let the terrorists win.

    Edith_Bagot-Dix
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Look I love mushrooms too, but they aren't money, I've tried that before the store wouldn't take them.

  • adventfallsadventfalls Why would you wish to know? Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    Look I love mushrooms too, but they aren't money, I've tried that before the store wouldn't take them.

    Now we know why Mario has to collect coins.

    NintendoID: AdventFalls 3DS Code: 3454-0237-6080
    PolaritieEdith_Bagot-DixSo It Goesspacekungfumanlonelyahava
  • a5ehrena5ehren AtlantaRegistered User regular
    Romney's Ryan bounce across 11 polls thus far: +5, +5, +2, +2, +2, 0, 0, 0, -2, -2, -2. So, take your pick. +0.9 on average.

    So It Goes
  • Solomaxwell6Solomaxwell6 Registered User regular
    Not at all. They're run by an obnoxious hack Republican (Alex Castellanos, for reference).

    For reference, he was one of the top advisors to Romney's '08 campaign.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Spoit wrote: »
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    And Congress' approval rating falls to an all time low, lowest since they've been keeping track. 83% disapprove. Think about that, 83% of the country hates congress right now. That's incredible.

    Hey guess who was/is a part of the congress who's now on presidential ticket?

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/approval-congress-falls-time-low-082653179.html
    That's doubly crazy in that the remaining 17% would be below the crazification factor

    Crazification factor doesn't apply to things like this. Both the left and right crazies can come together and agree congress sucks. They'll just be talking about different sides of it.

    TheBlackWind
  • DivideByZeroDivideByZero Registered User regular
    Not at all. They're run by an obnoxious hack Republican (Alex Castellanos, for reference).

    For reference, he was one of the top advisors to Romney's '08 campaign.

    Oh jesus this was the slimeball who was arguing with Maddow over the wage gap wasn't it.

    Wanna punch that guy so bad.

  • adventfallsadventfalls Why would you wish to know? Registered User regular
    Not at all. They're run by an obnoxious hack Republican (Alex Castellanos, for reference).

    For reference, he was one of the top advisors to Romney's '08 campaign.

    Oh jesus this was the slimeball who was arguing with Maddow over the wage gap wasn't it.

    Wanna punch that guy so bad.

    yuuuuuuup

    NintendoID: AdventFalls 3DS Code: 3454-0237-6080
  • SpoitSpoit *twitch twitch* Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Spoit wrote: »
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    And Congress' approval rating falls to an all time low, lowest since they've been keeping track. 83% disapprove. Think about that, 83% of the country hates congress right now. That's incredible.

    Hey guess who was/is a part of the congress who's now on presidential ticket?

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/approval-congress-falls-time-low-082653179.html
    That's doubly crazy in that the remaining 17% would be below the crazification factor

    Crazification factor doesn't apply to things like this. Both the left and right crazies can come together and agree congress sucks. They'll just be talking about different sides of it.

    The crazification factor always applies

    camo_sig2.png
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Not at all. They're run by an obnoxious hack Republican (Alex Castellanos, for reference).

    For reference, he was one of the top advisors to Romney's '08 campaign.

    Oh jesus this was the slimeball who was arguing with Maddow over the wage gap wasn't it.

    Wanna punch that guy so bad.

    yuuuuuuup

    Look I love the enthusiasm you guys have for Alex, I just wish you had the facts to match that enthusiasm.

    Tcheldor
  • TcheldorTcheldor Registered User regular
    I wanted to punch him through the screen.

    League of Legends: Glacys
    FFXIV: Tchel Fay
    Ranked Streaming LoL: Need to do Season 4 placements, still. :(.
    Goal for the year: Diamond V?
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Tcheldor wrote: »
    I wanted to punch him through the screen.

    So did EJ Dionne, a man I'm happy I share a last name with.

  • SammyFSammyF Registered User regular
    edited August 2012
    Quid wrote: »
    Even if they don't want "more ships" they would retire an old one and take a new one, though. why field an old 70s ship when you can have an iDestroyer? It's more intuitive.

    The Littoral Combat Ships have Roombas 8-)
    Spoiler:

    Is that the Lockheed Martin design or the General Dynamics design?

    Generally the Navy has been fairly reasonable in the past couple of fiscal years, abandoning the Zumwalt-class boondoggle in favor of reviving the much less expensive Arleigh Burke-class destroyer and implementing modernization programs to extend the service life of existing hulls. The Coast Guard still takes the prize for "all around best run acquisition programs by a uniformed service" however.

    SammyF on
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    Hevach wrote: »
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/15/its-not-clear-what-romney-would-actually-cut-to-make-his-budget-add-up/

    “[F]irst, there are programs I would eliminate. Obamacare being one of them but also various subsidy programs — the Amtrak subsidy, the PBS subsidy, the subsidy for the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities,” he told Fortune, according to interview excerpts in Playbook. Romney also wants to “tie the compensation and benefits for federal workers to those which exist in the private sector,” claiming that it would save about $47 billion a year.

    The problem is, eliminating federal supports for Amtrak and cultural programs would barely save any money. Repealing Obamacare would actually add to the deficit, given the net savings that are in the health-care law. And the savings that Romney projects for tying federal compensation to private-sector levels seem to be overblown, according to recent figures from the Congressional Budget Office. Overall, the cuts that Romney specifies would just be a drop in the bucket, and they still don’t explain how his budget would produce the savings that he promises.

    Here’s how it breaks down: In fiscal year 2012, the federal government spent $1.42 billion on Amtrak, $444 million on PBS, and $146 million on the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities. Getting rid of all these subsidies would have saved the government about $2 billion this year — chump change relative to the scale of cuts that Romney wants.

    ...

    Finally, Romney’s proposal to tie federal compensation and benefits to private-sector levels would likely produce less than the $47 billion yearly savings that he estimates. Romney is correct that compensation for federal employees is higher than private-sector workers with comparable responsibilities and education: Federal wages are 2 percent higher on average, federal benefits are 48 percent more, and overall compensation (wages and benefits) is 16 percent more, the CBO said in a January 2012 study.

    Since the federal government spends about $200 billion a year on compensation for the civilian workforce, according to the CBO, adjusting it to private-sector levels would save about $28 billion annually — significantly less the savings that Romney projects. ”Frankly, I can’t see that you come anywhere close to that kind of an annual dollar savings,” says John Palguta, vice president for policy at the Partnership for Public Service.

    Overall, how much of a dent would these cuts make? In 2013, Romney’s proposed changes would actually increase the deficit by about $4 billion, because the net savings would be outstripped by the loss in revenue due to repealing Obamacare. In later years, however, more savings would begin to accrue: If continued over a decade, eliminating spending on Amtrak, PBS, and the NEA and reducing federal compensation appears to offset the $109 billion in lost revenue from repealing Obamacare, resulting in at least $211 billion in savings by 2022. (That’s assuming that program spending levels and federal compensation remain constant over the next 10 years, so it’s just a back-of-the-envelope calculation to get a sense of the magnitude of these cuts.)

    But that’s still a very long ways off from achieving the $9.6 trillion in non-defense cuts that Romney’s budget would demand: $211 billion in spending reductions, for instance, would be about 2 percent of the total cuts necessary. What’s more, in the same Fortune interview, Romney promised that “infrastructure is going to see very substantial investments over the coming decade,” suggesting that he wouldn’t cut funds from that area either. And the other specific cuts that Romney has publicly detailed — to Planned Parenthood, foreign aid, etc. — are similarly small.

    So Romney still has a lot of explaining to do about how he would actually make the cuts that his own budget demands, as the spending reductions he’s specified so far would only make a small dent, at best.
    He could always close the *insert very popular tax break*.

    And that doesn't even include the fact that he wants to increase defense spending by leaps and bounds, expanding the troop numbers and building more warships. Even though warships are kind of archaic thing of the past at this point, and ridiculously vulnerable to cheap, modern explosives, but I digress.
    Not to mention, aren't we already overbuilding them to the point that we just sold several for scrap that hadn't even touched water yet?

    Hadn't heard about that, but I have to wonder if the Navy even wants more ships. I mean, clearly Romney just pulled a bunch of random shit out of a hat in front of some military audiences, because he thinks he can just blow smoke up people's asses for votes. I just it find comically sad that he can promise trillions in cuts out of one side of his mouth, and from the other promise billions in military spending without anyone in the media batting an eye.

    I am somewhat heartened though that policy wonks are finally starting to point out that you can't really achieve austerity without contracting the US economy in the process. And I suppose for the hyper rich it doesn't matter, but well...it's becoming fascinating how close the current political/social environment of the US is mirroring the social conditions that led up to the french revolution.

    We need to be prepared in case every other nation on earth bands together to attack us exclusively by sea.

    Psh, banding hasn't been a viable ability for years. I'd be more worried about the nations pooling their mana and taking down all our aircraft with Hurricane.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
    sanstodoTheBlackWindTarantioFartacus_the_MightyForardestroyah87Meloku
  • MelksterMelkster Registered User regular
    If my experience with endless space is of any use, we should just churn out smaller, less expensive ships.

    Armed with lasers.

  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    kildy wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Finally some cuts Romney would make that would totally shore up the budget!

    "[T]here are programs I would eliminate. Obamacare being one of them but also various subsidy programs -- the Amtrak subsidy, the PBS subsidy, the subsidy for the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities. Some of these things, like those endowment efforts and PBS I very much appreciate and like what they do in many cases, but I just think they have to stand on their own rather than receiving money borrowed from other countries, as our government does on their behalf."

    Yes the trillions we spend on amtrak, pbs, NEA and NEH are totally gone, see you suckers later, budget FIXED!

    So the ACA would increase the deficit by being cut, IIRC.

    The rest are all pennies. He's still massively short on what he needs to make his budget work. The reason the TPC estimate took out the mortgage interest deduction was that it was the only thing large enough to actually dent the missing money pile. Dude would need to cut the DoD deep to make that plan work via spending cuts.

    You're forgetting one important detail: Americans are ridiculously bad ad math.

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/onmedia/0411/Poll_Americans_way_off_on_public_broadcasting_funding.html
    In the financial year for 2010, the CPB reported receiving $506 million in federal appropriations. According to the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, the federal budget for 2010 was $3.456 trillion. Using those numbers, the CPB receives about .00014 percent of the federal budget. Of course, poll respondents are way off in other areas, assigning a median of 137 percent of the federal government’s budget to various government programs, suggesting Americans think the government simply spends more than it actually does as a general rule.

    Forty percent of those polled believe funding the CPB receives takes up 1 to 5 percent of the budget, 30 percent believe public broadcasting takes up 5 percent or more of the budget and 7 percent of respondents believe the non-profit receives 50 percent or more of the federal budget.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Spoit wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Spoit wrote: »
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    And Congress' approval rating falls to an all time low, lowest since they've been keeping track. 83% disapprove. Think about that, 83% of the country hates congress right now. That's incredible.

    Hey guess who was/is a part of the congress who's now on presidential ticket?

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/approval-congress-falls-time-low-082653179.html
    That's doubly crazy in that the remaining 17% would be below the crazification factor

    Crazification factor doesn't apply to things like this. Both the left and right crazies can come together and agree congress sucks. They'll just be talking about different sides of it.

    The crazification factor always applies

    Nope.

    The crazification factor is the percentage of people who will vote for anything if it's got the appropriate letter beside it.

    Convicted Pedophile who rapes a dog on live TV the night before the polls open?
    27% of the vote if he's either D or R.

    It doesn't even make sense applied to overall congressional approval.

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    I guess on top of being the cowardly out for Romney not releasing his tax returns Ann Romney tried to play up the fact her grand father worked in a coal mine, like that means she's suddenly disadvantaged.

  • chrisnlchrisnl Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Even if they don't want "more ships" they would retire an old one and take a new one, though. why field an old 70s ship when you can have an iDestroyer? It's more intuitive.

    The Littoral Combat Ships have Roombas 8-)
    Spoiler:

    My brother-in-law just finished his training class to take over as XO of the LCS-2, that thing is amazing.

    steam_sig.png
    FFXIV - Ruby Heliconia
  • DivideByZeroDivideByZero Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    I guess on top of being the cowardly out for Romney not releasing his tax returns Ann Romney tried to play up the fact her grand father worked in a coal mine, like that means she's suddenly disadvantaged.

    *kaff kaff*

    I think I'm getting the black lung, pop!

  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue Registered User regular
    KetBra wrote: »

    I'm sure Biden is quaking in his boots right now

    metroid_sig.jpg
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    KetBra wrote: »

    I'm sure Biden is quaking in his boots right now

    "Oh the guy who's presidency I ended with an off handed remark? Yeah I'm sure he think I'm real stupid."

  • Mild ConfusionMild Confusion Smash All Things Registered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    Hevach wrote: »
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/15/its-not-clear-what-romney-would-actually-cut-to-make-his-budget-add-up/

    “[F]irst, there are programs I would eliminate. Obamacare being one of them but also various subsidy programs — the Amtrak subsidy, the PBS subsidy, the subsidy for the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities,” he told Fortune, according to interview excerpts in Playbook. Romney also wants to “tie the compensation and benefits for federal workers to those which exist in the private sector,” claiming that it would save about $47 billion a year.

    The problem is, eliminating federal supports for Amtrak and cultural programs would barely save any money. Repealing Obamacare would actually add to the deficit, given the net savings that are in the health-care law. And the savings that Romney projects for tying federal compensation to private-sector levels seem to be overblown, according to recent figures from the Congressional Budget Office. Overall, the cuts that Romney specifies would just be a drop in the bucket, and they still don’t explain how his budget would produce the savings that he promises.

    Here’s how it breaks down: In fiscal year 2012, the federal government spent $1.42 billion on Amtrak, $444 million on PBS, and $146 million on the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities. Getting rid of all these subsidies would have saved the government about $2 billion this year — chump change relative to the scale of cuts that Romney wants.

    ...

    Finally, Romney’s proposal to tie federal compensation and benefits to private-sector levels would likely produce less than the $47 billion yearly savings that he estimates. Romney is correct that compensation for federal employees is higher than private-sector workers with comparable responsibilities and education: Federal wages are 2 percent higher on average, federal benefits are 48 percent more, and overall compensation (wages and benefits) is 16 percent more, the CBO said in a January 2012 study.

    Since the federal government spends about $200 billion a year on compensation for the civilian workforce, according to the CBO, adjusting it to private-sector levels would save about $28 billion annually — significantly less the savings that Romney projects. ”Frankly, I can’t see that you come anywhere close to that kind of an annual dollar savings,” says John Palguta, vice president for policy at the Partnership for Public Service.

    Overall, how much of a dent would these cuts make? In 2013, Romney’s proposed changes would actually increase the deficit by about $4 billion, because the net savings would be outstripped by the loss in revenue due to repealing Obamacare. In later years, however, more savings would begin to accrue: If continued over a decade, eliminating spending on Amtrak, PBS, and the NEA and reducing federal compensation appears to offset the $109 billion in lost revenue from repealing Obamacare, resulting in at least $211 billion in savings by 2022. (That’s assuming that program spending levels and federal compensation remain constant over the next 10 years, so it’s just a back-of-the-envelope calculation to get a sense of the magnitude of these cuts.)

    But that’s still a very long ways off from achieving the $9.6 trillion in non-defense cuts that Romney’s budget would demand: $211 billion in spending reductions, for instance, would be about 2 percent of the total cuts necessary. What’s more, in the same Fortune interview, Romney promised that “infrastructure is going to see very substantial investments over the coming decade,” suggesting that he wouldn’t cut funds from that area either. And the other specific cuts that Romney has publicly detailed — to Planned Parenthood, foreign aid, etc. — are similarly small.

    So Romney still has a lot of explaining to do about how he would actually make the cuts that his own budget demands, as the spending reductions he’s specified so far would only make a small dent, at best.
    He could always close the *insert very popular tax break*.

    And that doesn't even include the fact that he wants to increase defense spending by leaps and bounds, expanding the troop numbers and building more warships. Even though warships are kind of archaic thing of the past at this point, and ridiculously vulnerable to cheap, modern explosives, but I digress.
    Not to mention, aren't we already overbuilding them to the point that we just sold several for scrap that hadn't even touched water yet?

    Hadn't heard about that, but I have to wonder if the Navy even wants more ships. I mean, clearly Romney just pulled a bunch of random shit out of a hat in front of some military audiences, because he thinks he can just blow smoke up people's asses for votes. I just it find comically sad that he can promise trillions in cuts out of one side of his mouth, and from the other promise billions in military spending without anyone in the media batting an eye.

    I am somewhat heartened though that policy wonks are finally starting to point out that you can't really achieve austerity without contracting the US economy in the process. And I suppose for the hyper rich it doesn't matter, but well...it's becoming fascinating how close the current political/social environment of the US is mirroring the social conditions that led up to the french revolution.

    We need to be prepared in case every other nation on earth bands together to attack us exclusively by sea.

    Psh, banding hasn't been a viable ability for years. I'd be more worried about the nations pooling their mana and taking down all our aircraft with Hurricane.

    I remember that quest!

    I had to collect the Black Materia to give to Lavos, so he could summon the Proto Merkaba from the Fade. That would allow Seed to defeat the collective forces of the Axis of Stupid.

This discussion has been closed.