CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Society › Economy › US Federal Budget 2012

US Federal Budget 2012

Started by Mark Campbell5 · · 👁 7 views · 35 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants Mark Campbell5Robin Rodriguez5Emily Fox2Timothy Castillo6briskdrifter3Harold Nelson6wearytrucker22dustyscout53Nicole Ramos3urbanhawk85Bradley Walker88Jeremy Brooks6ruggeddriver70coppercyclist2
Harold Nelson6 Harold Nelson6 Member
32 messages
joined Oct 2013
#21 ·
briskdrifter3 said:Everyone seems to have an opinion on where to cut the budget, but let’s be honest—it’s a pipe dream... we can't just slash everything and hope for the best. My philosophy? Incentives. Plain and simple. I’d advocate for giving every manufacturing firm a total VAT exemption—or at least a massive reduction down to 5%—to actually get things moving. Since we don't exactly have a massive industrial base here in the States yet, we wouldn't face an immediate hole in the US Federal Budget; after all, the tax revenue mostly flows from the big retailers anyway. I’d also push for eliminating customs duties and sales tax on imports of all primary raw materials—think timber logs, steel, polymer granules, and the like. And why not make utility hookups for electricity and water free? (Which is precisely why companies like Duke Energy and h voda should remain under state control...) Oh, and let's not forget making building permits and other regulatory hurdles non-existent for any greenfield manufacturing investments. We need to totally strip away restrictions on financial transactions too—so that services like PayPal finally work without all the endless friction—and waive taxes on all IT hardware.
Incentives are the actual solution, rather than just stripping away existing benefits or trying to cut through red tape...

I'm telling you the exact same thing—everyone wants to subsidize everything, but of course, that's impossible.

The worst part is that both you and I are right—but what do we do now? It's a total stalemate. 😁
Nicole Ramos3 Nicole Ramos3 Newcomer
7 messages
joined Aug 2011
#22 ·
Mark Campbell5 said:So, as most of you probably already know, The White House just dropped their guidelines on what they think the US Federal Budget should look like in the coming years.

The gist of it:

WASHINGTON, D.C., July 27, 2011 (Associated Press) - The core pillars of America's fiscal policy over the next three years involve shrinking the ratio of federal spending to GDP, cutting the deficit, and bringing down the public debt-to-GDP ratio—all of which were laid out during today's session at The White House where the economic and fiscal policy guidelines for the 2012–2014 period were officially approved.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/fiscal_policy_guidelines_2014

On paper, these guidelines actually seem decent enough...

But what I'm really chewing on is how we’d actually pull this off effectively.

1.) Cutting federal spending could be easiest if we went through layoffs (within the civil service) or by selling off state assets (think ExxonMobil, Kraft Heinz... things like that).

2.) We could also trim the budget through austerity measures—basically taking a hard inventory of government assets and personnel—and finding ways to distribute work more efficiently.

3.) Or, you know, we could just boost production and grow the GDP... which is the classic approach.

Here is the breakdown for the 2011 budget: http://www.treasury.gov/budget-2011

I'm curious, though—if you were calling the shots, what changes would you actually make?

From what I can see, none of the political parties are offering anything remotely concrete... so I'd love to hear your thoughts.

I don't see it—exactly how much are we paying for our NATO membership?
wearytrucker22 wearytrucker22 Active Member
222 messages
joined Dec 2012
#23 ·
The administration just won't listen to anyone suggesting we cut costs or stop piling on more debt.
The government listens to me, though—that’s why the Department of the Treasury was right there at today's auction, issuing treasury bills worth $671 million and €133.805 million.
Some Republicans pulled me aside to hint they know they're going to lose the next election, so they're planning to dump about $5-6 billion in bonds before their term ends and split the loot among themselves. I guess since they won't be in power for the next four years, they figured they better secure their retirement while they still can.
Mark Campbell5 Mark Campbell5 Active MemberOP
79 messages
joined Jan 2018
#24 ·
wearytrucker22 said:Well, damn. If that's the case, we're in deep trouble.😕
They can't just pull the rug out from under us like that. They got us hooked on credit, and now suddenly they're cutting us off?
It’s like an addiction crisis. When addicts go through withdrawal, they get their fix—so why can't they at least throw us $2 billion a year to keep things moving?

Time to go through detox, and fast... there isn't any time left...

A rude awakening 🙂

dustyscout53 said:Argentina doesn't really matter here—I mean, they end up in default every other week, right?

We need judicial reform that actually keeps disputes out of the courtroom. We’ve already got mediators and arbitration processes in place... but look, if we’re going to make this work, we have to deal with the court staff issue—right now, the whole system just seems designed to protect their own jobs.

The way subsidy oversight works is a joke because nobody is actually enforcing anything. We need more inspections and some seriously heavy fines. Also, we've gotta stop mixing social welfare with agricultural economics and get smarter about how we handle subsidies. For instance, back when capital investment rebates for machinery hit 40%, tractor importers hiked their prices by 20% instantly. It's that kind of stuff.

If I actually knew how to pull all of this off operationally, I'd be running a political party.

Like this?

Maybe we could try crowdsourcing... you know, everyone chipping in on a single project (say, the US Federal Budget 2012). None of us could pull it off alone, but together we might.

That's how they did the constitution in Iceland.

dustyscout53 said:The financial system has been falling apart since day one. We deal with recessions constantly—it’s just that people have such short memories, you know? If you want the real story, check out Alan Greenspan - Era of financial instability.

"The European Financial system is Finished" in Quotes

The financial system is done for... now comes the ongoing collapse... and then the transition...
Mark Campbell5 Mark Campbell5 Active MemberOP
79 messages
joined Jan 2018
#25 ·
"Quote"
Harold Nelson6 said:Mark Campbell5, you’re tripping over the most basic terminology—how can you even attempt to debate a country's social, monetary, or political structure if you haven't mastered the fundamentals? You really need to get your facts straight before diving into such broad philosophy.

Corporate income tax has absolutely zero connection to balance sheet tax—I don't even know where to begin explaining how different they are. 🙂

Back in 2010, banks in the US paid $140 million in corporate income tax. And I bet you'll struggle to figure out why they earned more while paying less than the previous year—you'll probably just claim it's the banking lobby at work again.

Look, I’ll be the first to admit it—I’m completely in agreement that there are some pretty basic things I just don't get... much like how you clearly have some gaps in your own fundamental knowledge too. I mean, let's be real here—none of us actually knows everything, right?

But we all know how that works... collectively... I mean, come on.

Look, if we actually tackle this project as a team—you know, like a real collaborative effort—everyone can just jump in and handle the specific slice where they actually know what they're doing. It’s not rocket science, right? We all have our lanes. Why overcomplicate things?
Mark Campbell5 Mark Campbell5 Active MemberOP
79 messages
joined Jan 2018
#26 ·
Harold Nelson6 said:I'm telling you the exact same thing—everyone wants to subsidize everything, but of course, that's impossible.

The worst part is that both you and I are right—but what do we do now? It's a total stalemate. 😁

In a perfect world, we’d just subsidize everything... you know, pool all the cash together and divvy it up among everyone...

Everyone would be happy and satisfied, assuming we actually earned enough to cover it...

Nicole Ramos3 said:I don't see it—exactly how much are we paying for our NATO membership?

That’s a damn good question... there's money to be pinched there too... pull the troops out of Afghanistan... more savings right there...

wearytrucker22 said:The administration just won't listen to anyone suggesting we cut costs or stop piling on more debt.
The government listens to me, though—that’s why the Department of the Treasury was right there at today's auction, issuing treasury bills worth $671 million and €133.805 million.
Some Republicans pulled me aside to hint they know they're going to lose the next election, so they're planning to dump about $5-6 billion in bonds before their term ends and split the loot among themselves. I guess since they won't be in power for the next four years, they figured they better secure their retirement while they still can.

Great, so they know they’re losing the election... and nobody else seems to have a clue what to do about it...

So, what now?

It’s not really about how much money the current administration borrows—it’s about how we organize ourselves once they finally pack up and leave.
wearytrucker22 wearytrucker22 Active Member
222 messages
joined Dec 2012
#27 ·
Mark Campbell5 said:In a perfect world, we’d just subsidize everything... you know, pool all the cash together and divvy it up among everyone...

Everyone would be happy and satisfied, assuming we actually earned enough to cover it...

That’s a damn good question... there's money to be pinched there too... pull the troops out of Afghanistan... more savings right there...

Great, so they know they’re losing the election... and nobody else seems to have a clue what to do about it...

So, what now?

It’s not really about how much money the current administration borrows—it’s about how we organize ourselves once they finally pack up and leave.

The intelligence agencies, the police, the judiciary—it all stays in their hands. And their masters, the Bankers, stay right there too.
dustyscout53 dustyscout53 Regular
310 messages
joined Dec 2005
#28 ·
Mark Campbell5 said:Time to go through detox, and fast... there isn't any time left...

A rude awakening 🙂

Like this?

Maybe we could try crowdsourcing... you know, everyone chipping in on a single project (say, the US Federal Budget 2012). None of us could pull it off alone, but together we might.

That's how they did the constitution in Iceland.

"The European Financial system is Finished" in Quotes

The financial system is done for... now comes the ongoing collapse... and then the transition...

We can't even get 40% of voters to show up at the polls, and you think we can run a collective budget? Good luck with that!
Harold Nelson6 Harold Nelson6 Member
32 messages
joined Oct 2013
#29 ·
Mark Campbell5 said:"Quote"

Look, I’ll be the first to admit it—I’m completely in agreement that there are some pretty basic things I just don't get... much like how you clearly have some gaps in your own fundamental knowledge too. I mean, let's be real here—none of us actually knows everything, right?

But we all know how that works... collectively... I mean, come on.

Look, if we actually tackle this project as a team—you know, like a real collaborative effort—everyone can just jump in and handle the specific slice where they actually know what they're doing. It’s not rocket science, right? We all have our lanes. Why overcomplicate things?

Look, obviously nobody knows everything—no one does. But we should at least have enough common sense and basic decency to stay out of it—and stop acting like experts—on topics where we clearly don't know what we're talking about.

"Quote"
Mark Campbell5 said:In a perfect world, we’d just subsidize everything... you know, pool all the cash together and divvy it up among everyone...

Everyone would be happy and satisfied, assuming we actually earned enough to cover it...

That’s a damn good question... there's money to be pinched there too... pull the troops out of Afghanistan... more savings right there...

Great, so they know they’re losing the election... and nobody else seems to have a clue what to do about it...

So, what now?

It’s not really about how much money the current administration borrows—it’s about how we organize ourselves once they finally pack up and leave.

That’s just pure socialism—and honestly, in practice, it just doesn't work.
wearytrucker22 wearytrucker22 Active Member
222 messages
joined Dec 2012
#30 ·
Mark Campbell5 said:In a perfect world, we’d just subsidize everything... you know, pool all the cash together and divvy it up among everyone...

Everyone would be happy and satisfied, assuming we actually earned enough to cover it...

That’s a damn good question... there's money to be pinched there too... pull the troops out of Afghanistan... more savings right there...

Great, so they know they’re losing the election... and nobody else seems to have a clue what to do about it...

So, what now?

It’s not really about how much money the current administration borrows—it’s about how we organize ourselves once they finally pack up and leave.

Man, 2013 is going to be a real sweet year for the US Federal Budget. They’ve already mapped out the whole country in 3D, and soon they’ll start the "legalization" process for all those properties. That’s when the real fun begins—likely a property tax of about 0.5% of the value annually, though I bet coastal areas like Malibu or Miami will see closer to 2%.
urbanhawk85 urbanhawk85 Member
10 messages
joined Mar 2009
#31 ·
says:
The paper is pure bullshit.

According to the projections in the guidelines, federal revenue for the next fiscal year should grow by 5 percent, reaching $112.8 billion. Over the following two years, we expect growth of about 6.4 percent per year—hitting $120 billion in 2013 and $127.6 billion in 2014.

So, let’s be realistic here and read between the lines. It is naive to expect this collection of pseudo-intellectuals to actually do anything to make these revenue growth projections REAL. There are only two possibilities:

1. This is all just empty rhetoric that won't materialize, which we get fed from election to election, and we blindly forgive every single time.
2. It isn't empty rhetoric and it will happen, but only because the dollar slides against the euro by, say, 10% annually. In other words, December 2012 -> 1€=$2.75, 2013 -> 1€=$3.00.

That crisis with the Swiss franc this past summer was a wonderful shock and durability test; it showed us our limits and proved just how much we can be pushed around.

Bottom line: the projections in these guidelines aren't science fiction.
Bradley Walker88 Bradley Walker88 Member
17 messages
joined Jul 2009
#32 ·
dustyscout53 said:We can't even get 40% of voters to show up at the polls, and you think we can run a collective budget? Good luck with that!

It's actually the opposite...

We can't even get this 60% who actually vote to stop.
Jeremy Brooks6 Jeremy Brooks6 Member
34 messages
joined Feb 2015
#33 ·
briskdrifter3 said:Go ahead—give me one example of a nation where every single strategic industry is handed over to foreign capital without the whole thing turning into a complete circus.
Granting foreign interests a monopoly over oil, water, electricity, and transportation is essentially national suicide. We’ve already sold off our banks, and now we’re dealing with the fallout—sky-high interest rates and a White House that's effectively toothless in that sector. We handed our oil interests over to the Canadians, and once they achieve total control, we'll see the fallout there too, via crippling raw material costs—something we're already witnessing with General Mills and Dow Chemical. If we sell off the power grid, the highways, and the water supply... well, at that point, we barely have a sovereign nation left.

👍
I wouldn't say the global system is collapsing every other week.
If you look at world history—from simple barter systems to modern trade—you'll see massive stretches of prosperity interrupted by much smaller periods of total collapse or decline.
The 20th and 21st centuries are defined by globalization, digitalization, and this intense drive to bring the entire system under centralized control.
Back in the mid-1900s, people were already talking about a United States of Europe, and just a week ago, Soros used that exact same statesmanlike phrase—not by accident, I'm sure.
My take? The state pulls in massive revenue by fueling energy needs everywhere from Solovetsky to the Soča river; the average person probably doesn't see any of that profit, but the government certainly isn't losing out. If Turkey runs into a wall
with the USA regarding gas rights in Cyprus, the first player to jump in and meddle will be Putin—and it won't be because he's checking up on Mesnevija before bed, but because of the deep economic ties between Turkey and Russia over the last decade.
Taxing banks at 20% or whatever else—it's all minor details when you hit even the slightest bit of global economic turbulence.
No amount of creativity or "out of the box" thinking helps there. During the first wave of the 2008 recession, it was the most slaughtered small and medium-sized businesses—the ones that were actually innovative and had potential. Those in that bracket who managed to survive? They became the giants.
And what does the middle class even look like in these smaller American-style developing states? It's mostly folks who suspiciously scraped together their first million, a large chunk of the privatized sector tied heavily to political influence, and various business types or talented intellectuals sitting on government payrolls.
How does this story end?
Either through a popular uprising, or—at least in the case of America (which will be part of the reformed
EU story in 2013, and we'll see how they navigate that)—through even heavier state centralization. Starting in 2012, the EU is going to push hard for digital centralization, making it so that whether you're in the Eurozone or not barely matters for most transactions. They'll likely try to mimic an American-style free market, reduce military reach (unless they decide to strike in Africa), and hand more authority over to police and civil oversight... well, we all know the rest. Those who adapt will move forward, and those who don't will fall behind, rapidly and likely permanently...
👋
ruggeddriver70 ruggeddriver70 Active Member
55 messages
joined Mar 2012
#34 ·
A few (not exactly sunny) heads-ups for next year:

"The agencies that rate countries in trouble haven't ignored America—no miracles here. They’re just waiting for the parliamentary elections to wrap up so the new administration can show off its US Federal Budget 2012. At least, that’s what Željko Lovrinčević is saying—he's an economist who was basically advising the US government until yesterday, trying his best to convince them they absolutely have to slash public spending. But, uh, he didn't quite manage to pull that off.

'Credit agencies are looking for America to cut public sector spending by at least one to 1.5 percent of GDP. If we don't see those cuts, America's credit rating is definitely getting a downgrade, probably by the end of March at the latest,' Lovrinčević warns.

Cutting public spending by that 1 to 1.5 percent of GDP in dollars would mean something pretty massive: slashing public sector expenses by about five billion dollars. And since interest payments on debt are set to jump by roughly 1.5 billion next year, the budget really needs to find at least seven billion in savings. On top of that, they need to scrape together cash for investments to actually spark some growth. But—and here's the kicker—he isn't talking about running up a new deficit to do it; he thinks they should find that investment money through those same public sector cuts. To make that work, they'd need to 'free up' at least three billion dollars.
coppercyclist2 coppercyclist2 Member
18 messages
joined Oct 2012
#35 ·
No, let’s blame the Federal Reserve and the Chair for our credit rating instead. And hey, we should probably spend even more since we're such a welfare state... okay, maybe that was a bit much, but it feels like we're just spiraling toward rock bottom. This hedonistic generation doesn't get the whole concept of saving or tightening your belt today to ensure a better tomorrow. There's zero cohesion on the matter.
If they can't somehow conjure those $4 billion out of thin air in the US Federal Budget, then I guess we might as well just let it all go to hell.
ruggeddriver70 ruggeddriver70 Active Member
55 messages
joined Mar 2012
#36 ·
"The hedonist generation." Man, what a phrase.🙂

From what I've gathered while watching this election cycle roll by, I've only seen one single instance where a journalist actually had the guts to ask a candidate, "Hey, what happens if our credit rating gets slashed to junk status?" It was during some TV appearance by those little sycophants who follow Ljub Jurčić around during the campaign. Their response? Basically, "No way, that won't happen—we're a low-debt nation..." and that was it. Nobody else even bothered to address it. Honestly, the whole American political establishment doesn't even seem to consider that kind of thing a possibility.

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads