Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (47469)	12/8/2010 7:56:04 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

You assume that what is yours is the government's. Let me rewrite the Headline for you. "Buddy adding tens of thousands to the debt burden."

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (47469)	12/10/2010 4:37:45 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71588

And, pocket lint and shop-worn diversions like "earmarks" and "waste, fraud, abuse" barely score a mention. Accounting for well under 1% of the shortfalls Earmarks are very small as a percentage of the budget. Still their is important symbolism in cutting or eliminating them, and every little bit helps. "Waste, fraud, and abuse", might actually be a decent sized amount. If we could eliminate it, it would be an important contribution. But the problem here is there is no "waste, fraud, and abuse" line item to defund. Its mixed with everything else. Its three different terms (even if they overlap) that are not precisely defined (the waste part most esp. can be a matter of opinion), and even to the extent you can define it much of it is mixed in with things most people wouldn't call waste, fraud, or abuse. Its possible that the amount we could actually cut would be under 1% of federal spending. Its very likely that the amount we do cut will indeed be under that level. Also it costs money to reduce fraud and abuse. Extra paperwork and oversight are not no-cost activities. Still we should make an effort here, we just should be smart about how we do it, and don't count on huge savings from it (if they come great, but don't let anticipation of them keep us from also working elsewhere). half the Ag. Department budget Only half? Two wars - gotta go They will. I wouldn't decide them based on fiscal issues. There are non-fiscal arguments to accelerate the pullout, if their raised I may respond to them. But they aren't lasting programs like the entitlements, or even ag-subsidies. Military spending has become over the years a smaller and smaller part of the economy. It is an area where I would concentrate efforts to reduce waste (but not the only area, the effort should be across the board), but it isn't the area that's driving our deficit problems (still as I said above, every bit helps, and this area is large enough that it shouldn't be immune from the deficit reduction effort). mortgage interest deduction Despite the fact that I personally get it, I can't see how its a good program. The only argument I'd have against cutting it is that changing it imposes the cost on homeowners who made the decision to become homeowners in the context of having the deduction and importantly they paid more because of the deduction, so now yours sticking them with a loss. But that's true of all sorts of unfortunate government interventions in the economy. At most it warrants a phase out (perhaps immediate restrictions in terms of how much can be deducted, with the amount slowly decreasing until decades later its zero, maybe that could be combined with a limit of one house (at a time) per person. But I'd accept even an immediate total elimination, if it was in the context of wider tax reform, and an across the board reduction in rates. Medicare and Social Security reforms That's the heart of the problem (with Medicaid as well). But its probably the hardest to deal with, except perhaps some mild trimming around the edges. Of course with programs this big even "mild trimming" get get some noticeable effect, still more is needed.