Author
Topic: Federal Debt and Deficit
(Read 27928 times)

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #280 on:** June 24, 2025, 10:28:06 AM »

Quote from: 847badgerfan on June 23, 2025, 05:23:47 PM

He also campaigned on "Read my lips: No new taxes!" when he said that at the R convention.

Clinton used it and used it often.

What cost him the election wasn't just that though. It was mostly Ross Perot.

The people don't like being lied to and they don't like MAJOR broken campaign promises.

Clinton was a lot smoother, a very natural politician. He understood that you can make a bunch of little promises and basically break them all but you can't have one campaign promise that is the centerpiece of your campaign "Read my lips, no new taxes" and break that.

Perot probably cost Bush the election but I don't think it is 100% clear cut. In that election the national totals were:

43% Clinton 44.9M
37.5% Bush 39M
18.9% Perot 20M

Bush would have had to take the Perot voters by roughly 2:1 to pick up a popular vote plurality and I'm not sure that even that would have given Bush an actual electoral college win. In the EC Clinton won 370-168. Bush would have needed 101 more EC votes just to get a tie. Closeish states that Clinton won:

Nevada: Clinton won 37.3% to 34.7% with Perot getting 26.2 so Bush probably picks this up, 4EV
Montana: Clinton won 37.6% to 35.1% with Perot getting 26.1 so Bush probably picks this up, 3EV, 7 cumulative
Maine 2nd district: Clinton won 37.8% to 29% with Perot getting 33.2%, maybe, 1EV, 8
Maine overall: Clinton won 38.8% to 30.4% with Perot getting 30.4%, maybe, 2EV, 10
New Hampshire: Clinton won 38.9% to 37.6% with Perot getting 22.6%, 4EV, 14
Maine 1st district: Clinton won 39.9% to 31.8% with Perot getting 28.3%, 1EV, 15
Colorado: Clinton won 40.1% to 35.9% with Perot getting 23.3%, 8EV, 23
Ohio: Clinton won 40.2% to 38.4% with Perot getting 21.0%, 21EV, 44

That doesn't add up to even half of what Bush would have needed. I do think it is possible but it is far from a given.

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #281 on:** June 24, 2025, 10:36:39 AM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on June 24, 2025, 09:09:42 AM

But let's imagine someone like, say, me, became President and worked hard to cut say Defense spending. Can you imagine the uproar? I don't mean cut it "to the bone", but cut it say 25%. That would mean I'm leaving us open to ... you know, invasion, ruin, weakness, being pushed around, mayhem, etc.

And unfortunately 25% would both not help all that much with the current deficit and probably stunt the economy, which depends on the "military industrial simplicity".

The famous stat is that US Defense spending is more than the next nine countries combined but the US also has a much larger GDP than those others. Defense spending is ~2.9% of GDP. We ask our NATO allies to spend 2%. Personally, I think that we should spend about 2% of GDP on defense as well. That represents a cut of one third. That is only about 4% of total Federal spending and it would be a very substantial cut.

If we made a similar one-third cut to everything apart from SS, Medicare, and Interest the total of those draconian cuts would only reduce not eliminate the deficit.

It is like trying to empty the Atlantic Ocean with a teaspoon.

utee94 · « **Reply #282 on:** June 24, 2025, 10:40:59 AM »

Quote from: medinabuckeye1 on June 24, 2025, 10:36:39 AM

The famous stat is that US Defense spending is more than the next nine countries combined but the US also has a much larger GDP than those others. Defense spending is ~2.9% of GDP. We ask our NATO allies to spend 2%. Personally, I think that we should spend about 2% of GDP on defense as well. That represents a cut of one third. That is only about 4% of total Federal spending and it would be a very substantial cut.

If we made a similar one-third cut to everything apart from SS, Medicare, and Interest the total of those draconian cuts would only reduce not eliminate the deficit.

It is like trying to empty the Atlantic Ocean with a teaspoon.

Right. The entitlements run between 50% and 60% of the budget depending on year and circumstances.

For fiscal 2024 the US overspent its income by 27%. You could cut defense spending entirely, and still only cut that deficit by half.

The only way to balance the budget is to significantly reduce the entitlements. There is no other way.

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #283 on:** June 24, 2025, 10:58:15 AM »

Quote from: utee94 on June 24, 2025, 10:40:59 AM

Right. The entitlements run between 50% and 60% of the budget depending on year and circumstances.

For fiscal 2024 the US overspent its income by 27%. You could cut defense spending entirely, and still only cut that deficit by half.

The only way to balance the budget is to significantly reduce the entitlements. There is no other way.

@Gigem and I have discussed the phenomenon of "crazy checks". For those unaware:

My wife is an addiction counselor. Currently she works for a school on prevention but she previously worked for a County Health Department. This may shock you, but nearly all of her clients (addicts) were on SSI Disability. Their "disability" was their addiction. These are able-bodied, working-aged people who are sitting around at home getting high all day and the government is paying them to do it.

This absolutely infuriates me. It isn't legally "fraud" because it is allowed but, IMHO, it IS fraud. IMHO, if your only "disability" is your addiction, GET OFF THE FREAKING COUCH AND GO TO WORK and the alternative, as far as I am concerned is starvation and that doesn't bother me.

I'd like to know what percentage of SSI disbursements are for disabilities as opposed to retirements. That wouldn't tell the whole story because some of the disabilities are legitimate but at least it would give me a range to guesstimate how big this issue is.

The above is the one potentially politically palatable immediate cut to SS. Everything else is either politically impossible or would take decades to implement.

MikeDeTiger · « **Reply #284 on:** June 24, 2025, 11:32:25 AM »

Think about something like veteran's benefits. Would I be correct in assuming that's filed under "Entitlements" and not defense spending? I assume defense spending is only for active military personnel and does not include payments made to veterans for medical compensation.

My wife left family practice a few years ago and now does service-connection benefit exams for veterans. She gets some funny claims which I won't go into here, but the more relevant anecdotal info is she says Vietnam vets are hardcore, i.e., they're usually happy with what they have, don't complain and usually don't seek more benefits than they're already getting. On the other end of the spectrum is Gulf War veterans, who she mockingly says come in with a stubbed toe and want to try and double their disability payments. She says they have the crappiest attitudes and are mostly just awful. Somewhere in between that is Gen Z ex-military who are super nice and very pleasant, but who've seen no combat and claim PTSD because they once heard an explosion in the distance when they were stationed somewhere. They often don't work at all, and they have entire Reddit threads on how to game the VA system. I personally know two ex-Army kids who fit this bill. They literally play video games all day although they are physically capable of getting a job, who never saw combat and have no physical disability, but they claim mental anguish or some BS and get a lot of $ for it because some assessor like my wife somewhere service-connected them for it. Her company says it is a big, big thing, and we're paying out the wazoo for it.

The Gulf War guys make her want to punch them, mainly because of their crappy attitude and demeanor. The Gen Z kids make her want to cry for the future.

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #285 on:** June 24, 2025, 11:41:09 AM »

Quote from: MikeDeTiger on June 24, 2025, 11:32:25 AM

Think about something like veteran's benefits. Would I be correct in assuming that's filed under "Entitlements" and not defense spending? I assume defense spending is only for active military personnel and does not include payments made to veterans for medical compensation.

I *THINK* this is included in the 5% listed as VA and based on what you shared here, it seems like there is probably a significant percentage of that being paid to people that shouldn't be getting it.

Gigem · « **Reply #286 on:** June 24, 2025, 02:15:33 PM »

Quote from: MikeDeTiger on June 24, 2025, 11:32:25 AM

Think about something like veteran's benefits. Would I be correct in assuming that's filed under "Entitlements" and not defense spending? I assume defense spending is only for active military personnel and does not include payments made to veterans for medical compensation.

My wife left family practice a few years ago and now does service-connection benefit exams for veterans. She gets some funny claims which I won't go into here, but the more relevant anecdotal info is she says Vietnam vets are hardcore, i.e., they're usually happy with what they have, don't complain and usually don't seek more benefits than they're already getting. On the other end of the spectrum is Gulf War veterans, who she mockingly says come in with a stubbed toe and want to try and double their disability payments. She says they have the crappiest attitudes and are mostly just awful. Somewhere in between that is Gen Z ex-military who are super nice and very pleasant, but who've seen no combat and claim PTSD because they once heard an explosion in the distance when they were stationed somewhere. They often don't work at all, and they have entire Reddit threads on how to game the VA system. I personally know two ex-Army kids who fit this bill. They literally play video games all day although they are physically capable of getting a job, who never saw combat and have no physical disability, but they claim mental anguish or some BS and get a lot of $ for it because some assessor like my wife somewhere service-connected them for it. Her company says it is a big, big thing, and we're paying out the wazoo for it.

The Gulf War guys make her want to punch them, mainly because of their crappy attitude and demeanor. The Gen Z kids make her want to cry for the future.

I probably shouldn't say this, but I know so many veterans (of all ages) who are on disability and honestly I don't think much is really wrong with them at all. Sure, some have had to have knee replacements or whatever but I know so many people who weren't in the military who needed work done. Some of the most injured people I know are office workers that never worked in any kind of a trade. I suspect that many have simply gamed the system, and know all the right things to say to get some kind of PTSD check.

MikeDeTiger · « **Reply #287 on:** June 24, 2025, 03:11:07 PM »

There is undoubtedly too much of that, and that was my point, but I also want to point out you don't have to be unable to work to receive benefits for service-connected ailments. You could have a damaged left pinky finger and be able to do just about everything, but if it's due to your military service, you're entitled to some benefit for that.

We could discuss/argue about whether or not that's okay, but right now, that's the rules.

I am okay with it. Whether or not you are able to work is mostly immaterial to me. If your body (or mind) was legit damaged in service to the my country, I don't mind if you get a monthly check. They're not one size fits all....different problems are worth different amounts of money. What you hope for is that the physicians who determine their cases are honest enough to deny instances where it can't be shown that the injury/disease is service-connected but that the rules are fair enough so as not to deny compensation to veterans who truly deserve it.  It sounds to me like many of the cases are straightforward enough. But a lot of her patients are continuation cases, where she has to determine if anything has changed and thus change the amount of benefits they receive. All she can really do is make determinations on that....it's next to impossible to get a veteran off of monthly benefits who should've never been granted them, if they've already been service connected. Judges will get all up in their asses about that, and no medical provider wants to get bogged down in legal hassles. And that's if the VA would even agree to cut benefits, which they probably wouldn't. When patients see her and she can tell from their records they should've never been service-connected to begin with, there is virtually nothing she can do about that, except sign off on spending more gub'ment money every month on them.

Every now and then she gets an initial case remanded to her by some judge who doesn't like her medical opinion, and effectively issues one of their own (you know.....with all their medical expertise). Those judges can make her life hell in those cases (and VA contractors like her) for a while and because the VA wants to avoid all that, the VA exerts undue pressure on her in the meantime. She has to stick to her guns and call on the medical board if necessary, because if she service-connected a veteran without good evidence, that's her license on the line and out the window....that judge and the VA wouldn't suffer any consequences.

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #288 on:** June 24, 2025, 03:55:25 PM »

Quote from: MikeDeTiger on June 24, 2025, 03:11:07 PM

What you hope for is that the physicians who determine their cases are honest enough to deny instances where it can't be shown that the injury/disease is service-connected but that the rules are fair enough so as not to deny compensation to veterans who truly deserve it.

This isn't exactly on point vis-a-vis VA Benefits but there are two entities in Ohio that I deal with where the system is completely upside down vs what you laid out here, BWC (Workmen's Compensation for at-work injuries) and JFS (unemployment claims).

Based on my experience I am fairly certain that somewhere in the mission statement or handbook for both of those organizations it says:

Legitimate claims are to be delayed, harassed, and slowed down in every possible way, and
Illegitimate claims are to be sailed right through without delay as quickly as possible.

Years ago I dealt with a bunch of Comp claims from the same Doc. They got so bad that I submitted a public records request asking for any investigations, complaints, etc about that Doc. Someone tipped him off, the next day he faxed over RTW (Return to Work) forms for every employee of ours that was off work being "treated" by him.

We fired an employee once for rewiring an outlet to shock his coworker (one of them was dating the other one's sister). He got unemployment. The JFS rep that we talked to said that we could collect it back if we won at the full hearing. I told the guy that we couldn't and he started reading the Code Section that said we could. I had to interrupt to explain that it has nothing to do with statutes, you can't get blood from a turnip and no statute and change that. He literally didn't understand.

Another example, the other way: We had a cop who was injured on the job. In most departments we do light duty but our Police Chief was adamantly opposed. He took the position that every cop had to be 100% of a cop, he couldn't have partials. The bureau ruled that he was fit to return but the Chief said he wasn't. Dude was in my office near crying. He said he'd gotten to the point where he didn't really even care whether he was or wasn't fit to return but it HAD TO BE one or the other. Either he was, and he goes back to work or he wasn't and he gets WC.

MikeDeTiger · « **Reply #289 on:** June 24, 2025, 04:03:39 PM »

I barely understand WC cases from the physician's side. All I can really say about that is when I worked at the GP clinic, the doctor who owned it and my wife both hated WC and tried to avoid them like the plague because they said they were difficult, and black holes for time, and thus billing.

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #290 on:** June 25, 2025, 11:17:08 AM »

Quote from: MikeDeTiger on June 24, 2025, 04:03:39 PM

I barely understand WC cases from the physician's side. All I can really say about that is when I worked at the GP clinic, the doctor who owned it and my wife both hated WC and tried to avoid them like the plague because they said they were difficult, and black holes for time, and thus billing.

I don't run a medical office so I don't KNOW this but my guess is that it is one of those things where if you only do WC cases once in a while it probably isn't worth it because figuring out all the appropriate forms takes forever and you end up losing money but if you do WC cases all the time it can be pretty lucrative because once you are set-up and running with it you know what forms to file and where and how to fill them out and you get economies of scale out of it.

Gigem · « **Reply #291 on:** June 26, 2025, 01:34:11 PM »

Here is a perfect example of my take on the situation with the federal gov't.

Got a RFQ (request for quote) for a job to be done on Matagorda island. Matagorda island spans several miles on the Texas coast, and is completely remote. The only way to get there is by boat and barge. No highways, no roads, no power. The US Fish and Wildlife service is building a vehicle servicing facility on the island, I guess since they have a Wildlife Area there. No idea what kind of vehicles they need to service. Anyways, our part would be for one specialized portion of the entire bid. For any other domestic customer, even if somebody that needed to drill on the island it would probably cost about $50K. Due to the specs given in the bid it will probably be closer to $300K, but the specs they are giving are way, way over what is really needed to do the job. Think about towing a 8 ft trailer with a 1/2 ton pickup versus towing the same trailer with a Semi-Truck. I'm thinking the bid will be for about $300K. I'm guessing the total job will be $2-3 MM (outside my scope). All to build an outpost on a remote island that we probably don't need.

Gigem · « **Reply #292 on:** June 26, 2025, 01:38:46 PM »

I know we can discuss ad nauseum about what's driving the spending is mostly entitlements, but at what point do we need to just simply say " we're broke" and NOT spend money on things that we obviously don't need? Every dollar we spend over the budget is a dollar we have to borrow and pay back with interest. If this is happening at one federal agency think about how many other places it's happening? It's one thing to need to spend money on critical items like airliner safety to upgrade the aircraft traffic controllers or crumbling roads or whatever. It just really pisses me off that this type of spending is still going on all across the board.

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #293 on:** June 26, 2025, 02:12:46 PM »

Quote from: Gigem on June 26, 2025, 01:38:46 PM

I know we can discuss ad nauseum about what's driving the spending is mostly entitlements, but at what point do we need to just simply say " we're broke" and NOT spend money on things that we obviously don't need? Every dollar we spend over the budget is a dollar we have to borrow and pay back with interest. If this is happening at one federal agency think about how many other places it's happening? It's one thing to need to spend money on critical items like airliner safety to upgrade the aircraft traffic controllers or crumbling roads or whatever. It just really pisses me off that this type of spending is still going on all across the board.

I don't think anyone, even the most pro-spending liberal, is actually advocating for spending on things that we obviously don't need*. The point that a lot of us on here are making vis-a-vis entitlements is that you simply can't even have an appreciable impact on overall federal spending, deficit, and debt without taking on entitlements.

The federal budget, revenue, and expenditures are hard for most people to even comprehend because it is just so freaking big.

I would guess that everyone here is probably willing to take your word for it that the US Fish and Wildlife Service's vehicle servicing facility on Matagorda Island is 100% unnecessary and a complete waste of money. You guessed $3M for the entire project.

Total Federal Spending for FY 2024 was $6.8 Trillion and revenues were $4.9 Trillion leaving a deficit of $1.83 Trillion.

You would have to eliminate 610 THOUSAND items equivalent to the US Fish and Wildlife Service's vehicle servicing facility on Matagorda Island just to reduce the current year deficit (not the total debt, just what gets added to it in a year) by 1%. That kind of scale is just really hard to comprehend.

Two notes:

I *THINK* I did the math right above but there are so many freaking zeros that I might have messed up transcribing them, and
The "*" above is to note that there is an exception for spending for Keynesian reasons during times of economic distress. We got a lot of grants during the aftermath of the 2008 credit crunch and again during the Pandemic in which the statutory language literally stipulated that the the language of the grants was to be interpreted liberally in FAVOR of the grantee. That is legalese for the Feds basically saying "We don't care what you spend this on, just spend it to juice the economy."

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.

Topic: Federal Debt and Deficit

medinabuckeye1

Re: Federal Debt and Deficit

medinabuckeye1

Re: Federal Debt and Deficit

utee94

Re: Federal Debt and Deficit

medinabuckeye1

Re: Federal Debt and Deficit

MikeDeTiger

Re: Federal Debt and Deficit

medinabuckeye1

Re: Federal Debt and Deficit

Gigem

Re: Federal Debt and Deficit

MikeDeTiger

Re: Federal Debt and Deficit

medinabuckeye1

Re: Federal Debt and Deficit

MikeDeTiger

Re: Federal Debt and Deficit

medinabuckeye1

Re: Federal Debt and Deficit

Gigem

Re: Federal Debt and Deficit

Gigem

Re: Federal Debt and Deficit

medinabuckeye1

Re: Federal Debt and Deficit