Well Said, Bernie Sanders!

[Jonathan Whatley]

• Sanders identified three contributing causes, not just the wars.

• I take it the one trillion figure from the CBO reflects direct costs of the wars. Besides continuing direct costs like veterans service and capital replacement, there will also be debt service costs on the additional borrowing on account of the initial direct costs.

FACT: the "recklessness and illegal behavior" of Wall Street was made possible and even facilitated by reckless, shortsighted legislation from Congress.

• Well, I think Sanders and his supporters would agree with this entirely, though we'd all proceed to break down some on which legislation was reckless and shortsighted.

[ryoder]

Entitlement spending is the cause of our current and future budget problems. Its share of GDP has been steadily increasing from about 4% in 1970 to almost 10% now.
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/publication.../32608.pdf

Military spending as a portion of GDP is decreasing.
Defense Spending Has Declined While Entitlement Spending Has Increased

If the US were to leave entitlements alone and cut back military spending from 4% of GDP to 0%, we would be unable to protect ourselves and our deficits would continue to rise until the country is insolvent.

[G-Man]

• I take it the one trillion figure from the CBO reflects direct costs of the wars. Besides continuing direct costs like veterans service and capital replacement, there will also be debt service costs on the additional borrowing on account of the initial direct costs.

• Well, I think Sanders and his supporters would agree with this entirely, though we'd all proceed to break down some on which legislation was reckless and shortsighted.

Actually, Jonathan, if you'd clicked my link instead of blindly arguing, you would've seen that the estimate included "war-related costs" including aid to the countries, diplomatic activities, and even some homeland security costs. Talking about debt service costs (when that's something that also applies to the huge mountain of NON-war-related debt) makes no sense. Your attempt to include unquantifiable costs such as "veterans service" and "capital replacement" when ryoder pointed out that defense spending has actually gone DOWN contributes nothing to your argument. Just face it, the FACT is that the "two unfunded wars" is a relatively small part of the total deficit. Bernie Sanders is just trying to tie the deficit to popular scapegoats (eeevil Bush!; the greedy rich!; reckless Wall street!) when the fact is that politicians such as himself (both Republicans AND Democrats, with Democrats holding the purse strings for the last 5 years) are the ones ultimately responsible for the deficit and our current crisis.

[Jonathan Whatley]

defense spending has actually gone DOWN

Overall since the Cold War. It's headed back up since 2001, per ryoder's link.

Bernie Sanders is just trying to tie the deficit to popular scapegoats (eeevil Bush!; the greedy rich!; reckless Wall street!) when the fact is that politicians such as himself (both Republicans AND Democrats, with Democrats holding the purse strings for the last 5 years) are the ones ultimately responsible for the deficit and our current crisis.

Jeez, he cites the recession and tax breaks. Couldn't a conservative just agree the recession was a contributing factor but disagree on its causality, agree low tax revenues relative to spending was an obvious cause for the deficit but disagree on the necessity of such high spending, and agree that the wars contributed something but not much. I'm sorry for any way in which I've contributed to your becoming so angry. I did follow your link; it said that "Future expenses are a question mark… Medical costs for the injured and veterans' compensation balloon as time goes on," and didn't mention debt service. I tried to engage across the divide. Again, I am sorry.

[martialartist]

We certainly can have an intelligent conversation, but that requires objectivity and for the record I was born in the 1 percent, so I don't have to guess how taxes impact people, the facts are this, everytime we have a recession the Republicans turn to tax breaks/cuts, so I am simply attempting to highlight the structural defiencies that both parties are avoiding to address with just tax breaks. And as far as the CBO goes, I'm sure these are the same guys that rated the so called "OBAMACARE" and stated that it would save a trillion doallrs over 10 years, the same group that said that the stimulus created or saved between a million and I think 2.5 miliion jobs, so I'm always amuse when I hear people using the CBO figures to help their arguements.

You also mentioned tax breaks that pulled in record revenues, my friend that is a very clever arguement to make, however, the tax revenues we pulled in wasn't real income, it was income generated from the credit bubble that burst and thus the reason we are in the current situation we are in. These companies were selling credit, most of the income created under Bush was not based on real dollars and thats a fact. We can certainly have a intellectual discussion, but if you believe the CBO, then you must also believe them about "OBAMACARE".

Everything should be on the table, it's impossible to address our current crisis without looking all options. Whether it's taxes, Social Security, Medicare/medicaid..etc. The wars, the Bush drug prescription plan that was unfunded, I mean seriously, lets start being honest and stop thinking that the parties are doing the right thing. Republicans/democrats alike have messed things up. Whether it's Reagan adding to the national debt Obama or Bush, we just need to be honest in our discussions otherwise it will be just a futile effort. If you look at the history of this nation and the successes that she has had, each time a grand compromise occured, from the constitution hall where blacks were counted as 3/5th of a person, the point I'm making is that sometimes in order to get a solution our own personal ideology must take a back seat. This is what makes America unique (I'm a Brit with US citizenship).

[G-Man]

if you believe the CBO, then you must also believe them about "OBAMACARE".

Fair enough...The CBO has indeed shown themselves to be driven by an agenda and their calculations often have little connection with common sense or reality. That's going to make a meaningful discussion difficult, though, since there isn't any source you can point to and say that they're 100 percent unbiased.

That being said, it seems pretty obvious to me that revenue is not the problem. The government could bring in one quadrillion dollars and by next year, Bernie Sanders and other lawmakers would have found a way to spend one and a half. In any household, if your revenue goes down, you spend less: you buy cheaper food, you hold off on a new car and new clothes, and you adjust for the reduced income. For some reason, there are people that believe that this doesn't apply to the government. I say that's nonsense and I imagine that myself and a lot of others will be voting for lawmakers next year that stand for fiscal responsibility instead of trying to figure out who to demagogue.

[martialartist]

I agree with you, no matter how much revenues the Federal Government rake in, they will always spend more and that's the issue. All these programmes that they somehow find a way to spend on is beyond absurdity. I am against most aid and spending, gutting the the federal workforce trimming salaries/benefits to aligned with the private sector. But, this will never happened, because the guys in charge are brave enough to address it all. I moved to the United States, not because I had to, but due to how unique this nation is, but sadly what has separated this country from most others are changing, the competitive American spirit, the zeal to be better than everyone else in everything, Sports, education etc, is under attack.

[Jonathan Whatley]

G-Man, here's a question though.

If I'm hearing you right you have three main premises here:

Just face it, the FACT is that the "two unfunded wars" is a relatively small part of the total deficit.

FACT: the wars account for just a small fraction of the total deficit during the last ten years.

• The cost of the wars, one trillion dollars plus ongoing costs such as veteran's entitlements and debt service, is "relatively small" and "just a small fraction" of the total deficit.

• You disagree with hyperbole and "populist rhetoric," including attacking easy and unpopular targets like war spending.

• That said, your main targets are Republican and Democratic politicians especially in Congress. They're easy and unpopular targets and you're attacking them trenchantly.

What are the spending lines you disagree with?

If they add up to anything less than or near the 1.1 trillion dollars over the little over eight years between September 11, 2001 and the January 2010 release of the CBO report, they're "relatively small."

If you were furious at Sen. Sanders and those of us who tend to agree with him for bringing the wars up relatively high on our lists, well, you should be consistent with your own standard. If identifying a trillion dollar expense item high among a list of expense items is demagoging because a trillion is small in the scale of things, well, the domestic spending on roads or museums or Head Start programs or whatever that you're furious about and identify with the easy, unpopular target of members of Congress had better be very high too.

Fact is, put military, veterans', and Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid entitlement spending to the side, and isn't all discretionary "program" spending small relative to to the deficit?

So what would you support either by way of raising taxes or premiums, cutting spending on military, veterans', Social Security, Medicare and/or Medicaid lines, or some combination?

I ask this genuinely with an open mind. I'm a liberal Democrat, but I identify with a practical, thrift-minded and debt-shy tradition associated with Prairie progressivism. Think former Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold, a Democrat with some clearly liberal priorities and positions overall who was also one of the top-rated members of congress on anti-waste ratings; whatever you might think of his supporting to public spending on some priorities, he seemed to put a good amount of political capital into fiscal discipline and fighting waste on lines that he'd agree weren't high priorities for public spending.

So, let me know. I'm curious, I might be surprised and I might even agree with you: What do you think should be cut, or where do you think taxes or premiums should be increased, that wouldn't count as relatively small by your own criteria, on which you absolutely ripped Sen. Sanders and by implication those of us who agree with him to shreds for identifying spending on the wars high on our lists?

ETA: I absolutely agree with some increase in military and security spending since September 11, and swift and targeted action against its perpetrators and those who would follow.

[Lindagerr]

Well said Jonathan.

I would like to know what G-man and Ryoder are considering "Entitlement spending"

I think this article Economy hitting elderly especially hard - Business - Personal finance - Your retirement - msnbc.com explains how well some Americans are doing with their Entitlements. I don't know about others, but I know people who have worked hard all of their life paid into Social Security and Pension funds ( that often were lost or diminished when the company was sold) and now in their "golden Years can't afford to pay for housing or food.

Or do they mean the entitlement of the over 50 men who are living off Unemployment and their 401K because no one will hire them because they are old? My family and others I know have lived within our means and put money away for retirement, what are we supposed to do when we can't even get a job at Burger King because the youngsters take the jobs?

I find the entitlements of banks that say "We deserve to make a profit" after taking our bailout money and paying executives bonuses like those mentioned here Bank Profits Soar And Corporate Bonuses Swell As Broader Economy Stagnates more offensive then those to the elderly, unemployed and disabled

[ryoder]

Entitlements are simple. They are transfer payments made from taxable revenue to people who meet certain criteria.
Some entitlements are based on race, some are based on need, some are based on age, some are based in income.

People who receive social security checks are getting entitlements. People who receive free or subsidized healthcare are getting an entitlement. These programs are growing faster every year with no end in sight. They will soon approach unsustainable levels.

I am all about sustainability and there comes a time when humans consume more resources faster than they are replenished. Such is the case with our appetite for federal entitlements. You can see it in countries where there is poverty and famine. It can and will happen here in the US if consumption of entitlements continues to increase.

From recovery.org

Entitlement programs--payments made directly to individuals -- have been expanded with the addition of Recovery funding. The links below provide access to more information about entitlement programs such as Medicaid, Unemployment Insurance, and Food Stamps.

Entitlements