• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Baselines for Spending...Dem's and Rep's

Choose your party lean and view based on text below.

  • I am/lean Dem and I think we should include the ARRA expenditures in the baseline

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    4

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,432
Reaction score
35,276
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Alright, I'd like to raise a separate question to the Republicans on the board and the Democrats.

For Republicans

In terms of spending moving forward, do you believe that the future military budgets should be based off of a baseline budget that includes the enhanced spending authorized for the War in Iraq and War in Afghanistan? Or should the baseline be one where we remove the spending allocated for Iraq and Afghanistan to find the true number to start with moving forward?

For Democrats

In terms of spending moving forward, do you believe that future domestic discretionary spending budgets should be based off of a baseline budget that includes the enhanced temporary spending authorized by American Recovery and Reinvestment Act? Or should the baseline be one where we remove the spending allocated for ARRA to find the true number to start with moving forward?

- - - - - - -

To simplify or clarify a bit of what I mean as a basline and what for.

Most people on the opposite side feel that the specific money pots I'm referencing above need to be cut. My question is, when beginning discussions regarding cuts to either pots spending, should the starting point for cuts be [Current spending including the temporary thing I noted] or [Current spending minus the temporary thing I noted]?
 
Last edited:
While I am not a pubbie, I will take a crack at that side. Military spending should be reformed. The budget process with the automatic cuts and need for re-authorization if spending falls below that which is budgeted promotes waste by penalizing savings. Beyond that, it should be non-war baseline with a reasonable allocation for the stockpiling of nonperishable goods overtime. I would consolidate bases further and reduce our number of bases overseas (i.e. Bye, Korea). While probably stupid on my part, I would also open up contracting to overseas manufacturing (i.e. give Boeing some competition for aircraft manufacturing).
 
I'll answer both, if that's okay:

1. For defense, I think we need to make a plan for spending based on leaving a few troops in both countries, but eliminating the massive war-time spending to fund a full offensive in either country. I also believe we need to include foreign aid revisions within the defense budget, since they go hand in hand. I'll freely admit that defense spending is bloated, during or outside of war time.

2. We need to scrap ARRA spending from the budget, especially if they will apply the same principles to that spending as they did with the initial packages.

But overall, government needs to learn how to run more efficiently, stably, and consistently. Operations need to be streamlined, excesses eliminated, redundancies removed...we need to ensure that the private sector is the most significant contributor to economic growth, and that will include re-designing subsistence programs to promote recipient decline through positive means (i.e. not set-in-stone expiration of benefits). Our programs should come with mandatory training and education programs to prepare subsistence recipients for full-time, secure employment that will keep them well above the poverty level. I also believe that creating serious restrictions in subsistence programs will promote recipients to seek means of becoming self-sufficient. Subsistence shouldn't be cushy. I don't want to "punish" recipients, I just want to make self-reliance more freeing and appealing.
 
The whole concept of "baseline budgeting" is insane. That is what keeps us adding more borrowing. Budgeting is about establishing priorities and allocating your income to cover your expenses. The federal gov't has not done this in decades, it simply borrows and spends more each year. Pretending that income/credit is infinite and that all current expenses are not only necessary, but equally important, is foolish, dangerous and what has given this nation a huge national debt. It is time for congress to make those "tough choices" that they always promise to address during their campaigns. A good start is a reality check about "entitlements" including those insane deals offered as gov't retirement benefits only to themselves: Federal Gov
 
The whole concept of "baseline budgeting" is insane. That is what keeps us adding more borrowing. Budgeting is about establishing priorities and allocating your income to cover your expenses. The federal gov't has not done this in decades, it simply borrows and spends more each year. Pretending that income/credit is infinite and that all current expenses are not only necessary, but equally important, is foolish, dangerous and what has given this nation a huge national debt. It is time for congress to make those "tough choices" that they always promise to address during their campaigns. A good start is a reality check about "entitlements" including those insane deals offered as gov't retirement benefits only to themselves: Federal Gov

I agree with your first sentence 100 %. Everything else I think is completely wrong...

How much spent each year should be determined by needs, not some inflexible formula. However, that is not what he is asking, so let me try and get ontopic before Zyphlin yells at me...

Honestly, I am not seeing where it matters much where you define a starting point. If you have to cut spending, then if you are worrying bout how much is cut from any baseline you are doing it backwards. You should start with how much you will spend, and go from there to decide how.
 
I agree with your first sentence 100 %. Everything else I think is completely wrong...

How much spent each year should be determined by needs, not some inflexible formula. However, that is not what he is asking, so let me try and get ontopic before Zyphlin yells at me...

Honestly, I am not seeing where it matters much where you define a starting point. If you have to cut spending, then if you are worrying bout how much is cut from any baseline you are doing it backwards. You should start with how much you will spend, and go from there to decide how.

I believe you are absolutely wrong - you don't create a budget based on needs. The word "needs" is too ambiguous and this method of determining what is spent each year inevitably leads to spending more than you have and increasing the debt.

To start a budget, first you need to determine the revenue. Then list and prioritize financial expenditures.

There may be literal (or highly moral) 'needs' that are prioritized below other literal needs that won't be funded in this scenario. If that's the case, the solution is not to create debt. The solution is to increase revenue. Then and only then, will we better be able to define what a 'need' is. Politicians don't like increasing revenues because they lose votes. Though many things that would be strongly wanted may go without funding, the alternative is burdening future generations with too much debt. Avoiding that alternative should be our top priority. It is immoral to take more than we produce individually or as a society.

To answer this question, I do think any spending should be included in the budget if it is going to be spent, because I do not believe in spending beyond the budget. That is not to say that I support all military action, just that if funds are going to be used, they need to be accounted for.

An inflexible formula is the only moral answer that I have found, though it comes with obvious costs.
 
I don't like the idea of seperating normal DoD spending, and spending to support wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In my opinion the actual DoD budget should reflect the funding requirements for its ongoing operations, but perhaps it actually makes more sense to do that because by keeping the two pots seperate one can better allocate funds for specific purposes and its easier to track. Either way both can be reduced and should be reduced so the starting point isn't too important to me.
 
Back
Top Bottom