Obama's new budget saves $24 billion

[deepatrax]

Liberals want more trains...what century is this!?

where is my rocket pack and/or teleporter!

 

[Puppycow]

Liberals want more trains...what century is this!?

where is my rocket pack and/or teleporter!

You know what, the more I think about it, the more I agree that high-speed rail shouldn't be a priority when the budget deficit is this big.

It should probably be one of the sacrificial lambs.

I did a little checking on the numbers, and it seems doubtful that the benefit will be worth the cost (in the US).
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/high-speed-rail/

However, it seems to work pretty well here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinkansen

The Tōkaidō Shinkansen is the world's busiest high-speed rail line. Carrying 151 million passengers a year (March 2008),[1] it has transported more passengers (over 4 billion, network over 6 billion)[2] than any other high speed line in the world.[3] Between Tokyo and Osaka, the two largest metropolises in Japan, up to ten trains per hour with sixteen cars each (1,300 seats capacity) run in each direction with a minimum headway of three minutes between trains. Though largely a long-distance transport system, the Shinkansen also serves commuters who travel to work in metropolitan areas from outlying cities.
. . .
The Shinkansen has had a significant effect on Japan's business, economy, society, environment and culture.[6] The time savings alone from switching from a conventional to a high-speed network have been estimated at 400 million hours, an economic impact of ¥ 500 billion per year.[6]

Note of caution though. What makes sense between Tokyo and Osaka, makes less sense between other cities.

However, the vast construction costs of the Shinkansen network, particularly the later, less profitable lines often driven more by political interference than actual demand, imposed vast debt servicing costs on JNR that, by 1971, made JNR unprofitable even before depreciation.[10] JNR's Shinkansen-fueled debt eventually ballooned to ¥28 trillion and was an instrumental factor in the company's eventual privatization and breakup.[10] The privatized JRs eventually paid a total of only ¥9.2 trillion to acquire JNR's Shinkansen network.[6]

So it works in Japan between Tokyo and Osaka (with Nagoya in the middle), but it is not so cost-effective elsewhere, and private companies are not willing to pay what the government paid for the tracks.

 

[Puppycow]

Here's an interesting article.
The Federal Government’s Unspent Billions

more than $700 billion gathers dust in accounts all around Washington.
. . .
This includes $12.2 billion unspent at the Agriculture Department, $16.4 billion at Labor, $25.2 billion at Housing and Urban Development, $71.4 billion at Defense, and $309.1 billion at Treasury.
. . .
if only 20 percent of these funds could be liberated, then some $140.6 billion could be redirected immediately to reduce the deficit
. . .
In fact, Senator Coburn’s office estimates that $82.4 billion of these funds are between six and 20 years old!

Is this a relatively painless way to make a dent in the deficit?

 

[Piggy]

Because NASA is involved in a lot of high end basic research and does neat things that make this nation worth living in.

And?

How does this mean that absolutely nothing NASA does should get cut, even in a circumstance in which the USA owes over $14T and needs to greatly reduce that debt before we're overwhelmed by interest payments?

In other words, why is that such a high priority that everything else needs to be cut instead?

 

[Piggy]

Evidence?

We already pay about 41 cents on every federal dollar to service the debt. If we allow the debt to increase by continuing to run deficit budgets, that percentage will continue to increase -- at the expense of everything else we need our gov't to do, like maintain infrastructure and public health, btw -- until our debt becomes unmarketable, at which point our economy collapses.

Basic economics.

 

[Piggy]

Is this a relatively painless way to make a dent in the deficit?

If we immediately turned all that money over to debt reduction, we would have made a less than 5% dent. Running Obama budgets, that savings would be wiped out in less than a year.

 

[eeyore1954]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/trs.pdf

most importantly, it cuts billions in military budgets and programs that the Pentagon doesn't even want.

does the GOP budget for 2012 cut these programs?

It is funny how something is worded changes the appearance of something. you say his budget saves 24B, i would say the new budget proposes spending 3,700,000,000,000.
Saying the budget saves 24 billion is like my wife saying she saved 10 dollars on those shoes that cost $90 and she didn't need.

And President Obama says it is a down payment kind of unusual making a down payment by increasing your loan. Although I did not hear the context.

 

[eeyore1954]

I keep hearing "1.1 trillion over ten years". Is that right?

It is easy for politicians to say they are going to do things in the future especially spending cuts , raising taxes and balancing budgets.

 

[casebro]

Didn't I get an email explaining that the proposed cut would be like on of us cutting our monthly budget by 7¢ ? Anybody here want to re-do the math?

 

[casebro]

"100 billion here. a hundred billion there, pretty soon they will be talking real money."

 

[Beerina]

I keep hearing "1.1 trillion over ten years". Is that right?

Odd it only took the feds 3 years to increase it by that much. If that isn't an argument for a balanced budget amendment, I don't know what is.

 

[Thunder]

I think high-speed trains are a great idea, when the nation has a surplus.

i'd rather just spend money rebuilding dieing infrastructure. lots of construction jobs there.

 

[eeyore1954]

When I looked back at this thread it just strikes me as funny. What 24 billion was saved? The extra 24 billion that could have been decided to be in the budget?

the budget could have been 4 trillion but since they came up with 3.7trillion then they could say they saved 300,000,000,000.

 

[geni]

Odd it only took the feds 3 years to increase it by that much. If that isn't an argument for a balanced budget amendment, I don't know what is.

Well a more legitimate argument is that it would give you the chance to purchase the freehold on the whitehouse.

Deficits can be cut quicky (see Ireland) although this isn't always massive help (see Ireland).

 

[eeyore1954]

Didn't I get an email explaining that the proposed cut would be like on of us cutting our monthly budget by 7¢ ? Anybody here want to re-do the math?

24 billion is a little over .6% of the total budget.
So if you had a 1000 budget it would be 6 dollars. no starbucks for one day.

 

[geni]

When I looked back at this thread it just strikes me as funny. What 24 billion was saved? The extra 24 billion that could have been decided to be in the budget?

the budget could have been 4 trillion but since they came up with 3.7trillion then they could say they saved 300,000,000,000.

It doesn't really matter. It's not as if the figures are anywhere close to the scale needed if you feel that the US should be running a balanced budget at this time.

Using the standard formular you would need about $936billion in cuts and about $234 billion in tax rises.

 

[Vorticity]

Why not cut NASA? What's NASA doing that makes it sacrosanct from even temporary cuts during a time when the interest on our growing debt threatens the very stability of our nation?

Because the cuts would not be temporary. When economic times improve, and it comes time to reverse the "temporary" cuts, how do you think such a move would be spun:

1) "NASA budget returned to previous levels."

or

2) "Massive increase proposed in NASA budget."

I think you know the answer. It's like when the expiration of a "temporary" tax cut is spun as a massive tax increase.

If your real question is "Why fund NASA at all?", the answer is more complicated. The best I could answer it in a single sentence would be something like: We should strive for more, as a species, than mere survival.

 

[Thunder]

When I looked back at this thread it just strikes me as funny. What 24 billion was saved? The extra 24 billion that could have been decided to be in the budget?

i assume its $24 billion less than Obama's 2011 budget.

is it savings? kinda.

..unless you prefer the federal govt. spend no money at all.

 

[casebro]

I Wiki'd the National Budget. Overall, we pay about 6% of the budget in interest on all that debt people are forever talking about. Put into one perspective: That would be about $150 per month, for earning a $30,000 income. I can't see the road to ruination in that. (should ruination have two 'n's in it? )

 

[Thunder]

how much would we have to decrease spending in the 2012 budget, to have a balanced budget?