What would you cut?

while raising the inheritance tax.????????????

Obviously, you're not in line to get anything from your relatives and don't plan to have anything to give to you're offspring....lol

And I don't think you can even imagion what a debt of 16+ trillion dollars is or means to the country

Don't you understand Liberal Maths? We can pass all kinds of entitlements, totaling trillions upon trillions, and this doesn't matter as long as it helps people. And to pay for all of this shit, we simply dismantle the entire military ($600 billion) and raise tax on the "rich" ($300 billion)....oh yeah, and raise the inheritance tax ($50 billion). SIMPLE!
 
Don't you understand Liberal Maths? We can pass all kinds of entitlements, totaling trillions upon trillions, and this doesn't matter as long as it helps people. And to pay for all of this shit, we simply dismantle the entire military ($600 billion) and raise tax on the "rich" ($300 billion)....oh yeah, and raise the inheritance tax ($50 billion). SIMPLE!

Liberal Maths, is that like Dixie Math? 1/3

I don't think you will ever be ble to talk about anyone's math on this forum, after that discussion!
 
There is nothing we can cut that won't effect someone. Many here are clamoring (as usual) for cuts in defense, because they view defense spending as something we can have less of, without dramatically effecting someone, but that is so very untrue. Cuts in defense budgets mean bases will close, and that has an enormous economic impact on entire communities. Does this mean we shouldn't cut defense? Not what I am saying... we just need to be aware of the ramifications. Generically saying we are going to cut 30% or 25%... is not the answer, that WILL result in base closings and economic disaster for many. That's not what we want! A much better approach, in my opinion, would be to select a bipartisan commission to find waste and redundancy in the system. Foreign installations that are no longer beneficial to us in terms of strategic logistics, should be the bases closed first, if we are going to close bases at all. I think there are BILLIONS that can be saved by eliminating obsolete programs, including most of our weapons programs, which are obsolete before we get them completed because of how slow the government works as opposed to how fast technology is advancing. Foreign aid can be cut, but again, we need to carefully consider the consequences, and not view all foreign aid the same.

Entitlements. Protect the starving children and sick old people, but look at the standards for claiming 'disability' under SS, and get rid of about half the parasites, who simply have the 'disability' of being lazy and not wanting to work. Any government assistance, with the exception of Social Security retirees and those with legitimate disability, should be subject to some time period... I'd say, two years at the most. If you haven't gotten back on your feet in two years, the government doesn't need to keep supporting/enabling you. UE benies, back to 26 weeks like it always has been.

Subsidies... again, we hit something that a lot of people can't relate to... most of us don't get subsidized, so we figure this is 'wasted money' because we don't see any of it... but we do see the results of it, a lot of the time, we just are unaware. We need to look at what we subsidize, and evaluate how well it is working to achieve whatever objective prompted it to begin with. If the objective is not being met, we need to eliminate the subsidy. If there is a cheaper way to meet the objective, we need to look at it. I would imagine there is a lot we could cut, but again, we need to be very careful with the scalpel here.

Get rid of Federal agencies we don't need. The Department of Education, to name one. State boards are fully capable of administration when it comes to education, we don't need a redundant Federal agency to do the same thing.

Finally, enact the Line Item Veto and start electing Conservative presidents who will use it. This alone, would eliminate billions in waste on pork over time.

You can make a cut in such a way that it will not have a devastating impact on people. Attrition is one way. Closing international bases, instead of national bases. Transferring people from international bases to national bases, again allowing attrition to replace military personnel. Auditing of the military to make sure the money being spent is being used wisely. Ending the occupation of countries that no longer need to monitor.

There are many ways to handle cuts that will not devastate people's lives.
 
You can make a cut in such a way that it will not have a devastating impact on people. Attrition is one way. Closing international bases, instead of national bases. Transferring people from international bases to national bases, again allowing attrition to replace military personnel. Auditing of the military to make sure the money being spent is being used wisely. Ending the occupation of countries that no longer need to monitor.

There are many ways to handle cuts that will not devastate people's lives.

Dixie: "Does this mean we shouldn't cut defense? Not what I am saying...we just need to be aware of the ramifications.....a bipartisan commission to find waste and redundancy in the system......Foreign installations that are no longer beneficial to us in terms of strategic logistics, should be the bases closed first....I think there are BILLIONS that can be saved by eliminating obsolete programs....I would imagine there is a lot we could cut, but again, we need to be very careful with the scalpel here."

Now where in there did I say no cuts can be made without devastating people's lives? Seems to me, I am saying exactly what you are saying, but you just want to misrepresent what I have said. The point I am making is this... We can talk about some 25-30% cut in the military budget as if we're in a vacuum, and that cut would only effect 'military things' that we're not interested in, but the fact is, it would have an economic impact on MANY who have nothing to do with the military. When a base closes, and a town essentially dries up, businesses close and people are out of a job... not because you cut their jobs, but because you closed the military base in their town, which enabled the existence of their job.

When it comes to foreign installations, here's another thing liberals can't relate to, and don't see the need for. Most of these outposts are there as a matter of conditional agreement with our allies. They are there for the purpose of protecting Europe from Soviet military aggression, and to prevent us from having to liberate the area again in the future with another Normandy landing, etc. Do we HAVE to have them? Well, I don't know, do you HAVE to have a lock on your front door? Maybe your neighborhood is quiet enough that you don't? If you believe that is somewhere you could save money, then we should look at it, but everything has ramifications and consequences, don't fool yourself into believing otherwise.
 
Breaking News: The USSR has broken up... The USSR has broken up.

and now, back to your regularly scheduled mathematics lesson... today we will be discussing 1/3
 
Dixie: "Does this mean we shouldn't cut defense? Not what I am saying...we just need to be aware of the ramifications.....a bipartisan commission to find waste and redundancy in the system......Foreign installations that are no longer beneficial to us in terms of strategic logistics, should be the bases closed first....I think there are BILLIONS that can be saved by eliminating obsolete programs....I would imagine there is a lot we could cut, but again, we need to be very careful with the scalpel here."

Now where in there did I say no cuts can be made without devastating people's lives? Seems to me, I am saying exactly what you are saying, but you just want to misrepresent what I have said. The point I am making is this... We can talk about some 25-30% cut in the military budget as if we're in a vacuum, and that cut would only effect 'military things' that we're not interested in, but the fact is, it would have an economic impact on MANY who have nothing to do with the military. When a base closes, and a town essentially dries up, businesses close and people are out of a job... not because you cut their jobs, but because you closed the military base in their town, which enabled the existence of their job.

When it comes to foreign installations, here's another thing liberals can't relate to, and don't see the need for. Most of these outposts are there as a matter of conditional agreement with our allies. They are there for the purpose of protecting Europe from Soviet military aggression, and to prevent us from having to liberate the area again in the future with another Normandy landing, etc. Do we HAVE to have them? Well, I don't know, do you HAVE to have a lock on your front door? Maybe your neighborhood is quiet enough that you don't? If you believe that is somewhere you could save money, then we should look at it, but everything has ramifications and consequences, don't fool yourself into believing otherwise.

BS, our allies don't want us in their countries in many cases and 765 facilities are just not necessary. I have read numerous books on the issue and you are just plain wrong and I won't blame all conservatives for your lack of knowledge, I 'll just blame you. My very consevative Col. Brother in law has told me that a lot of the bases overseas are just not necessary. I will take his opinion over yours.
 
BS, our allies don't want us in their countries in many cases and 765 facilities are just not necessary. I have read numerous books on the issue and you are just plain wrong and I won't blame all conservatives for your lack of knowledge, I 'll just blame you. My very consevative Col. Brother in law has told me that a lot of the bases overseas are just not necessary. I will take his opinion over yours.

Again, where are you reading me saying that all bases are essential and necessary? Is that what is on your screen? Because, that's not what I am typing, dear!
 
Again, where are you reading me saying that all bases are essential and necessary? Is that what is on your screen? Because, that's not what I am typing, dear!

I guess it was your blah, blah, blah about agreements with foreign countries. Why are we big brother? I am sure Japan, and Germany are quite capable of protecting themselves. We can not afford to be the world police. We never should have taken on that role in the first place!

Let me state right now, Romney is an idiot in the matters of foreign policy and he as just openly taken a stand against the President and is siding with Isreal. I think that is just wrong. He is drawing a line in the sand against Iran, tough talk, that once he gets in office, if he does, that he won't back up! This is all just for his base and it will bite him in his ass.
 
I guess it was your blah, blah, blah about agreements with foreign countries. Why are we big brother? I am sure Japan, and Germany are quite capable of protecting themselves. We can not afford to be the world police. We never should have taken on that role in the first place

Actually Japan is not. They're legally required by their own constitution to NOT have a military force.
 
The line item veto was, if I remember correctly, deemed unconstitutional by the USSC during the Clinton years.

I was watching Bill Clinton being interviewed by the BBC the other night, he admitted that one of his big regrets was not controlling the financial sector.
 
Actually Japan is not. They're legally required by their own constitution to NOT have a military force.

Thanks, but the excuse we use to stay in Japan is not their defense, but defense of S. Korea and my nephew says that those bases really aren't necessary for the defense of Korea. Okinawa has wanted us out of Japan for a long time.
 
Id decrease the budget on the FDA but increase the ability of the public to sue for food poisioning and improper labeling.

Id decrease OSHA regulations for employers but greatly increase an employees ability to sue for on the job injuries.
 
Back
Top