Spending cut proposals

Kind of embarassing how political their list of cuts is.

It's not a good faith effort; they're just saying "Dems, here are all of the things you like that we want you to cut." Like you said, where is DoD?
 
Onceler said:
Kind of embarassing how political their list of cuts is.

It's not a good faith effort; they're just saying "Dems, here are all of the things you like that we want you to cut." Like you said, where is DoD?
Click to expand...

I would agree. If they wanted people to take them seriously, they HAD to cut some of their own pet projects/departments.

DoD is the EASIEST. Gates already laid out some gimmes for them and they didn't include them. Friggin stupid.
 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy. $445 million annual savings.

International Fund for Ireland. $17 million annual savings.

Legal Services Corporation. $420 million annual savings.

National Endowment for the Arts. $167.5 million annual savings.

Amtrak Subsidies. $1.565 billion annual savings.
Click to expand...

sweet
 
Superfreak said:
I would agree. If they wanted people to take them seriously, they HAD to cut some of their own pet projects/departments.

DoD is the EASIEST. Gates already laid out some gimmes for them and they didn't include them. Friggin stupid.
Click to expand...

The more I think about it, the more it looks like they aren't serious at all about working w/ Obama. The goal here is to create confrontation and win the WH in 2012.

If they were serious about cutting now, it wouldn't look like this. They want to wait it out for the whole shebang...
 
Onceler said:
The more I think about it, the more it looks like they aren't serious at all about working w/ Obama. The goal here is to create confrontation and win the WH in 2012.

If they were serious about cutting now, it wouldn't look like this. They want to wait it out for the whole shebang...
Click to expand...

a stupid move on their part... unless their goal is to get the Dems to counter with a list of their own as a starting point for the negotiations. (which I doubt was the case, but one can hope)

regardless, the Dems should counter with programs they think should be cut. Be specific. List the area, the amount and why. (yes, the Reps should list the why on their list as well)
 
the base starting point (IMO) should be a return of all spending to fiscal year 2007 levels.

the next thing.... tell us where the friggin hell the 're-paid' TARP money went.

the next... quit pretending that a new government program reduces the deficit, it does not.
 
Superfreak said:
sweet
Click to expand...

Sweet?

House GOP Budget Axe May Fall Heavily On Low-Income Women

Legal Services Corporation, which is the federal organization that provides civil legal assistance to people who make up to 125 percent of the federal poverty line. The RSC says that eliminating the LSC would save $420 million -- and the predominately low-income women currently served by the program would have to look elsewhere for assistance filing for help in domestic abuse cases and resolving custody issues (about 35 percent of its cases), in foreclosure or eviction disputes (25 percent of their cases) or even filing for bankruptcy.

The LSC is the "single largest provider of civil legal aid for the poor in the nation," and the need for such an organization is great. In 2005, under the direction of then-President Helaine Barnett, the LSC undertook a study of the economic "justice gap" in America. Their principal findings:

--For every client served by an LSC-funded program, at least one person who sought help was turned down because of insufficient resources.

--Only a very small percentage of the legal problems experienced by low-income people (one in five or less) are addressed with the assistance of either a private attorney (pro bono or paid) or a legal aid lawyer.

--Despite the changes in legal aid delivery over the last decade, a majority of legal aid lawyers still work in LSC-funded programs. The per capita ratio of legal aid attorneys funded by all sources to the low-income population is a tiny fraction of the ratio of private attorneys providing personal civil legal services to the general population.
 
Eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. $12.5 million annual savings.

Huh? 12.5 million out of the billions of dollars in the climate change budget? LOL
Talk about a drop in the bucket.
http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/rdreport2011/11pch15.pdf
Plus, can anyone explain what "taxpayer subsidies" are? Not trolling, just don't know exactly what they are refering to.

seriously, that's a ridiculously tiny reduction.
 
Bfgrn said:
Sweet?

House GOP Budget Axe May Fall Heavily On Low-Income Women

Legal Services Corporation, which is the federal organization that provides civil legal assistance to people who make up to 125 percent of the federal poverty line. The RSC says that eliminating the LSC would save $420 million -- and the predominately low-income women currently served by the program would have to look elsewhere for assistance filing for help in domestic abuse cases and resolving custody issues (about 35 percent of its cases), in foreclosure or eviction disputes (25 percent of their cases) or even filing for bankruptcy.

The LSC is the "single largest provider of civil legal aid for the poor in the nation," and the need for such an organization is great. In 2005, under the direction of then-President Helaine Barnett, the LSC undertook a study of the economic "justice gap" in America. Their principal findings:

--For every client served by an LSC-funded program, at least one person who sought help was turned down because of insufficient resources.

--Only a very small percentage of the legal problems experienced by low-income people (one in five or less) are addressed with the assistance of either a private attorney (pro bono or paid) or a legal aid lawyer.

--Despite the changes in legal aid delivery over the last decade, a majority of legal aid lawyers still work in LSC-funded programs. The per capita ratio of legal aid attorneys funded by all sources to the low-income population is a tiny fraction of the ratio of private attorneys providing personal civil legal services to the general population.
Click to expand...

yes... SWEET...

I know in your fantasy world it is great to provide everything to everyone for 'free'... or in this case to the 'poor'.

I know you did a fabulous job of cut and paste from their website, but bottom line, those services can be provided by the private sector/individual grants/philanthropy.

to pretend that everything must be done via the idiots in DC is why we have so much friggin waste.
 
Superfreak said:
yes... SWEET...

I know in your fantasy world it is great to provide everything to everyone for 'free'... or in this case to the 'poor'.

I know you did a fabulous job of cut and paste from their website, but bottom line, those services can be provided by the private sector/individual grants/philanthropy.

to pretend that everything must be done via the idiots in DC is why we have so much friggin waste.
Click to expand...

I strongly suggest you right wing scum steal and pilfer anything you can in this lifetime, because your next one will be extremely miserable. You folks are the modern day Pharisee.
 
Bfgrn said:
I strongly suggest you right wing scum steal and pilfer anything you can in this lifetime, because your next one will be extremely miserable. You folks are the modern day Pharisee.
Click to expand...
Cheap theatrics. I'm sure you have the right of all Karmic tallies, because Buddha talks to you in the shower.
 
Bfgrn said:
I strongly suggest you right wing scum steal and pilfer anything you can in this lifetime, because your next one will be extremely miserable. You folks are the modern day Pharisee.
Click to expand...

So it is 'stealing and pilfering' to suggest that the federal government not pay for any and all entitlements the left can think up?
 
Almost any budget cuts will be inherently painful - they'll mean cuts in services, jobs, and anything else that currently benefits individuals or groups in some way. That's why it's so hard to cut budgets.

But, there comes a point where it has to be acknowledged that our current course is simply unsustainable. If nothing is done, it is inevitable that the U.S. will collapse under the weight of its debt and fiscal issues, and that will be far more painful, for many more people...
 
Damocles said:
Cheap theatrics. I'm sure you have the right of all Karmic tallies, because Buddha talks to you in the shower.
Click to expand...

Call it whatever you want. But it is genuine. The more I talk to 'conservatives' the more convinced I am they really are the modern day Pharisee.

I was raised in a Christian home.

Luke 16:13-15

13 “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and mammon.”

14 The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus.

15 He said to them, “You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of men, but God knows your hearts. What is highly valuable to man is detestable in God’s sight.
 
Onceler said:
Almost any budget cuts will be inherently painful - they'll mean cuts in services, jobs, and anything else that currently benefits individuals or groups in some way. That's why it's so hard to cut budgets.

But, there comes a point where it has to be acknowledged that our current course is simply unsustainable. If nothing is done, it is inevitable that the U.S. will collapse under the weight of its debt and fiscal issues, and that will be far more painful, for many more people...
Click to expand...

True. when we bloat so much of our government with excess jobs/admin/bureaucracy etc... it is going to be painful. The longer we wait, the more we bloat, the more painful the path to recovery will be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top