What would you cut?

Defense is a no brainer; that can be cut by a third at least.

Personally, I'd favor privatization of SS; that would remove another huge program from the pie.

There are a lot of token things that people will mention, which might all add up, but they have to go after the big stuff if they really want to get it under control...
 
Onceler said:
Defense is a no brainer; that can be cut by a third at least.

Personally, I'd favor privatization of SS; that would remove another huge program from the pie.

There are a lot of token things that people will mention, which might all add up, but they have to go after the big stuff if they really want to get it under control...
Click to expand...

I doubt there are many Fed departments that couldn't be cut by 20%+. Defense certainly by a third or more. If we address the reasons for the rise in health care costs then we can slash Medicare/Medicaid as well. Those two (defense and M/M) would right the fiscal ship in a hurry.
 
All spending should be taken back to 2007 levels. There is no justification for the spending to remain as high as it is today. Especially given declining revenues.
 
I remember they asked one of the newly sworn-in tea partiers this in '10, and they replied proudly, "The National Endowment for the Arts."

I really hate token shite like that. Show me the money. Put the budget pie out there, and go after the big slices....
 
I also think anyone above a certain paygrade could kiss raises goodbye until we get the budget under control. And remove the ability for politicians to vote on their own pay raises.
 
Onceler said:
I remember they asked one of the newly sworn-in tea partiers this in '10, and they replied proudly, "The National Endowment for the Arts."

I really hate token shite like that. Show me the money. Put the budget pie out there, and go after the big slices....
Click to expand...

Yeah, that will save a lot, huh? Probably about what the gov't spend in 3 mins. lol
 
All spending should go back to 2005 spending levels IMO. But, as SF said, 2007 makes sense considering we haven't had a budget since then, the government is in auto-growth mode and it needs to be curtailed.

Defense spending can be cut without endangering any of us, there is a lot of waste in that part of the budget. Entitlements are definitely something we need to look at as well.
 
What spending has Romney identified he would cut?

I belive that once the economy is back on track, (a faster recovery that we are currently in) we should roll back much of the spending.

Defense is a big area that would save a LOT.

DAMO, what entitlements are you specifically talking about?
 
We need to do something akin to what Spain has done with temporary tax increases and perminant spending cuts.
 
Jarod said:
What spending has Romney identified he would cut?

I belive that once the economy is back on track, (a faster recovery that we are currently in) we should roll back much of the spending.

Defense is a big area that would save a LOT.

DAMO, what entitlements are you specifically talking about?
Click to expand...

Right... I'll note you don't talk about "which" defense specific cuts one would make...

All of them, Jarod. All of them, we need to actually do what Obama promised and go through that mess line by line.
 
defense is a no brainer -foreign bases, prolly some new type weapons systems. Much as I hate Obama's overus of drones, there are new ones in development that can be launched by a single combat man.
I';d cut out the GWOT ( global war on terror) which has us acting like global monsters -droning houses and wedding partys inAfPak.

Get the CIA out of Yemen, in general end the costly unwinnable New Crusades. Deal with AQ, but enough battlefield uses.
The rate of growth is also problematic, we've been maxing out our debt even quicker under Obama then Bush - although Bush debt was unfunded Rx program, and "off budget " runnign the wars.

I'd means test for SSA - in return not raise cap cains to more then 20% ( i think that was Clinton Levels.)

a lot of nice programs, are hard to justify -even arts - I look at states mine inparticular (fl) has cut all non-essestial school spending.
Not saying i agree with that -kids need to learn more the reading writing and arithmetic, but adults can do without funding National Endowment of the Arts.

Gotta get the mindset, that if it isn't a federal necessity, then it has to go. we're facing a huge growth in mandates -either reform them, or start chopping everything.

This running up $1T a year in debt has got to stop. It's gonna break us, if we can't get serious. Simpson - Bowles shows we're still not serious.
 
Since we all agree that Defense is a good place to start, especially national Dems... I suggest we eliminate all defense spending in every single Dem district. Move necessary spending to Rep districts. That way Dems can get their cuts to defense, yet Reps still get funding for their districts. win win win.
 
annata said:
defense is a no brainer -foreign bases, prolly some new type weapons systems. Much as I hate Obama's overus of drones, there are new ones in development that can be launched by a single combat man.
I';d cut out the GWOT ( global war on terror) which has us acting like global monsters -droning houses and wedding partys inAfPak.

Get the CIA out of Yemen, in general end the costly unwinnable New Crusades. Deal with AQ, but enough battlefield uses.
The rate of growth is also problematic, we've been maxing out our debt even quicker under Obama then Bush - although Bush debt was unfunded Rx program, and "off budget " runnign the wars.

I'd means test for SSA - in return not raise cap cains to more then 20% ( i think that was Clinton Levels.)

a lot of nice programs, are hard to justify -even arts - I look at states mine inparticular (fl) has cut all non-essestial school spending.
Not saying i agree with that -kids need to learn more the reading writing and arithmetic, but adults can do without funding National Endowment of the Arts.

Gotta get the mindset, that if it isn't a federal necessity, then it has to go. we're facing a huge growth in mandates -either reform them, or start chopping everything.

This running up $1T a year in debt has got to stop. It's gonna break us, if we can't get serious. Simpson - Bowles shows we're still not serious.
Click to expand...

I agree with quite a bit of that, particularly about the mindset. Some people are still in the '90's, or think this is a blip. It's not. Things have to change; that # in Times Square has to start going down instead of up. China's growth forecasts are shrinking, and they just won't carry our debt forever, or even for a few more years.

The party is over, and we have to re-think they way many things are funded.
 
Damocles said:
Right... I'll note you don't talk about "which" defense specific cuts one would make...

All of them, Jarod. All of them, we need to actually do what Obama promised and go through that mess line by line.
Click to expand...

Did you talk about "which" defense spending cuts you would make?
 
Onceler said:
I agree with quite a bit of that, particularly about the mindset. Some people are still in the '90's, or think this is a blip. It's not. Things have to change; that # in Times Square has to start going down instead of up. China's growth forecasts are shrinking, and they just won't carry our debt forever, or even for a few more years.

The party is over, and we have to re-think they way many things are funded.
Click to expand...

Until recently, they have not been buyers of our debt. The bulk of the Obama debt the last few years has been bought up by the Federal Reserve banks in the nice convenient shell game the idiots in DC and NYC have going on.
 
Haiku said:
Speaking of idiots. SS is not part of the national debt.
Click to expand...
In practicle terms it is, because of past borrowing out of the trust funds.
http://www.newyorklife.com/nyl/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=80f61219a49d2210a2b3019d221024301cacRCRD
By 2017, it is projected that Social Security spending will exceed projected tax collections. In turn, net Treasury payments to the Social Security system will greatly increase pressure on the federal budget. In fact, in 2009, the annual Social Security Surpluses that Congress has been borrowing and spending on other programs will begin to shrink.

Here's why: When Social Security income exceeds its expenses, the surplus is retained by the Treasury and used to meet the government's non-Social Security expenses. For example, the recent surpluses in Social Security led to annual surpluses that went to finance B-2 bombers, farm subsidies, savings and loan bailouts, and other general federal expenditures. In return for borrowing these funds, the Treasury issues special bonds to the Social Security trust fund.

Through 2007, the Social Security trust fund held $2 trillion in bonds. When Social Security's expenses exceed its income, theoretically these bonds can be redeemed to meet current obligations. Beginning in 2017, the Treasury will need to begin redeeming these bonds. And the government will have to find the cash to repay
Click to expand...
 
Superfreak said:
I doubt there are many Fed departments that couldn't be cut by 20%+. Defense certainly by a third or more. If we address the reasons for the rise in health care costs then we can slash Medicare/Medicaid as well. Those two (defense and M/M) would right the fiscal ship in a hurry.
Click to expand...
I essentially agree. SS is an easy fix. Just index the payroll tax cap to the rate of inflation and hire Italian mobsters to kill any politician who wants to borrow from SS surplusses. The big driver in health care costs is the lack of access to primary care. One of the issues that has to be addressed is the monopoly the AMA has on medical education and how they artificially keep low the numbers of Med School seats available, keeping the costs for a medical education high which deters students from persuing primary care career which don't pay as well as specialized fields (though they still pay damned well compared to median wages) but that has nothing to do with cutting costs. The new reporting requirements under the ACA will go a long way towards preventing fraud and will save a lot of money currently being paid for procedures and modalities of questionable affectiveness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top