Perchoutofwater Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 This looks like a real good start. I'm disappointed it didn't include cuts in defernse and doesn't address SS or Medicare, but it's a start. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Cut Federal Travel Budget in Half. $7.5 billion annual savings. Wow that's alot of money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 This looks like a real good start. I'm disappointed it didn't include cuts in defernse and doesn't address SS or Medicare, but it's a start. Okay. But nothing about SS, medicare, or defense spending? Cowards. :shakeshead: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted January 20, 2011 Author Share Posted January 20, 2011 Okay. But nothing about SS, medicare, or defense spending? Cowards. :shakeshead: I'm disappointed as well, but it is by far the best thing I've seen come out of DC in a long time, wouldn't you agree? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redrumjuice Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Can we assume there will be full huddler support for this and at least half the elected dems who aren't 100% socialist? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 I'm disappointed as well, but it is by far the best thing I've seen come out of DC in a long time, wouldn't you agree? It's a start I guess. But a hugh portion of those savings is predicated on gutting Obamacare - we'll see how politically feasible that is. At best, it's an incomplete solution that just grabs the low-lying fruit. My fear is that the GOP is more interested in slashing their opponent's programs than balancing the budget, which is typikal of pols. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Can we assume there will be full huddler support for this and at least half the elected dems who aren't 100% socialist? You can assume whatever you wish and as usual, it would be incorrect. There are at least 14 things on the list tah should not be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redrumjuice Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 You can assume whatever you wish and as usual, it would be incorrect. There are at least 14 things on the list tah should not be. Let me guess, Mohair Subsidies? What else like that do you like that is spelled out in the constitution? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 (edited) Wow that's alot of money. No kidding. I am on board with these though the ramifications have yet to be known and there will certainly be a reaction from the Law of Unforeseen Consequences. For instance, does eliminating Amtrak subsidies increase road traffic such that extra money needs to be put into interstates? ETA: On board except with the Obamacare piece, unless there's a replacement. Edited January 20, 2011 by Ursa Majoris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Let me guess, Mohair Subsidies? 15 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted January 20, 2011 Author Share Posted January 20, 2011 No kidding. I am on board with these though the ramifications have yet to be known and there will certainly be a reaction from the Law of Unforeseen Consequences. For instance, does eliminating Amtrak subsidies increase road traffic such that extra money needs to be put into interstates? ETA: On board except with the Obamacare piece, unless there's a replacement. I'm really not sure Obamacare is any better than we were before. It might help a few people who might have fallen through the cracks, but the additional costs associated with it IMO out weight that, and frankly the same people could be helped if we just gave those few direct help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted January 20, 2011 Author Share Posted January 20, 2011 You can assume whatever you wish and as usual, it would be incorrect. There are at least 14 things on the list tah should not be. Just out of curiosity what are your 14 sacred cows? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NAUgrad Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 So this is just what they want to cut. I'm sure it doesn't include anything they are specifically involved with currently. Also, the savings is over 10 years. That's crap. It should be 2.5B in savings this year! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 So this is just what they want to cut. I'm sure it doesn't include anything they are specifically involved with currently. Also, the savings is over 10 years. That's crap. It should be 2.5B in savings this year! Cutting 2.5 trillion in one year might be a little tough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 There are some good cuts there. Not a bad start. Now when they get the partisan crap out of the way and start looking at the budget objectively instead of just playing grab-ass politics with stupidly just going after Democrat-ish programs while disingenuously ignoring their sacred cow of defense. In one way, a great start, and some of those things should be done right away. In the majority of the way, what a cowardly openly partisan bullcrap festival with them protecting theor electoral pet projects. If you are serious about cuts, then have an OUNCE of honesty and look at the entire enchilada. . . . pussies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chester Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 There are some good cuts there. Not a bad start. Now when they get the partisan crap out of the way and start looking at the budget objectively instead of just playing grab-ass politics with stupidly just going after Democrat-ish programs while disingenuously ignoring their sacred cow of defense. In one way, a great start, and some of those things should be done right away. In the majority of the way, what a cowardly openly partisan bullcrap festival with them protecting theor electoral pet projects. If you are serious about cuts, then have an OUNCE of honesty and look at the entire enchilada. . . . pussies. Dems - your are not 100% right Reps - your are not 100% right Get together and make some decisions that are right for the country. We are all upset about the state of this country right now and are willing (I think) to sacrifice a bit to ensure a better future. Every choice is going to upset some group(s) no matter what and most of them are upset already. Partisan politics suck! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
millerx Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Dems - your are not 100% right Reps - your are not 100% right Get together and make some decisions that are right for the country. We are all upset about the state of this country right now and are willing (I think) to sacrifice a bit to ensure a better future. Every choice is going to upset some group(s) no matter what and most of them are upset already. Partisan politics suck! Not if your old and feeble, then it's " I want my SS damit! you touch it, and me and my AARP folk are gonna castrate you come next election". Hell, if I were in their shoes I'd say the same... especially when you don't have much future left... many of them could give a damn about the future! Unfortunately, this is also one of the most influential voter bases in the country, so even though most of the younger gen (and by head count a larger majority) think it needs to be adjusted, privatized (or some hybrid of the two), one of the most necessary cuts will seemingly never take place. Now that IS non-partisan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimm74 Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 "Prohibit taxpayer funded union activities by federal employees. $1.2 billion savings over ten years." I always love seeing this...The employor paying for its employees union... who in the right mind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Sacrebleu Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 I am a big fat socialist, so I disagree with the vast majority of these cuts, and those that I do agree with would tend to make only a dent in the overall number. Ireland can go screw itself as far as I am concerned, and anyway they are already living off the European teet, but that saves us all of 17 million dollars. I am curious if there are some CBO or the equivalent numbers on the cost of cutting these programs long term. Sure we save 318 million by cutting off funding for Title X planned parenhood. Is there anyway to calculate how much that ends up costing society? Or are we also going to be applauding the cutting of any programs that helps take care of crack babies, and child protection programs? Honestly curious. My back of a napking calculation and gut has me Ok with about 1/5th of those cuts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SayItAintSoJoe Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 I am a big fat socialist, so I disagree with the vast majority of these cuts, and those that I do agree with would tend to make only a dent in the overall number. Ireland can go screw itself as far as I am concerned, and anyway they are already living off the European teet, but that saves us all of 17 million dollars. I am curious if there are some CBO or the equivalent numbers on the cost of cutting these programs long term. Sure we save 318 million by cutting off funding for Title X planned parenhood. Is there anyway to calculate how much that ends up costing society? Or are we also going to be applauding the cutting of any programs that helps take care of crack babies, and child protection programs? Honestly curious. My back of a napking calculation and gut has me Ok with about 1/5th of those cuts Good question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 It's a start I guess. But a hugh portion of those savings is predicated on gutting Obamacare - we'll see how politically feasible that is. At best, it's an incomplete solution that just grabs the low-lying fruit. My fear is that the GOP is more interested in slashing their opponent's programs than balancing the budget, which is typikal of pols. I'm think the same thing too. These two parties are so predictable. We can see the GOP doing that by wanting PBS, Davis/Bacon, minority programs, planned parenting programs. Those seem to be against the Dems. I don't understand getting rid of the Appalachian Regional Commission. Unless the citizens around the mountains feel the area is developed enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Holy Roller Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Not if your old and feeble, then it's " I want my SS damit! you touch it, and me and my AARP folk are gonna castrate you come next election". Hell, if I were in their shoes I'd say the same... especially when you don't have much future left... many of them could give a damn about the future! Unfortunately, this is also one of the most influential voter bases in the country, so even though most of the younger gen (and by head count a larger majority) think it needs to be adjusted, privatized (or some hybrid of the two), one of the most necessary cuts will seemingly never take place. Now that IS non-partisan. I have no problem with giving the people due SS (which they paid into because they were forced to) getting their money back. Just because politicians spent the SS trust fund money isn't the old folks fault. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 I have no problem with giving the people due SS (which they paid into because they were forced to) getting their money back. Just because politicians spent the SS trust fund money isn't the old folks fault. I'm betting most old folks don't even know how much they've paid into SS during their life time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redrumjuice Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 I am curious if there are some CBO or the equivalent numbers on the cost of cutting these programs long term. THERE IS NO MONEY. It doesn't matter what anything means, no money means NO MONEY. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 No kidding. I am on board with these though the ramifications have yet to be known and there will certainly be a reaction from the Law of Unforeseen Consequences. For instance, does eliminating Amtrak subsidies increase road traffic such that extra money needs to be put into interstates? ETA: On board except with the Obamacare piece, unless there's a replacement. YOu have just succinctly encapsulated the problem with cutting anything out of the federal budget. If we reduce military/defense spending do we then cause thousands of people in manufacturing to lose their jobs? If we change the manner in which Health Insurance/Healthcare is provided do we put a bunch of insurance sales men out of jobs? The fact of the matter is that any federal spending cuts will have a potentially negative impact on the US economy or lifestyle. We just have to decide which cuts are most beneficial and for the greater good. The inconvenience of more traffic on the roads by cutting the AmTrack subsidies may be worth it when you look at the magnitude of the dollars saved, no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.