Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

House GOP proposes $2.5 Trillion in cuts.


Perchoutofwater
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 225
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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?

All this tell me is that there should be a stated goal and a plan to get there for each cut. We have a lot of smart people working for the government that could work this out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All this tell me is that there should be a stated goal and a plan to get there for each cut. We have a lot of smart people working for the government that could work this out.

 

Name one... :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THERE IS NO MONEY. It doesn't matter what anything means, no money means NO MONEY.

 

A) I owe a 100$.

I take out a 10$ loan on which I will have to pay 40$.

 

B ) I owe a 100$

 

 

In both cases there is, to use your words, NO MONEY.

While I understand that to knee jerk reactionaries who all of a sudden now temporarily owe 90$, the quick feel good option A) is better, some adults would like an actual cost analysis of all these decisions we make.

 

 

Some of us would also like a moral analysis of these decisions. How many kids, if any (I don't know the effectiveness of these programs, I am not saying that they HAVE to be saved) will end up in irreperable situation if this program is cut? We are a nation whose laws are guided by our morals (if not we would have a lot more prostitution and child labour, cos god knows that that is what the market wants). And honestly there is an actuarial table by which we decide it is OK to sacrifice people (for example laws that govern driving), I would like to know what the numbers are both economically and morally before deciding that it is OK to cut such a program.

Edited by Dr. Sacrebleu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A) I owe a 100$.

I take out a 10$ loan on which I will have to pay 40$.

 

B ) I owe a 100$

 

 

In both cases there is, to use your words, NO MONEY.

While I understand that to knee jerk reactionaries who all of a sudden now temporarily owe 90$, the quick feel good option A) is better, some adults would like an actual cost analysis of all these decisions we make.

 

 

Some of us would also like a moral analysis of these decisions. How many kids, if any (I don't know the effectiveness of these programs, I am not saying that they HAVE to be saved) will end up in irreperable situation if this program is cut? We are a nation whose laws are guided by our morals (if not we would have a lot more prostitution and child labour, cos god knows that that is what the market wants). And honestly there is an actuarial table by which we decide it is OK to sacrifice people (for example laws that govern driving), I would like to know what the numbers are both economically and morally before deciding that it is OK to cut such a program.

 

Another problem, your morality and my morality are completely different.

 

But, I wuld err on the side of keeping some of the planned parenthood programs in place in an attempt to curtail trash begating more trash. Though, if you look at the birth rates in the trash community, it is much higher than for the non-trash community, so are these programs really effective?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. 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?

 

Actually . . .no. Not until you do some kind of analysis of what impact that will be on increased fed subsidies for wear and tear for road repair/building more to ease congestion.

 

Not to mention increased fossil fuel usage/dependence on 3rd wold countries for our gas.

 

Bottom line, there almost always are unintended consequences of cutting such programs. A systematic audit/review needs to be done for ALL federal programs from top to bottom, instead of just grunting "dat program look bad to me" and cutting it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually . . .no. Not until you do some kind of analysis of what impact that will be on increased fed subsidies for wear and tear for road repair/building more to ease congestion.

 

Not to mention increased fossil fuel usage/dependence on 3rd wold countries for our gas.

 

Bottom line, there almost always are unintended consequences of cutting such programs. A systematic audit/review needs to be done for ALL federal programs from top to bottom, instead of just grunting "dat program look bad to me" and cutting it.

 

As big of a drain as AMTrack has been, I'm pretty sure there have been plenty of studies on this over the years. I would dare say that there have probably been studies on most of these issues. Remember we have a congress that pays people for studying the breeding habits of the one eyed purple toad, so I'm guessing at some point studies have been done on most of these programs. I find it interesting how many people here are all for raising taxes never mind the negative impact that has on the economy, and yet are balking at spending cuts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually . . .no. Not until you do some kind of analysis of what impact that will be on increased fed subsidies for wear and tear for road repair/building more to ease congestion.

 

Not to mention increased fossil fuel usage/dependence on 3rd wold countries for our gas.

 

Bottom line, there almost always are unintended consequences of cutting such programs. A systematic audit/review needs to be done for ALL federal programs from top to bottom, instead of just grunting "dat program look bad to me" and cutting it.

 

 

This is beginning to sound like a job for the "Freakonomics" guys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And another thing, this thread has somewhat revolved around the Republicans only trying to red line seemingly "liberal" programs, at least they put on paper areas where they see potential cuts. Instead of arguing the point that this is partisan, why haven't the dems put together a list of projected cuts so that they might be able to sit down in committee and forge a bipartisan bill that can help to move this forward.

 

You guys have got to at least give the Republicans some credit for efforting to trim the budget, something the Democrats have not made a concerted effort to do over the past 5 years that they have been in control of the halls of congress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As big of a drain as AMTrack has been, I'm pretty sure there have been plenty of studies on this over the years. I would dare say that there have probably been studies on most of these issues. Remember we have a congress that pays people for studying the breeding habits of the one eyed purple toad, so I'm guessing at some point studies have been done on most of these programs. I find it interesting how many people here are all for raising taxes never mind the negative impact that has on the economy, and yet are balking at spending cuts.

 

I think you have this backwards.

 

I think spending is easy, and not enough is done to justify spending for stuff like your toad analogy. I think that if you are thinking of doing something that can actually effect the country, like increasing road traffic, that could possibly result in more road damage/repair, than that has to be looked at before you cut that subsidy.

 

It is different than deciding on the subsidy in the first place. that is the easy part, as there seems to be very little critical oversight. Grants are handed out like lolliops. To me it is just ensuring that there is not an unforseeing circumstance before randomly cutting somethink like Amtrack. (and that is a very specific example. I think others can be easily cut without the need for some studies. However the road/infastructure issue is an imprtant one, IMO)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And another thing, this thread has somewhat revolved around the Republicans only trying to red line seemingly "liberal" programs, at least they put on paper areas where they see potential cuts. Instead of arguing the point that this is partisan, why haven't the dems put together a list of projected cuts so that they might be able to sit down in committee and forge a bipartisan bill that can help to move this forward.

 

You guys have got to at least give the Republicans some credit for efforting to trim the budget, something the Democrats have not made a concerted effort to do over the past 5 years that they have been in control of the halls of congress.

 

SEC, how much money is the health care bill supposed to save again over time? TIA . . .

 

dont fall into a cliche talking point about "look at what the right is trying to do". The right is doing very partisan selective cutting and doing so to win political points. If theye wetre serious about cutting spending, then more would be done about defense, SS, etc. Therefore you saying they get credit for "trying" is like saying the left should get a ton of accolades for the health care bill and extending the Bush tax cuts for all. The left (if they were committed to cutting) would do the same, strictly attacking "righty" programs.

 

Neither party has the balls to even TRY and be objective at looking at the entire program as a whole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you have this backwards.

 

I think spending is easy, and not enough is done to justify spending for stuff like your toad analogy. I think that if you are thinking of doing something that can actually effect the country, like increasing road traffic, that could possibly result in more road damage/repair, than that has to be looked at before you cut that subsidy.

 

It is different than deciding on the subsidy in the first place. that is the easy part, as there seems to be very little critical oversight. Grants are handed out like lolliops. To me it is just ensuring that there is not an unforseeing circumstance before randomly cutting somethink like Amtrack. (and that is a very specific example. I think others can be easily cut without the need for some studies. However the road/infastructure issue is an imprtant one, IMO)

 

25.8 million people rode AmTrak last year, pretty healthy number. They receive 1.8 billion per year in federal subsidies, seemingly half of their funding. This equates to $69.23 per passenger in federal subsidies. The entire federal budget for highways is 40 billion or roughly $140 per person in the US. YOu could increas the entire US highway budget by 50% per person by doing away with AmTrak. That's a lot of road repairs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All this tell me is that there should be a stated goal and a plan to get there for each cut. We have a lot of smart people working for the government that could work this out.

Not nearly as many as the Huddlers who think they have the answers!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25.8 million people rode AmTrak last year, pretty healthy number. They receive 1.8 billion per year in federal subsidies, seemingly half of their funding. This equates to $69.23 per passenger in federal subsidies. The entire federal budget for highways is 40 billion or roughly $140 per person in the US. YOu could increas the entire US highway budget by 50% per person by doing away with AmTrak. That's a lot of road repairs.

 

-sigh-

 

This is not, and never was, specifically about one area. It was a statement that whatever is cut, an examination of any unforseen circumstances should be done. that is plain fking common sense.

 

If you ahve some ragin hard-on for Amtrack, be my guest. i really dont care. The point is that there should be some sort of objective process to examine and eliminate unnecessary programs.

 

You doing a wikipedia search does not constitue an objective, educated process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SEC, how much money is the health care bill supposed to save again over time? TIA . . .

 

dont fall into a cliche talking point about "look at what the right is trying to do". The right is doing very partisan selective cutting and doing so to win political points. If theye wetre serious about cutting spending, then more would be done about defense, SS, etc. Therefore you saying they get credit for "trying" is like saying the left should get a ton of accolades for the health care bill and extending the Bush tax cuts for all. The left (if they were committed to cutting) would do the same, strictly attacking "righty" programs.

 

Neither party has the balls to even TRY and be objective at looking at the entire program as a whole.

Why not fall for it (didn't realize that this was a talking point) when you guys hook, line, and sinker spout off about them only cutting "liberal" programs and bemoaning the point that "Oh, they are only doing this in a very selctive and partisan manner, they're "grandstanding". They don't really want to cut spending, what about defense, oh my god the defense budget is out of control, it must be cut and they don't want to cut it." Before you even think about the GIGANTIC ramifications that such cuts could have on Union manufactring jobs... I digress on that point. You're also the same person stating that the repubs need to stop harping on social programs because they make up such a small portion of the the US budget... guess 14% is small, while the 20% that the defense budget comprises is mamoth.

 

Also, There is what the HC bill is supposed to save and what the reality will be. How much was Medicare supposed to cost the US at its inception, SS, etc... Well, the govt actuaries missed big on those, not trusting them to be correct on the HC front, either. ANd the HC bill isn't

 

And, if you want to talk about objectivity, again, you guys are harping on the republicans trying to cut spending when your side hasn't done diaper dirt to curtail it over the past 5 years in which the have held the purse strings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-sigh-

 

This is not, and never was, specifically about one area. It was a statement that whatever is cut, an examination of any unforseen circumstances should be done. that is plain fking common sense.

 

If you ahve some ragin hard-on for Amtrack, be my guest. i really dont care. The point is that there should be some sort of objective process to examine and eliminate unnecessary programs.

 

You doing a wikipedia search does not constitue an objective, educated process.

 

Do me a favor and re-read the whole post that you clipped my first quote from. Read what it was in response to, you will then see why AmTrak even came up. here is my initial response:

 

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?

 

I have implied that there is an issue with simply carte blanche cutting the budgets of ANY government program... Somehow you construed this as me saying that we should just blindly start cutting.

 

Now, i know you have a raging hard-on for wanting to argue with me, but it may do you some good to read the full post and the post that I was responding to prior to doing so.

 

ETA: Also, the info that i got for my comaprrison was not from wikipedia. The Amtrak info came from their websit and the highway budget came from here. Not that it's a big deal gathering the info from wiki or another source, but I like to mix it up every once in a while.

Edited by SEC=UGA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not fall for it (didn't realize that this was a talking point) when you guys hook, line, and sinker spout off about them only cutting "liberal" programs and bemoaning the point that "Oh, they are only doing this in a very selctive and partisan manner, they're "grandstanding". They don't really want to cut spending, what about defense, oh my god the defense budget is out of control, it must be cut and they don't want to cut it." Before you even think about the GIGANTIC ramifications that such cuts could have on Union manufactring jobs... I digress on that point. You're also the same person stating that the repubs need to stop harping on social programs because they make up such a small portion of the the US budget... guess 14% is small, while the 20% that the defense budget comprises is mamoth.

 

Also, There is what the HC bill is supposed to save and what the reality will be. How much was Medicare supposed to cost the US at its inception, SS, etc... Well, the govt actuaries missed big on those, not trusting them to be correct on the HC front, either. ANd the HC bill isn't

 

And, if you want to talk about objectivity, again, you guys are harping on the republicans trying to cut spending when your side hasn't done diaper dirt to curtail it over the past 5 years in which the have held the purse strings.

 

Wait . . the union jobs for defense should be maintained, but union jobs for amtrack should be cut? Okaaaaaay . . :wacko:\

 

You should really go back and re-read everything I have written in this thread to get some perspective. First off, I think it is a good start, and that many of things can and should be cut. I also think the right are cowardly pussies for not going further, yet they were elected on "being tough on spending". Either you ARE and you are looking at the whole enchilada, or you are only tough on spending that your party doesnt support. They can look like honest politicians by doing the former ( wait ,. . . :tup::lol: ) or they look like more of the same partisan hackery by doing the latter. Right now, they are looking like partisan hacks. If that is their objectibe, then mission accomplished!!

 

Every elcetion cycle people get fired up about how things will be "different this time", and it si always more of the same self serving crap. Nothing ever changes. me taking the right to task for not fulfilling their "pledges to america" in no way whatsoever absolves the left of their inability to cut spending either. Both parties care incapable of objectivity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much do we save if Boehner cancels his platinum tanning membership at the salon?

 

Almost enough to fly him from DC to SF 3 times a month on a boeing 737. :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you have this backwards.

 

I think spending is easy, and not enough is done to justify spending for stuff like your toad analogy. I think that if you are thinking of doing something that can actually effect the country, like increasing road traffic, that could possibly result in more road damage/repair, than that has to be looked at before you cut that subsidy.

 

It is different than deciding on the subsidy in the first place. that is the easy part, as there seems to be very little critical oversight. Grants are handed out like lolliops. To me it is just ensuring that there is not an unforseeing circumstance before randomly cutting somethink like Amtrack. (and that is a very specific example. I think others can be easily cut without the need for some studies. However the road/infastructure issue is an imprtant one, IMO)

 

What I was saying is I would be shocked if they haven't already had a study on this, particularly as big of a drain as AMTrack is. I'd almost be willing to bet that the there have been studies on over half the items that could have a possible impact. Then the question is the savings worth the impact. Like SEC said regarding AMTrack, we could do a lot to beef up our highway infrastructure with what what would be saved by getting rid of AMTrack, and once it's beefed up it would cost a whole lot less to maintain.

 

I just find it funny everyone on the left was calling for specific items the GOP would cut, and then when they give you what you want, you are now calling for a study, when in reality most of the items have already been studied. My comment about studying the mythical toad wasn't about spending though that is a good point, but that DC studies everything to death, and has probably already done the studies you are now calling for since you can no longer say that the GOP hasn't listed specific cuts.

 

If you think the HC bill is actually going to save money I've got some ocean front property in Arizona I'll sell you. It may and I emphasize may reduce the cost of health care on DC by a marginal rate if the actuaries didn't screw it up like they did SS and Medicare, but I doubt it. Even if it does save DC some money it will end up costing the average tax payer more, if not in taxes then in increased premiums. Basically all the HC bill has done is removed some of the burden from DC and put it on the states and on individuals through increased premiums.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I was saying is I would be shocked if they haven't already had a study on this, particularly as big of a drain as AMTrack is. I'd almost be willing to bet that the there have been studies on over half the items that could have a possible impact. Then the question is the savings worth the impact. Like SEC said regarding AMTrack, we could do a lot to beef up our highway infrastructure with what what would be saved by getting rid of AMTrack, and once it's beefed up it would cost a whole lot less to maintain.

 

I just find it funny everyone on the left was calling for specific items the GOP would cut, and then when they give you what you want, you are now calling for a study, when in reality most of the items have already been studied. My comment about studying the mythical toad wasn't about spending though that is a good point, but that DC studies everything to death, and has probably already done the studies you are now calling for since you can no longer say that the GOP hasn't listed specific cuts.

 

If you think the HC bill is actually going to save money I've got some ocean front property in Arizona I'll sell you. It may and I emphasize may reduce the cost of health care on DC by a marginal rate if the actuaries didn't screw it up like they did SS and Medicare, but I doubt it. Even if it does save DC some money it will end up costing the average tax payer more, if not in taxes then in increased premiums. Basically all the HC bill has done is removed some of the burden from DC and put it on the states and on individuals through increased premiums.

 

Wait . . so on one hand, you say that independent studies ahve been done, and that they are trustworthy (I.E.- not done by companies that have a vested interest in the results) But then you immediately say that on a MASSIVE, MASSIVE project like health care, the actuaries screw everything up and cant be trusted?

 

Pick a side and stick with it Perch. Either you trust current studies for your pet project cuts or you dont.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Club has been writing a response for about 30 minutes... I'm worried, can someone hack into his webcam and make sure he isn't dead at the keyboard?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information