House GOP proposes $2.5 Trillion in cuts.

[Perchoutofwater]

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.

 

I said more than likely the studies have been done. I don't trust anything that comes out of Washington particularly when it comes to a program coming in on budget, as they have a dismal history of doing so. You said you wanted studies, and I said that based on the way DC studies everything they had probably already been done. Like I said before you and others on the left would complain that the GOP needs to point out specifics, now that they have you are trying to find something else to criticize. You are really showing just how partisan you are in this thread. I'd love for them to take a look at SS, Medicare, and Defense, but frankly it is easier to take the low lying fruit. The last time the GOP tried to do something with SS (the privatization plan) the democrats in typical form said they were trying to starve Granny. Most of these cuts being proposed are for the most part not very contentious. When you get into the big three there is a lot more contention, and it is going to be a lot harder to do. That doesn't mean I don't want them to do anything about them, I'm on record for wanting most of the European military bases closed, and for getting rid of many of our older naval vessels. I'm on record for wanting to at the very least start raising the age for qualifying for SS for anyone under 50. I've said I'd like to see it raised 1 year every two years until it gets to the point where it is closer to 75 or 80, and then means testing it. I'm all for raising the age qualifications on Medicare as well though not as drastically and for means testing it too. Of course when the bipartisan presidential panel suggested a much less aggressive increase in the age limit of SS, democrats all started screaming no way. So you can hardly blame the GOP for going after the low lying fruit, particularly when they only have control of The House. You first complain they have no plan, then they show you the plan and you complain about them not having studies even though you don't know if they have them or not. When are you going to start complaining about the dems not having a plan? They've controlled congress of 6 years. Where is their plan?

[bpwallace49]

I said more than likely the studies have been done. I don't trust anything that comes out of Washington particularly when it comes to a program coming in on budget, as they have a dismal history of doing so. You said you wanted studies, and I said that based on the way DC studies everything they had probably already been done. Like I said before you and others on the left would complain that the GOP needs to point out specifics, now that they have you are trying to find something else to criticize. You are really showing just how partisan you are in this thread. I'd love for them to take a look at SS, Medicare, and Defense, but frankly it is easier to take the low lying fruit. The last time the GOP tried to do something with SS (the privatization plan) the democrats in typical form said they were trying to starve Granny. Most of these cuts being proposed are for the most part not very contentious. When you get into the big three there is a lot more contention, and it is going to be a lot harder to do. That doesn't mean I don't want them to do anything about them, I'm on record for wanting most of the European military bases closed, and for getting rid of many of our older naval vessels. I'm on record for wanting to at the very least start raising the age for qualifying for SS for anyone under 50. I've said I'd like to see it raised 1 year every two years until it gets to the point where it is closer to 75 or 80, and then means testing it. I'm all for raising the age qualifications on Medicare as well though not as drastically and for means testing it too. Of course when the bipartisan presidential panel suggested a much less aggressive increase in the age limit of SS, democrats all started screaming no way. So you can hardly blame the GOP for going after the low lying fruit, particularly when they only have control of The House. You first complain they have no plan, then they show you the plan and you complain about them not having studies even though you don't know if they have them or not. When are you going to start complaining about the dems not having a plan? They've controlled congress of 6 years. Where is their plan?

 

 

See Perch . . this is where you go from reasonable to dumb. I have said from the beginning that I like most of the cuts, and as long as there arent any unforseen problems with them (and at first blush there doesnt appear to be many at all) then by all means eliminate them. I also call teh right out for being partisan pussies and not going even FURTHER on cuts and not just going after certain programs, but having the integrity and balls to look at EVERYTHING for cuts. They have not done so. Nowhere have I said what a great job the Dems are doing on this front, in fact I hjave said that they dont do enough. I am happy they presented some cuts! Ihope they have been vetted instead of Boehner just going through the budget with a highlighter during his lunch break. I am disappointed that they dodnt have the balls to REALLY go after the waste and spending they have been railing against. As usual, it is "get rid of all the waste!! but only the stuff that people that dont vote for me want to keep! the stuff MY constituents want is A-OK waste . . ." So at the end of the day you are defending a half asses my little buddy move that doesnt begin to tackle the big programs. Like I have said MULTIPLE times, this a great start, but they are pussies for not making hard decsions, and making their "cuts" highly partisan instead of objective.

 

you DO understand that when I call out the republicans in congress, that isnt an attack on you . . . right? And you also know that when people are critical of the republicans in congress, it is not an automatic endorsement of what the Democrats are or are not doing . . . right?

[Kid Cid]

you DO understand that when I call out the republicans in congress, that isnt an attack on you . . . right? And you also know that when people are critical of the republicans in congress, it is not an automatic endorsement of what the Democrats are or are not doing . . . right?

Whoa, slow down big fella. You should know better than to try and have an honest, reasonable discussion.

[Ursa Majoris]

I'm on record for wanting most of the European military bases closed, and for getting rid of many of our older naval vessels. I'm on record for wanting to at the very least start raising the age for qualifying for SS for anyone under 50. I've said I'd like to see it raised 1 year every two years until it gets to the point where it is closer to 75 or 80, and then means testing it. I'm all for raising the age qualifications on Medicare as well though not as drastically and for means testing it too.

I could nitpick this but I won't because we are on the same page here. The problem is that anyone saying it is going to get the bum's rush from the electorate.

[redrumjuice]

So how can we afford a tax cut?

 

 

I work my ass off so some bitsch can have a freakin GOAT?

 

No way. I'd rather feed a lawyers family than send one more dime to DC.

[yo mama]

I work my ass off so some bitsch can have a freakin GOAT?

 

No way. I'd rather feed a lawyers family than send one more dime to DC.

I couldn't agree more.

[Yukon Cornelius]

Reagan closed the mental hospitals to save money. now those people fill the prisons that cost much much more.

[Perchoutofwater]

Reagan closed the mental hospitals to save money. now those people fill the prisons that cost much much more.

 

Really? I wasn't aware of this. I guess it is because we have one here in our community as well as one about 45 miles away.

[yo mama]

Really? I wasn't aware of this. I guess it is because we have one here in our community as well as one about 45 miles away.

In all fairness, the closures began with JFK. But every administration after that keep cutting deeper and deeper, which put more an more crazy people on the street. There are a number of reasons why the "good old days" didn't have as much homelessness, street violence, drugs, etc. One of those reasons is that we quarantined and treated people with legit mental illness. Now those people are on the streets self-medicating, instead.

[SEC=UGA]

In all fairness, the closures began with JFK. But every administration after that keep cutting deeper and deeper, which put more an more crazy people on the street. There are a number of reasons why the "good old days" didn't have as much homelessness, street violence, drugs, etc. One of those reasons is that we quarantined and treated people with legit mental illness. Now those people are on the streets self-medicating, instead.

 

:putsdownbong: huh? :putsdownbong:

[Clubfoothead]

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?

 

 

work got in the way of all the fun.

 

I work my ass off so some bitsch can have a freakin GOAT?

 

I'm going to translate this for huddlers following this thread whose Google Translator can't convert bull$hit to English:

 

"Yes, Club, the country is too broke for tax cuts."

 

So I took a look at my 14.

 

You allow Obama to save four and a half billion a year by closing Exxon's tax loopholes like he wants to and you can save my 14 sacred cows and still reduce the deficit by AN ADDITIONAL $2,146,300,000.00 a year. BUt I guess we are only going to cut benefits to American citizens instead of addressing corporate welfare.

 

Trickle down fail.

[WaterMan]

You allow Obama to save four and a half billion a year by closing Exxon's tax loopholes like he wants to and you can save my 14 sacred cows and still reduce the deficit by AN ADDITIONAL $2,146,300,000.00 a year. BUt I guess we are only going to cut benefits to American citizens instead of addressing corporate welfare.

 

Trickle down fail.

 

I don't know what you mean by 14 cows, but I agree.

[redrumjuice]

BUt I guess we are only going to cut benefits to American citizens instead of addressing corporate welfare.

 

Bring it on. Besides changing the subject, you're offering nothing. You want some loophole closed? Bring it to the floor, let's do it.

 

But now, you just want to bitcsh and moan and do nothing except scream evil rich.

[Perchoutofwater]

 

work got in the way of all the fun.

 

 

 

I'm going to translate this for huddlers following this thread whose Google Translator can't convert bull$hit to English:

 

"Yes, Club, the country is too broke for tax cuts."

 

So I took a look at my 14.

 

You allow Obama to save four and a half billion a year by closing Exxon's tax loopholes like he wants to and you can save my 14 sacred cows and still reduce the deficit by AN ADDITIONAL $2,146,300,000.00 a year. BUt I guess we are only going to cut benefits to American citizens instead of addressing corporate welfare.

 

Trickle down fail.

 

I'd rather go to a sales tax and get rid of all loopholes, or if a sales tax doesn't fit your fancy go to a flat tax with the only deductions being donations to charitable organizations.

[Dr. Sacrebleu]

I said more than likely the studies have been done.

 

I agree.

What I said, is I would like to see the results or analysis of these studies before saying 'good idea' or 'bad idea' to some of these cuts.

[WaterMan]

So how can we afford a tax cut?

 

It's called Bushanomics. It's a retarded version of Reaganomics.

[Perchoutofwater]

Tea partiers say defense in mix for budget cuts

AP

By DONNA CASSATA, Associated Press Donna Cassata, Associated Press – Sun Jan 23, 11:07 am ET

 

WASHINGTON – Back home, tea partiers clamoring for the debt-ridden government to slash spending say nothing should be off limits. Tea party-backed lawmakers echo that argument, and they're not exempting the military's multibillion-dollar budget in a time of war.

 

That demand is creating hard choices for the newest members of Congress, especially Republicans who owe their elections and solid House majority to the influential grass-roots movement. Cutting defense and canceling weapons could mean deep spending reductions and high marks from tea partiers as the nation wrestles with a $1.3 trillion deficit. Yet it also could jeopardize thousands of jobs when unemployment is running high.

 

Proponents of the cuts could face criticism that they're trying to weaken national security in a post-Sept. 11 world.

 

House Republican leaders specifically exempted defense, homeland security and veterans' programs from spending cuts in their party's "Pledge to America" campaign manifesto last fall. But the House's new majority leader, Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., has said defense programs could join others on the cutting board.

The defense budget is about $700 billion annually. Few in Congress have been willing to make cuts as U.S. troops fight in Afghanistan and finish the operation in Iraq.

 

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in a recent pre-emptive move, proposed $78 billion in spending cuts and an additional $100 billion in cost-saving moves. While that amounts to $13 billion less than the Pentagon wanted to spend in the coming year, it still stands as 3 percent growth after inflation is taken into account.

 

That's why tea party groups say if the government is going to cut spending, the military's budget needs to be part of the mix.

 

"The widely held sentiment among Tea Party Patriot members is that every item in the budget, including military spending and foreign aid, must be on the table," said Mark Meckler, co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots. "It is time to get serious about preserving the country for our posterity. The mentality that certain programs are 'off the table' must be taken off the table."

 

Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey and Matt Kibbe, leaders of the group FreedomWorks, recently wrote in a Wall Street Journal editorial that "defense spending should not be exempt from scrutiny." On Gates' proposed savings of $145 billion over five years, they said, "That's a start."

 

Just about all Republicans — and plenty of Democrats, too — favor paring back spending. But when it comes to specific cuts — eliminating money for schools, parks, hospitals, highways and everything else — the decisions get difficult. Every government expenditure has its advocate and no one wants his or her program cut.

 

Fault lines have emerged within the Republican ranks over how deep to cut and where to whittle. In the coming weeks, lawmakers will feel the pressure from constituents and colleagues.

 

"Everything is ultimately on the table," said Rep. Jon Runyan of New Jersey, a freshman Republican and a tea party favorite.

 

That view could produce a rough tenure for the 6-foot-7 former football player, who just earned a coveted spot on the House Armed Services Committee, a fierce protector of military interests. The congressman's district is home to Fort Dix, which merged with neighboring McGuire Air Force Base and Lakehurst Naval Air Engineering Station to make the military's first three-branch base.

 

Runyan expects a committee fight over Gates' proposal to cancel a $14 billion program to develop the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle for the Marines and use that money to buy additional ships, F-18 jets and new electronic jammers. Already, several members of the panel, including the chairman, Rep. Buck McKeon, R-Calif., have signaled they will challenge Gates' move.

 

Runyan says he will decide after he's heard arguments from both sides.

 

No matter how much defense spending is trimmed, none of the cuts is likely to reduce the money that's available to the military to spend on the war fronts.

 

"We want to make sure men and women put in harm's way have the resources they need," said Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., who recently traveled to Afghanistan and Pakistan with several of his GOP colleagues, including a number of other freshmen. "That doesn't mean the entire defense budget has to be taken off the table," he added.

 

Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell, the top Republican in the Senate, said he didn't think "anything ought to be off-limits for the effort to reduce spending." He told "Fox News Sunday" that "I don't think we ought to start out with the notion that a whole lot of areas in the budget are exempt from reducing spending, which is what we really need to do and do it quickly."

 

Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, has proposed cutting total government spending by $153 billion, including deep reductions in defense and elimination of several weapons programs. Brady called it a "down payment" on getting the country's finances in order.

 

In an unusual political pairing, liberal Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., and Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, a libertarian and former Republican presidential candidate, have joined forces in pushing for substantial reductions in the defense budget, including closing some of the 600-plus military bases overseas.

 

"I'll work with anybody," Frank said of the effort, which could attract other liberal Democrats who have tried for years to reduce post-Cold War military spending and tea party-backed Republicans.

 

The schism within the GOP is philosophical as well as generational. Paul's son, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, 48, a tea party favorite, says all spending should come under scrutiny, from food stamps to foreign aid to money for wars. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., 74, a decorated Vietnam War veteran, worries about the rise of protectionism and isolationism in the Republican Party.

 

For all the talk, one tea party group is willing to give lawmakers some leeway, provided that they adhere to the movement's values.

 

Sal Russo, chief strategist of the Tea Party Express, said the defense budget should be part of the calculation and his organization expects lawmakers to "responsibly bring spending down." He added that his group will give them "flexibility to do their job."

 

Tea party-backed Rep. Tim Scott, R-S.C., said lawmakers "at the end of the day, will take a look at all the fat in the budget." But he said it was premature with two wars to say how Congress will make the cuts. Scott has two brothers in the military — one in the Air Force, the other in the Army.

 

For those on the left that were complaining the proposed spending cuts weren't included in the proposed $2.5 Trillion cuts the GOP released.

[Ursa Majoris]

For those on the left that were complaining the proposed spending cuts weren't included in the proposed $2.5 Trillion cuts the GOP released.

They still aren't.

[bpwallace49]

For those on the left that were complaining the proposed spending cuts weren't included in the proposed $2.5 Trillion cuts the GOP released.

 

Saying "we will take a look at it" is vastly different than actions.

 

It IS a step in the right direction, but it like when a democrat says they will cut union supports . . . first you then you then you until you actually see a bill.

 

Now lets see if they can actually deliver beyond a sound bite and cool sounding article.

[tazinib1]

The Tea Party is now on board with defense budget cuts.

 

ETA: Didn't see the article post up there. Nevermind.

Edited January 23, 2011 by tazinib1

[SayItAintSoJoe]

The Tea Party is now on board with defense budget cuts.

 

Let the battle within the GOP begin.

[tosberg34]

Saying "we will take a look at it" is vastly different than actions.

 

It IS a step in the right direction, but it like when a democrat says they will cut union supports . . . first you then you then you until you actually see a bill.

 

Now lets see if they can actually deliver beyond a sound bite and cool sounding article.

 

Oh, they'll deliver or else this and this will happen.

Edited January 24, 2011 by tosberg34

[bpwallace49]

Oh, they'll deliver...or else and will happen.

 

Then what if they dont? We will "kick the bums out" and start over again?

 

The same old song and dance. And nothing gets done.

[Dr. Sacrebleu]

For those on the left that were complaining the proposed spending cuts weren't included in the proposed $2.5 Trillion cuts the GOP released.

 

This might be the only good thing about the tea party in my books;

when lefties propose any cuts in the military they are unfairly but very succesfully painted as anti-military, weak, naive, and dovish. The right has managed to avoid that brush. If this gives both parties cover to cut the bloated military, I say bravo.

 

 

 

Of course I also predict that in 2012 you will be hearing ads with ominous music in the background that say "senator SOansSO voted to weaken our country....."

[SEC=UGA]

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Those who clamor for more "limited government" rarely define what they mean. But assuming nothing changes over the next decade, Americans could be left with a de facto limited government -- limited in what it will be able to do.

 

Today, the United States spends roughly 76 cents of every federal tax dollar on just four things: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and interest on the $14 trillion debt. That leaves 24 cents of revenue to pay for everything else the federal government does.

 

That's not a lot. But it's a mint compared to what could be left over by 2020, according to a simulation made by the Government Accountability Office.

 

Barring serious efforts to curb the growth in the country's debt, by 2020 Washington could be spending 92 cents of every tax dollar on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and interest alone. That would leave just 8 cents to pay for everything else.

 

How much of "everything else" can 8 cents buy? Not a lot, especially relative to what Americans are accustomed to their government providing.

Rundown on Obama debt commission proposals

 

Things like the national parks, the FBI, student loans, air traffic controllers, defense, the interstate highway system and food safety. The list goes on and on.

 

To give a better sense of just how much government would have to cut back, consider this: In 2010, Uncle Sam took in $2.162 trillion in federal revenue -- and 8% of that is $173 billion.

 

Here's a sampling of what that $173 billion could have paid for last year:

 

* The Department of Labor ($173 billion) OR ...

* One-fourth of defense spending ($667 billion) OR ...

* The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (roughly $170 billion) OR ...

* Most but not all of the interest owed on the country's debt ($228 billion) OR ...

* The Departments of Transportation ($78 billion), Justice ($30 billion) and Housing and Urban Development ($60 billion); plus the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ($5 billion) OR ...

* The Departments of Agriculture ($129 billion), Energy ($31 billion) and Commerce ($13 billion) OR ...

* The Departments of Education ($93 billion) and Homeland Security ($44 billion), plus NASA ($19 billion), the EPA ($11 billion) and the parks, fish and wild life services ($6 billion).

 

Beyond 2020, the 8 cents to pay for "everything else" would get whittled down to zero. By 2040, there would only be enough in federal tax revenue to pay for interest on the debt and Social Security, according to Susan Irving, GAO's director of federal budget analysis.

 

Sure, the country could try to borrow to pay for what revenue can't cover. But given the magnitude of what would have to be borrowed, the interest costs alone would be prohibitive. Another alternative: the government could abruptly raise taxes sky high and cut spending to the bone.

 

This is just one reason why the country's fiscal course is often described as "unsustainable."

 

And that's why Irving and others say lawmakers and the public need to ask some tough questions about their priorities and their means.

 

"What is it that the government should do? What would that cost? Are you willing to spend that?" Or, Irving suggested, "What do you want to pay for government and what will that cover? Can that fund your priorities?"

 

In the abstract, she noted, "Everybody wants a small government. Everybody would like low taxes. And they'd like government to do everything that they think government should do. But the arithmetic can be a problem." To top of page