It's a good first step. The bigger issue is that the Republicans politically can't get too far ahead of the populace. I'm ready to have a discussion about raising the retirement age to something like average live expectancy minus five years, but the average citizen still hasn't come to terms with the reality that we can't afford our current Social Security/Medicare structure. We'll have an honest discussion about raising the retirement age for Social Security and Medicare at a later date. I'm glad the Republicans are giving the lie to the Democrats meme of "the party of no".
Not really those cuts are all one sided. If any budget cuts are truly going to be effective, they have to be cuts across the board, not just in social projects and subsidies. It looks to me like a typical going to cut shit democrats like list. Both sides are going to have to make effective cuts, across the board. Because if you don't get buy in from both sides, nothing will happen.
Here is the link to the bill: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-4308 I think maxiep hit the nail on the head. There are tons of people who scream "less government" and when they see it affect them personally they will not like it. When the have to pay more for food because the USDA Sugar Program was cut, cannot take the train because a route was cut or loose a job because beach erosion devastated a local economy, they will not be happy.
The issue is that "shit democrats like" are generally part of the government, while "shit republicans like" are generally in the private sector. I'd be interested to see of those progams listed, which ones you believe are critical to the functioning of our government. I would argue that when a household borrows $0.40 of every $1.00, you need to cut back to the bare necessities. The Federal Government should be no different. If you disagree, I'd be interested to read your reasoning.
Correct. That list is just puttering around in Republican Fantasyland. Those are mostly things Republicans opposed from their start. Plus vague stuff like, cut travel by half. Cut printing by half. No details as to how. Republicans, the Grand Old Deficit party, are responsible for destroying the fantastic success they inherited in 2001, when Democrats had licked the problem. This solution, to decimate only Democratic programs, will not fly. If the list is to be ideological, then what should be cut are the new programs since the enormous surpluses ended in early 2001, which are the Bush agenda.
Are there any that you agree with? Here are some I like: Cut in half funding for congressional printing and binding. $47 million annual savings. Presidential Campaign Fund. $775 million savings over ten years. Require collection of unpaid taxes by federal employees. $1 billion total savings.
Ah, I get the game now. First, say they're the party of no ideas. Then they're the party of no. Then criticize their ideas as never being specific enough. As for me, I'd love to eliminate many of the programs enacted since 2001 (with the exception of some homeland security programs). The prescription giveaway to seniors was a travesty.
The whole list is only $250 billion per year. Easier would be to simply stop making the single giant mistakes, like 1) Obama's cave-in to the Republicans last month, cutting revenues from the rich by $450 billion per year. 2) Or this one. http://zfacts.com/p/447.html
You'll get no argument from me that the accounting for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are dishonest. If we would have properly accounted for them, perhaps we wouldn't have felt like we could afford all the other goodies we gave ourselves. War requires sacrifice, be it in terms of blood, comfort or treasure, and should be shared by everyone. I do take issue with the numbers for ending the Bush tax cuts, because with higher taxes you receive less revenue. Think of taxation levels and revenue received like a production possibility curve.
While being funded by the government through tax breaks, subsidies, and government loans that get defaulted.
Crony capitalism is on both parties. I'd be happy to get rid of it. Ask yourself, however, to which party Wall Street gave more money?
Are we in disagreement? Speaking of military costs, I'm in favor of abolishing the VA hospital system: our veterans deserve better.
Here's another $150B http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/20/rep-kevin-brady-150-billion-in-budget-slashes-a-start/ A billion here, a billion there and pretty soon we're talking about real money.
Interesting that out of 20-30 billion/year agricultural subsidies - they only targeted less than 20m/year with sugar/mohair... Especially the corn-subsidies, especially those tied to ethanol production which are just a scam that puts more energy in order to produce less energy... (Cord related subsidies are 7 - 10 billion a year alone... I actually do not think most of these are bad to cut, the only exceptions imho might be the energy issues - cutting applied research for energy projects (and energy star) smells like big-oil posturing to me and support for technological infrastructure - which is where government should actually spend some money... - of course, if they show me that the energy project cuts are actually ethanol related... I will take that back..
First of all, $250B here and $250B there and soon we're talking about real money. Is it enough? No. Is it a good start? Yes. Second, we were running a surplus when the wars started and we'd still be running a surplus if we kept spending increases on everything else to the rate of inflation. To add in the interest on the cost of the wars and call it $2.4T over 16 years is absurd and intellectually bankrupt. We're not borrowing a dime for the wars, we're borrowing $1.5T on everything but the wars; see how that game is played? After you pay for all the things that are required (entitlements and interest), and you cut everything else, we'd still be running a deficit.
100% in agreement about ethanol subsidies. Of course Iowa is one of the first primaries, so they're protected. I love the idea of family farms, but at some point there's only so much you can pay to preserve them. Another subsidy that drives me batty is the basically free water that flows into California's Central Valley to raise cows and grow rice while farms in Wisconsin and Louisiana lay fallow.
