Defense
Social Security
Medicare
All of the above
Printable View
Defense
Social Security
Medicare
All of the above
My top 3 choices for spending cuts.
1. Defense
2. Defense
3. Defense
Let's ask the Republican candidates. A review of Mitt Romney's website offers no cuts, just "spending is out of control". Ditto Michele Bachmann. Just stuff about "cutting spending". But what spending? Why not give us some idea?
That's of course a rhetorical question. Budget cuts are much more popular in the abstract than in reality, even among Republicans. And the deficit is convenient tool to bludgeon Obama with. These guys are blowing smoke up the primary voters' butts and the voters are just loving it.
I think they all need to be cut. Plus tax increases back to the levels before Reaganomics and Bush tax cuts.
Buck up our lagging educational system and make college affordable, fix up the bridges than are failing and develop a national mass transit program. Reopen our state parks. Get serious about energy independence and growing green jobs so than an unstable middle east no longer rules our economy. Bring our troops home. Bring our jobs home. Stop spiraling health care costs instead of cutting entitlements.
Make the rich pay more dues to the society that made them that way. I'm relatively poor and willing to pay a little more in taxes.
Bring back the space program so that we can dream of infinite possibilities and have national heros that aren't sports stars.
Stopping squabbling about self-serving politics and have the courage to become the great country we once were instead of cowering behind our precious dollar.
And for heavens sake, bring back music education in public schools so the next generation doesn't get another Lady Gaga
Defense, definitely. We no longer have the money to run the show, actually for quite a while now.
Whatever we cut will be painful - the average standard of living in the US is really going to drop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogar
ROGAR 2012!!!
Especially the Lady Gaga part!
And oh yeah, stop giving artificial respiration to people who bought expensive houses on low incomes. Let the houses go back to the banks that made the risky loans and let the people live in apartments or cheaper houses like they should have. I'm tired of watching people whine about being kicked out of their houses that are twice as large and 50 years newer than mine.
I'm British and our government has decided to make budget cuts in ALL areas: health, education, welfare, defence, social education, youth services, police - you name it, it's being cut.
++1Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogar
Rogar for President!
It’s not a matter of preference. It’s a matter of necessity. If the big three entitlement programs already account for 43% of spending, and the growth keeps accelerating, nothing else we can do will much matter. We could de-fang the Pentagon, plunder the plutocrats and privatize the parks, but it still wouldn’t be enough to appease the beast.
Ditto what Rogar said...much more for education, libraries and trade schools, much, much less for defense...and while we're at it, let's cut govt. subsidies for corn and subsidize broccoli instead. Our world would be a healthier place.
Rogar all the way!
If I have to pick one I would say defense. Policeman to the world is a title we could relinquish. There is plenty of fluff that could be cut from the budget and still leave us with a strong national defense. Don't dismantle, streamline.
My first choice would be defense. There is so much waste and has been forever!
We need a real effort to stop the fraud in SS disability and Medicare. Cleaning up those programs would be my first step in keeping them viable for future generations.
Change the tax code and stop giving incentives for more children.
Peace
I agree. When most people think of entitlement cuts I think they view at as across the board and picture poor old people unable to retire or afford health care. I would think there would be smart ways to have better control over program costs without big benefit reductions. Means testing for SS. Health care system revisions to control costs, which are going to eventually eat the working man as well as the retiree alive if something isn't done. Ii saw an interview with Warren Buffet yesterday. He has his $32k as a direct deposit into his account. It is so small to him that he said he doesn't even notice it. That's not right.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
And we underestimate the power of small tax changes. Here's a quote from The Center on Budget and Policy concerning the Bush tax cuts. In this context, the sky isn't falling.
"The revenue loss over the next 75 years just from extending the tax cuts for people making over $250,000 — the top 2 percent of Americans — would be about as large as the entire Social Security shortfall over this period. Members of Congress cannot simultaneously claim that the tax cuts for people at the top are affordable while the Social Security shortfall constitutes a dire fiscal threat."
My road diverges here. I'm not a fan of means testing. If you paid in the same amount as someone else you should receive the same benefit back regardless of other criteria. That is only fair in my mind. A more equitable system overall can be achieved with a combination of revising the tax codes and tweaking the definition of "income" to exempt fewer sources.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogar
Stop subsidizing oil companies, cut Congressional pay, cut their staff's pay, and cut the President's pay. Obama claimed he froze salaries, but somehow over half the White House staff got raises. One guy in particular got a $36,000 raise, I don't make that in a year. Go over the budgets with a fine-toothed comb and embarrass any Congresscritter that spends money on something insane.
That seems to be taking the position that the money really belongs to gov't and they've already got it spent instead of the wage earner that they're wanting to take it away from. The SS shortfall is 100% the fault of Congress, it should come out of their pay, benefits, and pensions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogar
I can totally get behind phasing out subsidies for big oil, big ag, etc. As far as Congressional and Executive pay I think it might be beneficial to go the other way. Pay the President $25 million a year or whatever it would take to lure the very best and the very brightest to the job. There's never going to be a big pool of qualified people that actually want the job, but that is probably cut WAY down by the fact that they can make 10x or even 100x the money in the private sector. It's a drop in the bucket of multi-trillion dollar budgets. We somehow need to get the most experienced, intelligent, motivated people we can into those jobs. Electing community organizers and baseball managers with pedigrees has us in a pickle. $25 million would look like a pretty good investment if we saved $5 trillion.Quote:
Originally Posted by DocHolliday
I have some opinions on presidential pay that are similar to Gregg's. I worked for a guy a while back and somtimes I say I wished he were president. Very talented man and inspiring leader and now CEO of a big company, but probably hasn't amassed the protective fortune of the typical presidential candidate.
In spite of opinions either side of congressional and presidential pay, when it comes to the big items affecting the deficit I think it's a drop in the bucket.
I have to concede to Gregg on means testing, too. Good points. I was hoping to point out ways to cut the big entitlement programs without huring the middle and lower class. Hopefully that are other ways around this.
Maybe if our political heroes are unwilling to totally throw our the 2500 page tax code then maybe just add two more brackets - $500K and $1000K. Greg, a 25M salary is crazy for anyone other than a private business owner. When the corporations do it they are simply screwing the shareholders but usually call it a bonus.
I find it rather strange that we have assigned responsibility to the President for "creating jobs". If anyone in Washington has that responsibility then it should be Congress but I am doubtful about that also. Jobs (if we are talking non-government) are responsibility of private business.
Peace
Washington doesn't have that responsibility, although they do have a huge effect on the business environment where jobs are created. This administration has made all the wrong moves to help create that environment. They've made business out to be a collectively evil entity which must be regulated into submission, probably because it plays well with the base.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zigzagman
Jobs are waiting for the right environment. Maybe in 2013?
They're not doing it for the "homeowners". They could really care less about such little guys. They're doing it for the banks.Quote:
And oh yeah, stop giving artificial respiration to people who bought expensive houses on low incomes. Let the houses go back to the banks that made the risky loans and let the people live in apartments or cheaper houses like they should have. I'm tired of watching people whine about being kicked out of their houses that are twice as large and 50 years newer than mine.
Alan, I'm curious what you think evil government should be doing to allow business the environment for job creation? Corporate profits seem to be up modestly, but they are afraid to hire. Banks are flush with cash but afraid to lend to new ventures. A lot of the tradition tools that have been used by the Fed and government successfully in the past haven't worked to the degree needed and the news pundits say our quiveris is just about out of arrows. Cutting taxes seems like it would only make the deficit worse. And austerity programs, at least in the near term would seem to take cash out of the economy.Quote:
Originally Posted by alan
Sorry to get off topic a little, but curious.
While I agree on eliminating all the current agriculture subsidies I disagree with adding new ones for broccoli or any other healthy food. With subsidies comes a perception that government should be allowed to exert more control. And frankly I'd really rather have the government less involved in my food, not more. Our CSA farmer provides an excellent product without subsidies, for a modest price of roughly $21/week which provides more veggies then we can eat in a week, and does well despite playing on a field where others get subsidies. Eliminate all subsidies and he'll do even better.Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyHiker
He was on Charlie Rose, essentially promoting the recent Op-ed he wrote. He said that if he could pick twelve people to read his Op-ed it would be the members of the Super-committee.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogar
I enjoyed the interview (a full hour) so I'll give my highlights:
-- the SS comment was made in passing
-- He thinks we should raise taxes on only those making a million or more
-- He dismisses the idea that this would adversely impact investment or it is "unfair"
-- He thought the debt ceiling debate was really really bad, specifically the Tea partiers who forced Boehner out of a Grand bargain. He discussed this at length, and described the Tea partiers as forcing a game of chicken and then "throwing out the steering wheel". If you are in a game of chicken, and the other guy throws out the steering wheel, then the non-crazy person has to give in.
-- He is a true believer in America and the American system
-- He says the Housing Crash is to blame for the bad economy
-- He says that once new housing starts get to 1 million, the unemployment rate will drop to under 7%. He stressed that this is THE key to the recovery, and it could happen sooner than many think.
Leaving them alone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogar
As an example, during the first quarter of this year, this administration proposed or enacted more than 250 regulations amounting to more than $24 billion dollars in regulatory costs to businesses, large and small.
The cost of compliance is increasingly becoming a larger and larger drain on even the smallest businesses.
Power plants are closing as a result of this administrations energy policies, which seem to be designed to cause energy prices to "necessarily skyrocket". This increases costs to manufacturers especially but everyone is affected by the un-necessary increase of their cost of doing business. They've also made it increasingly difficult to harvest our own energy sources, increasing our dependence upon foreign sources and keeping gas/oil prices un-necessarily high.
And let's not even get into what they've done to the dollar as a result of their experiments in quantitative easing. I believe it's been de-valued by 7 or 8% in the past year.
Plus, just about everyone who provides jobs are labeled as millionaires and billionaires who must pay more. Government shouldn't be in the business of class warfare, but this administration seems to feed it's base the necessary class envy in order to keep them engaged.
All this, and more, does nothing to improve the job market, but it does satisfy a certain demographic. Is that what we want from our government?
http://factcheck.org/2011/08/top-20-white-house-raises/Quote:
Originally Posted by DocHolliday
Actually, most of those "raises" were job promotions. The overall cost of his staff actually dropped.
Leaving aside that Obama doesn't control the Fed, or that dollar devaluation may be a good thing, here is a 10 year chart of the dollar against a basket of currencies. take off the blinders, dude. Not everything is Obama's fault.Quote:
=alan;38604]
And let's not even get into what they've done to the dollar as a result of their experiments in quantitative easing. I believe it's been de-valued by 7 or 8% in the past year.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?id=DTWEXM
edited: okay, I can't get the chart in. The link leads to the full 30 year history.
Thanks Alan. I don't totally agree everything, but understand better. Perhaps some discussion for another topic? I worked for a fortune 500 company for a long time and know there are government excesses that just wouldn't fly in the private sector. When managers didn't meet their major goals, they were generally replaced. No excuses. I agree that something isn't working and needs to change. Obama has not met his goals, I'm just not sure what the replacement is or if it has been his fault.
I would have to add that it was deregulation of the financial industry that got us into this whole mess. Deregulation of the oil and gas big businesss has resulted in price collusion, price gouging, and quasi monopolies. The EPA is sort of a two edged sword, but thank goodness Nixon created it. It's not all bad, maybe just too much.
PROPOSED or enacted? A proposal doesn't cost does it. You are trying to count the cost of these proposals as if they were enacted, which they weren't? That's kind of fudging it, don't you think. You and I both know congress makes proposals all day long, most of which are NOT acted on.Quote:
Originally Posted by alan
And when you say 'this administration' are you speaking of Obama's administration, or are you lumping in all democratic proposals? Again, not the same is it. And I'm guessing some of those proposals were republican proposals.
And do you have any examples of these draconian regulations that are choking small businesses?
And which energy policies of this administration are causing power plants to close? I find it hard to believe the energy companies are having to go hat in hand during a period of record profits. I think you will find it hard to drum up any sympathy for billionaire oil barons.
This cry of pity the poor billionaires is getting really old. They are paying the least taxes they have ever paid, thanks to Bush and co. and have been coddled and catered to with (thanks to Fox news and incredible right wing salesmanship) an army of worker bees sitting in their double-wides pumping their fists in the air saying "Yes! Tax cuts for the rich! That's what we need!"
So, where are the jobs? Huh? Where are they? They got huge tax cuts from Bush and guess what? We lost jobs! Jobs went away! Where's the trickle? Where's the big boost we are supposed to get from all this 'job creator investment'? It's a lie Alan. It doesn't work. The only thing they are creating with this wealth gift is more wealth...for themselves.
You want to know what the key is? You want to know the truth? Well here it is. Pretty simple actually. If there is no demand for the product, then your rich guy isn't going to invest in more product. And he isn't going to create jobs to produce a product no one wants or can afford. And unless you rich guy is in the food or shelter or energy business, chances are people aren't buying. And why aren't they buying? Because the middle class is being squeezed dry by the class warfare the wealthy/republicans have been waging on them. And the middle class is their customer. Or was. But without a middle class....and on and on it goes.
And it's not just Obama's base that thinks the wealthy should pay more in taxes. A MAJORITY of Americans think this. And lots of them are republicans.
Maybe not now but at some point the right wing will have to swallow this reality - without additional taxes then there will be draconian cuts in defense, SS, and Medicare.
IMO, if we really downsized defense that would probably be good for everyone except the thousands of contractors that are now employed by the MIC. In the case of SS and Medicare it will be coming at a time when the population is aging and I don't think this will ever be accepted. I suspect it might even come to "tar and feathering" the GOP for decades. At this point I really do wish we had a solution like PRAYER - we could use some magic.
An example of a possible power plant closure is the coal fired power plant near Austin operated by LCRA that is in danger of closing simply because Austin is threatening to refuse to buy their power unless they clean up their pollution. This is just one of those in Texas that have violated Federal EPA standards for years and Texas conveniently ignored.
Peace
OK, I swallowed and it's now swimming around in my stomach. Balanced budget, please. Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zigzagman
http://www.grist.org/article/2010-12...losures-comingQuote:
Originally Posted by peggy
It sounds like they are finally being forced to catch up after avoiding EPA standards for decades:Quote:
Originally Posted by alan
http://www.grist.org/article/2010-08...still-so-dirty
Not really. It is a result of newly proposed EPA requirements which have yet to take effect, but are forcing power plants to begin scheduling shut-downs and then re-build, or not, in order to be in compliance when they are approved.Quote:
Originally Posted by creaker
The net result will be increased power rates tied specifically to the proposed requirements.
Exactly! It would be pretty naive to believe that the big energy companies would be mindful of their communities considering how even with regulations in place they pollute at will. Without regulations they would rape and pillage and plunder until the earth was a smoking ash pit.Quote:
Originally Posted by creaker
I don't live near a coal plant, but my neighbors do, cause I still believe in the UNITED in the United States, and this is MY country. Maybe some are willing to sacrifice ground water and air and farmland around power plant 'zones', which could stretch for miles and miles, but I'm not!
Yea to the EPA! More power to them! I'm sick of Profits over People. These guys are making record profits, they can spend a little to be good neighbors.
Profit isn't everything. It really isn't. I think this administration is just trying to look out for, and represent, the other 99% of us who share this country.
Here's a little tip. Your rates are going up regardless. The EPA rulings aren't really at fault, they are just an excuse. They're going up no matter what. I'm surprised you haven't figured that one out. :doh:Quote:
Originally Posted by alan
Per the article a lot of these power plants have been able to avoid EPA requirements for decades. It's not surprising there's a much bigger cost to pay since they have more updates to make.Quote:
Originally Posted by alan
Sure they would, but this adds an additional 7 to 10% on top. Plus, it's likely to cause net declines in the country's energy production, at least during the short term.Quote:
Originally Posted by peggy
All considered, another hindrance to job creation and maintenance.