Which spending cuts are more acceptable

[HappyHiker]

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.

[Aqua Blue]

Rogar all the way!

[Gregg]

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.

[Zigzagman]

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

[Rogar]

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.

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.

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."

[Gregg]

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.

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.

[DocHolliday]

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.

[DocHolliday]

"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."

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.

[Gregg]

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.

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.

[Rogar]

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.