Repubs Propose $2.5 TRILLION Cuts..

[Cuyo]

...in spending.

Read it and weep, Dimocrats.. You're being set up. Republicans got elected in November because you nitwits spent gobs of money we don't have and the public didn't want you to. Now they're proposing to keep their promises to those who voted for them, and Dims of course will fight to keep them from doing so. And all the while the voters will be watching and listening to them as the '12 elections get closer every day.

House GOP Lists $2.5 Trillion in Spending Cuts - US News and World Report

I've got an easier cut...

Why make cuts that assist millions of Americans?

Cut Afghanistan and Iraq and you will save $2.5 trillion in ten years

Do both and save $5 tril....Deal?

If we weren't so dependent on their resources, we wouldn't have to spend so much to protect our interests in them. So lets get off of foreign oil as a starting point... Deal?

 

[Avatar4321]

And which party controlled both houses and the presidency after 2000 to 2006?

BOTH parties suck at overspending. the dems just do not keep promising it all the time and failing to deliver thru the last 3 presidents. and 6 years of total control.

We need to cut spending NOW, not fictional projected spending while spending more on other things during the next 10 years.

this is just politics as usual and many keep falling for it time after time.

What about bringing back Paygo? for real this time.
It seemed to work pretty well last time, but was abandoned when Bush and the repubs got into power.

I've never argued that both parties didn't suck at spending. (They are, in fact, both really good at overspending). I'm not entirely sure what your point is there.

And we do need to cut spending now. I agree. This is not enough.

Paygo is simply a way for them to squirm out of their responsibility. They bring back Paygo. Get people thinking they are serious and then ignore it thinking people are placated.

Not to mention politicians dont seem to understand that continually raising taxes on people making alot of money will eventually eliminate them as part of the tax base because they have the money to move somewhere to protect their wealth.

 

[Trajan]

The Conservative Group's Plan is not GOP, officially. These are all pet projects, the elected officials are supposed to drop(?)!

The Obama Deficit Reduction plan sets targets, confronts the bloated, wasteful, military budget, and addresses Social Security Reform.

The Obama Liberals came up with a first step toward Social Security Reform already. The Payroll Tax is now in the less regressive direction. Soon, it can be in the more progressive direction.

Obama debt commission plan: Top recommendations - Dec. 3, 2010

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(When businesses get around to expanding--currently terrified of what happened when the GOP was last in charge--then unemployment is likely to drop, and even black teens will not be on the unemployement rolls. There will be more spending money, in those neighborhoods, and on and on. The regular GOP still has to get on board with something other than the TeaBerserker Express, roaming in the supermarkets, hunting for Delaware witches to shoot, so there will be blood to mix in the Matzoh, and sprinkle on the Lox and Bagels: According to their top people(?)!)

Rein in spending: The report proposes close to $200 billion in domestic and defense spending cuts in 2015.

From your link.
Do you know where much of this is supposed to come from? They are talking about Military retirees who are over 65, on medicare with tricare as a secondary. they want us to start paying the first $500 in costs and 50% of the next $5000. Annually.

Fuck that.

200 Billion from a 650 billion budget? they are dreaming.

 

[Avatar4321]

I've got an easier cut...

Why make cuts that assist millions of Americans?

Cut Afghanistan and Iraq and you will save $2.5 trillion in ten years

Do both and save $5 tril....Deal?

If we weren't so dependent on their resources, we wouldn't have to spend so much to protect our interests in them. So lets get off of foreign oil as a starting point... Deal?

The right has been arguing to get off foreign oil for decades. Unfortunately, for some reason the left is consistantly opposed to domestic oil production. In fact, they call for policies that will cause prices to "necessarily skyrocket".

Let's get rid of all the red tape and start producing energy on a massive scale. Let's drill for oil and natural gas. Let's develop oil shale technology. Let's develop solar, wind and water tech. Let's build some nuclear plants.

Seriously, there is no reason we shouldn't be doing all these things. Yet for some reason the left continually opposes this and the right are such pansies that they don't fight for it.

Let's stop attacking our domestic energy producers and actually encourage them to do the work we need them to do.

 

[shintao]

I've got an easier cut...

Why make cuts that assist millions of Americans?

Cut Afghanistan and Iraq and you will save $2.5 trillion in ten years

Do both and save $5 tril....Deal?

If we weren't so dependent on their resources, we wouldn't have to spend so much to protect our interests in them. So lets get off of foreign oil as a starting point... Deal?

Great idea, and while we are at it, lets get off of Big Oil, and give National Oil a shot.

 

[Cuyo]

Do both and save $5 tril....Deal?

If we weren't so dependent on their resources, we wouldn't have to spend so much to protect our interests in them. So lets get off of foreign oil as a starting point... Deal?

The right has been arguing to get off foreign oil for decades. Unfortunately, for some reason the left is consistantly opposed to domestic oil production. In fact, they call for policies that will cause prices to "necessarily skyrocket".

Let's get rid of all the red tape and start producing energy on a massive scale. Let's drill for oil and natural gas. Let's develop oil shale technology. Let's develop solar, wind and water tech. Let's build some nuclear plants.

Seriously, there is no reason we shouldn't be doing all these things. Yet for some reason the left continually opposes this and the right are such pansies that they don't fight for it.

Let's stop attacking our domestic energy producers and actually encourage them to do the work we need them to do.

The country is not as stupid and simplistic as you, Avy. The BOGSATS know better. Somebody is going to be the first one to run out of this stuff. We don't want it to be us.

 

[Avatar4321]

The country is not as stupid and simplistic as you, Avy. The BOGSATS know better. Somebody is going to be the first one to run out of this stuff. We don't want it to be us.

Got ya. You're all talk. You won't actually do something about it.

 

[Toro]

ha....this will never be TOUCHED...

Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act. More than $1 billion annually.

$1,299,000,000,000 to go.

 

[SFC Ollie]

The Conservative Group's Plan is not GOP, officially. These are all pet projects, the elected officials are supposed to drop(?)!

The Obama Deficit Reduction plan sets targets, confronts the bloated, wasteful, military budget, and addresses Social Security Reform.

The Obama Liberals came up with a first step toward Social Security Reform already. The Payroll Tax is now in the less regressive direction. Soon, it can be in the more progressive direction.

Obama debt commission plan: Top recommendations - Dec. 3, 2010

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(When businesses get around to expanding--currently terrified of what happened when the GOP was last in charge--then unemployment is likely to drop, and even black teens will not be on the unemployement rolls. There will be more spending money, in those neighborhoods, and on and on. The regular GOP still has to get on board with something other than the TeaBerserker Express, roaming in the supermarkets, hunting for Delaware witches to shoot, so there will be blood to mix in the Matzoh, and sprinkle on the Lox and Bagels: According to their top people(?)!)

Rein in spending: The report proposes close to $200 billion in domestic and defense spending cuts in 2015.

From your link.
Do you know where much of this is supposed to come from? They are talking about Military retirees who are over 65, on medicare with tricare as a secondary. they want us to start paying the first $500 in costs and 50% of the next $5000. Annually.

Fuck that.

200 Billion from a 650 billion budget? they are dreaming.

DUH, obviously just a sample, of course the MSM won't tell you this and neither would the DNC but it's in this months American Legion magazine. Along with other changes in Military retirement which could hurt retention.

 

[Cuyo]

The country is not as stupid and simplistic as you, Avy. The BOGSATS know better. Somebody is going to be the first one to run out of this stuff. We don't want it to be us.

Got ya. You're all talk. You won't actually do something about it.

K.... Whatever that means.

 

[Dr Grump]

I wonder if they'll have the backbone to do it? Place your bets, ladies and gentlemen.

I wonder how many jobs that will cost....[/QUOTE]

Government jobs don't add value to the economy. They drain money from it. Economics 101.[/QUOTE]

You mean all those military folk are drains on the economy?

My sarcasm aside, please explain...

 

[Toro]

I wonder how many jobs that will cost....

Government jobs don't add value to the economy. They drain money from it. Economics 101.

Bullshit! No matter where the money comes from it money into the economy.
Building roads adds no money into the economy?
Building arms and ships, planes adds no money into the economy? Ask Lockheed, Boeing, etc.

As silly as it is to say that government jobs don't add value to the economy - and it is silly to make a broad generalization about all government jobs ...

... jobs that do not create value relative to their costs by definition do not add value.

Not all jobs are the same.

If we decided to dedicate $5 trillion to building statues of our political leaders, that has much less value than dedicating $5 trillion to research for nanotechnology, neural networks, biotechnology, genomics, etc., which make our lives better.

 

[uscitizen]

And which party controlled both houses and the presidency after 2000 to 2006?

BOTH parties suck at overspending. the dems just do not keep promising it all the time and failing to deliver thru the last 3 presidents. and 6 years of total control.

We need to cut spending NOW, not fictional projected spending while spending more on other things during the next 10 years.

this is just politics as usual and many keep falling for it time after time.

What about bringing back Paygo? for real this time.
It seemed to work pretty well last time, but was abandoned when Bush and the repubs got into power.

I've never argued that both parties didn't suck at spending. (They are, in fact, both really good at overspending). I'm not entirely sure what your point is there.

And we do need to cut spending now. I agree. This is not enough.

Paygo is simply a way for them to squirm out of their responsibility. They bring back Paygo. Get people thinking they are serious and then ignore it thinking people are placated.

Not to mention politicians dont seem to understand that continually raising taxes on people making alot of money will eventually eliminate them as part of the tax base because they have the money to move somewhere to protect their wealth.

Let em move if they want to.

And I said real paygo this time.

 

[Avatar4321]

The country is not as stupid and simplistic as you, Avy. The BOGSATS know better. Somebody is going to be the first one to run out of this stuff. We don't want it to be us.

Got ya. You're all talk. You won't actually do something about it.

K.... Whatever that means.

I'm surprised someone who seems to think they are so intelligent doesn't understand. It's quite a common phrase for someone who complains about something but then fights against doing something about what they are complaining about.

Both of us claim we don't want to be dependent on foreign oil. I'd like to see domestic energy produced across the board. In oil, coal, solar, wind, water, nuclear, etc.

Yet you claim that solution is too "stupid and simplistic". You claim you want to be free yet support policies that make is more dependent.

Like I said, You're all talk.

 

[uscitizen]

Government jobs don't add value to the economy. They drain money from it. Economics 101.

Bullshit! No matter where the money comes from it money into the economy.
Building roads adds no money into the economy?
Building arms and ships, planes adds no money into the economy? Ask Lockheed, Boeing, etc.

As silly as it is to say that government jobs don't add value to the economy - and it is silly to make a broad generalization about all government jobs ...

... jobs that do not create value relative to their costs by definition do not add value.

Not all jobs are the same.

If we decided to dedicate $5 trillion to building statues of our political leaders, that has much less value than dedicating $5 trillion to research for nanotechnology, neural networks, biotechnology, genomics, etc., which make our lives better.

I cannot disagree with that. However badly spent, virtually all domestic spending funnels right back into the economy. Even unemployment benefits and welfare. virtually every dime of that is spent in the economy.

the most valuless govt jobs are the purely political ones. Such as the presidents political advisor, etc.

 

[Avatar4321]

Let em move if they want to.

And I said real paygo this time.

If you want to decrease the tax base of anyone who can leave your jurisdiction, you only end up putting more of the tax burden on so called Middle and lower classes. You end up lowering revenues because those people dont have as much money. By lowering revenues, you put us into deeper debt unless additional spending is cut.

See, it's the tax base, not the tax rate that determines revenues. If you encourage people to make money. If you lower the tax rates to a point that invites wealthy tax payers from other jurisdictions to move there and encourages people to work their way into wealth, you end up collecting more revenues. You dont have to cut as much spending that way.

Chasing the wealthy away is the worst idea in the world if you want to increase state revenue.

 

[Cuyo]

Got ya. You're all talk. You won't actually do something about it.

K.... Whatever that means.

I'm surprised someone who seems to think they are so intelligent doesn't understand. It's quite a common phrase for someone who complains about something but then fights against doing something about what they are complaining about.

Both of us claim we don't want to be dependent on foreign oil. I'd like to see domestic energy produced across the board. In oil, coal, solar, wind, water, nuclear, etc.

Yet you claim that solution is too "stupid and simplistic". You claim you want to be free yet support policies that make is more dependent.

Like I said, You're all talk.

Reduce Consumption. Seek alternatives. Bringing what little reserves we have to the surface and blowing them in exchange for a temporary price decrease is foolish.

 

[Toro]

Bullshit! No matter where the money comes from it money into the economy.
Building roads adds no money into the economy?
Building arms and ships, planes adds no money into the economy? Ask Lockheed, Boeing, etc.

As silly as it is to say that government jobs don't add value to the economy - and it is silly to make a broad generalization about all government jobs ...

... jobs that do not create value relative to their costs by definition do not add value.

Not all jobs are the same.

If we decided to dedicate $5 trillion to building statues of our political leaders, that has much less value than dedicating $5 trillion to research for nanotechnology, neural networks, biotechnology, genomics, etc., which make our lives better.

I cannot disagree with that. However badly spent, virtually all domestic spending funnels right back into the economy. Even unemployment benefits and welfare. virtually every dime of that is spent in the economy.

the most valuless govt jobs are the purely political ones. Such as the presidents political advisor, etc.

Certain types of spending increase the velocity of money. We can also think of some types of government spending as insurance, such as social security or welfare, whereby the risks of poverty and the attendant ills are spread throughout the economy, at least up to a point where it discourages productive behavior.

However, those types of programs are design to induce a certain type of behavior. If resources are funneled from productive sectors to unproductive sectors, that destroys wealth.

 

[Avatar4321]

Reduce Consumption. Seek alternatives. Bringing what little reserves we have to the surface and blowing them in exchange for a temporary price decrease is foolish.

We hardly have little reserves. In fact, I've seen zero evidence that oil isn't very replenishable. According to all the predictions we should have been out of oil years ago.

 

[uscitizen]

Let em move if they want to.

And I said real paygo this time.

If you want to decrease the tax base of anyone who can leave your jurisdiction, you only end up putting more of the tax burden on so called Middle and lower classes. You end up lowering revenues because those people dont have as much money. By lowering revenues, you put us into deeper debt unless additional spending is cut.

See, it's the tax base, not the tax rate that determines revenues. If you encourage people to make money. If you lower the tax rates to a point that invites wealthy tax payers from other jurisdictions to move there and encourages people to work their way into wealth, you end up collecting more revenues. You dont have to cut as much spending that way.

Chasing the wealthy away is the worst idea in the world if you want to increase state revenue.

Yeah like they would leave.
You must be a piss poor poker player.