cutting the budget

[scottw]

White House Budget Director Jack Lew penned a piece for the New York Times that let us all know the President made some “tough choices” when cutting an estimated $775 million from the 3.8 TRILLION dollar budget.

you just need to zoom in a bit to locate the "tough choices"

[justplugit]

LOL if it wasn't so ridiculous.

That's like stopping to go to Dunkin Donuts once a year for coffeee to
help cut the family budget.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Good point.

The right isn't doing much better. the proposed cuts by Cantor et al are just more of the same. keep cutting from 12% of the budget, leave defense and entitlements (88%) untouched...

[buckman]

Can't we just level fund everything with no cuts and balance the budget over a period of time????

[scottw]

we've grown the budget and deficit spending to unsustainable proportions so now we're going to cap the budget for 5 years at those unsustainable proportions and the Obama voters will bitch at the Republicans for not making the cuts that they were promised by the Republicans when the Obama voters didn't vote for Republicans and the cuts that they were promised even as the guy that they voted for continues to propose new spending....get it?

if they do make any cuts they'll be called draconians drinking the blood out of little school children for each and every cut....


it's like a guy eating himself to obesity and then telling his doctor after he's been informed that he's about to have a heart attack any second, that he's capping his current eating levels for 5 years because he needs to maintain his 400 pounds and then his wife bitching to the doctor that the doctor is not doing enough

[RIROCKHOUND]

Except that in this case, the Dr (the right) is calling for wide-spread cuts to your diet because your at 400lbs and you're projected to weigh 600lbs, BUT you can only cut out your snacks, you can eat as much at the rest of your meals as you want.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Good point.

The right isn't doing much better. the proposed cuts by Cantor et al are just more of the same. keep cutting from 12% of the budget, leave defense and entitlements (88%) untouched...

You're saying that Eric Cantor has never suggested that entitlements need to be cut?

Oh please. Eric Cantor is one of the FEW politicians brave and honest enough to admit that real savings, real fiscal responsibility, can only come from addressing the other 88% of the budget that you mentioned. Namely, social security, medicare, and medicaid.

Every time a republican says that we need to fix social security, the democrats say that he hates old people. Every time a republican says medicare is going broke and needs to be overhauled, some lefty clown like Allen Grayson says that conservatives don't care about sick people.

NJ governor Chris Christie is saying the same things at the state level (that we need to reign in these entitlements), and he gets attacked mercilessly. His crime? He's the first politician in my generation that's being honest about these Ponzi schemes.

Cantor jabs at Reid on Social Security reform - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

Harry Reid, the Senate Democrat leader, does not think that social security is in trouble. And this idiot keeps getting re-elected, and re-elected, and re-elected...

I agree that many on the right are not "much" better, because they too are too concened with re-election (which is exactly why we need term limits). But how many Democrats are saying that current entitlements are un-sustainable? Not everyone is saying that, but of those who are, most are conservative, in my observation.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by buckman

Can't we just level fund everything with no cuts and balance the budget over a period of time????

Unfortunately, the answer is a resounding "no". Here's why. Many of these entitlements involve retirement pensions and healthcare benefits to folks after they retire. That program worked great 30 years ago, when there were (1) way more workers paying into the plan then retirees taking money out, (2) retirees who didn't live that long, and (3) manageable medical costs.

The math has all changed, thanks to...

(1) a demographic tsunami called the baby Boomers. Starting January 1, 2011 TEN THOUSAND PEOPLE A DAY will become eligible for social security and medicare. That trend will continue for almost 20 years. SO the ratio of workers to retirees is decreasing rapidly, menaing not enough money going in and way too much coming out.

(2) retirees are living much, much longer, menaing they will need a whole lot more money.

(3) medical costs are soaring. Consider this staggering fact. Half of all medical expenses are incurred in the last 6 months of the average person's life. It's hard to grasp how much money the baby boomers will spend on healthcare in retirement.

This is not a problem Obama created, he did inherit this one. But it's also fair to say that conservatives have been the predominant voice of concern about the coming implosion.

The latest estimates of unfunded liabilities for social security and medicare are in the tens of trillions. The average estimate that I've seen is $40 trillion dollars. There are 300 million people living in the US. That means that every American needs to kick in an extra $133,333 to make these programs viable.

Just think about that number for a second.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Except that in this case, the Dr (the right) is calling for wide-spread cuts to your diet because your at 400lbs and you're projected to weigh 600lbs, BUT you can only cut out your snacks, you can eat as much at the rest of your meals as you want.

like I said....blame the Doctor...and continue along with status quo fatso..........

how's that Chaffee(best man to lead us forward) budget coming?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Except that in this case, the Dr (the right) is calling for wide-spread cuts to your diet because your at 400lbs and you're projected to weigh 600lbs, BUT you can only cut out your snacks, you can eat as much at the rest of your meals as you want.

You keep suggesting that the right does not think we need to cut the big entitlement programs.

Here's an MSNBC kook suggesting that the left go after John Boehner and Mike Pence for suggesting we may need to raise the age at which we collect social security benefits.

Cenk Uygur: If the Democrats Have Any Sense They'll Make Social Security a Defining Issue for 2010 | Video Cafe

I could have posted a thousand links to liberal op-eds who claim that conservatives hate old people and sick people.

There is no specific plan (yet) to address the entitlements. But conservatives are the only ones talking baout it, and they always get attacked for their honesty. Heck, in the other thread, I mentioned switching pensions to 401(k)s and one of the retired cops said I therefore shouldn't call the police if I need help!! Is that productive dialogue?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You keep suggesting that the right does not think we need to cut the big entitlement programs.

it's very dangerous to go after these goverment teats politically, remember the "Gingrich wants to let your entitlement wither on the vine" episode?....there is great power in having large portions of the electorate dependent on your various Ponzi schemes, particularly if you have no shame when it comes to riling up the dependents against those that you say threaten their place at the teat....it's about as low as you can go but it does work...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

it's very dangerous to go after these goverment teats politically, remember the "Gingrich wants to let your entitlement wither on the vine" episode?....there is great power in having large portions of the electorate dependent on your various Ponzi schemes, particularly if you have no shame when it comes to riling up the dependents against those that you say threaten their place at the teat....it's about as low as you can go but it does work...

I agree with you 100%, this gets back to my whjole point that liberal doctrine DEPENDS upon a large block of voters addicted to liberal entitlements, and then every year at election time, liberals attack any conservative who dares to suggest that we might need to cut entitlements. It's a putrid tactic, but very effective. Again, if we had term limits, no one would care about re-election, so they would have more ability to do the right thing, versus doing the politically correct thing.

I'd love to hear RIROCKHOUND'S take on this. He usually sides with liberals (from my observation), yet he seems to grasp that we need to address these entitlements. So rockhound, if you do indeed think we need to address these entitlements, how do you feel about the left's long-standing practice of demonizing anyone who dares to mention entitlement reform?

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

and then every year at election time, liberals attack any conservative who dares to suggest that we might need to cut entitlements.

And most conservative dance around this by saying we need cuts w/o a specific plan because they don't want to lose votes, especially among seniors. It;s putrid on both sides.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I'd love to hear RIROCKHOUND'S take on this. He usually sides with liberals (from my observation), yet he seems to grasp that we need to address these entitlements. So rockhound, if you do indeed think we need to address these entitlements, how do you feel about the left's long-standing practice of demonizing anyone who dares to mention entitlement reform?

I just said above, I think both sides like to play this card for politics, thats my opinion on that.

You think all liberals are mentally defective, but a surprising amount of us don't have a problem with some common sense steps. The problem is both sides aren't putting forward seemingly reasonable plans. again, like pensions, we can't start #^&#^&#^&#^&ing with people retired or close to it.

lets start with everyone under 45, raise the SS age by 2 years. or offer more steps where the longer you wait the higher the % you'll receive annually...

[scottw]

I'd look for moral relativism..."all politicians are the same"..."everyone does it"...."they're politicians"..."they all lie" ..."judge not lest ye be judged"..."let he who is without sin cast the first stone"(that was a good one in the Clinton era)....stuff like that...meanwhile...Rome burns



WOW...am I good or what!!!

I honestly didn't see Bryans post till after I'd posted mine....I'm in your head Bry

[Raven]

spending a TRILLION dollars and even more bad money after good
on the failed war on drugs isn't helping our economy.

Even if they only repealed the illegal status of "hemp for fuel"
it would be nice, considering that it has just been reported that
Saudi Arabian oil reserves were over estimated by 40%.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

And most conservative dance around this by saying we need cuts w/o a specific plan because they don't want to lose votes, especially among seniors. It;s putrid on both sides.



I just said above, I think both sides like to play this card for politics, thats my opinion on that.

You think all liberals are mentally defective, but a surprising amount of us don't have a problem with some common sense steps. The problem is both sides aren't putting forward seemingly reasonable plans. again, like pensions, we can't start #^&#^&#^&#^&ing with people retired or close to it.

lets start with everyone under 45, raise the SS age by 2 years. or offer more steps where the longer you wait the higher the % you'll receive annually...

Rockhound, have you ever seen a conservative politician or conservative reporter attack a liberal politician for saying that we need to cut entitlements?

If you want to say that conservatives are cowardly for staying away from the issue to avoid being attacked, I agree with you. However, they wouldn't need to be concerned if it weren't for the unfair attacks, and as far as I can tell, on this issue, 100% of the attacks come from the left. 100%. I follow politics closely, and I have never, ever seen a liberal get attacked by a conservative for suggesting entitlement reform.

"a surprising amount of us don't have a problem with some common sense steps"

I have a hard time swallowing that, given who they elect. Harry Reid says that social security is in good financial shape, he gets re-elected. Barney Frank (chairman of the banking committee) says that Fannie and Freddie are great investments, and he gets re-elected.

Which powerful Republicans have been so irrefutably wrong on issues that vital?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Rockhound, have you ever seen a conservative politician or conservative reporter attack a liberal politician for saying that we need to cut entitlements?

If you want to say that conservatives are cowardly for staying away from the issue to avoid being attacked, I agree with you. However, they wouldn't need to be concerned if it weren't for the unfair attacks, and as far as I can tell, on this issue, 100% of the attacks come from the left. 100%. I follow politics closely, and I have never, ever seen a liberal get attacked by a conservative for suggesting entitlement reform.

"a surprising amount of us don't have a problem with some common sense steps"

I have a hard time swallowing that, given who they elect. Harry Reid says that social security is in good financial shape, he gets re-elected. Barney Frank (chairman of the banking committee) says that Fannie and Freddie are great investments, and he gets re-elected.

Which powerful Republicans have been so irrefutably wrong on issues that vital?

you are not allowed to say cowardly, coward, cowardice etc.

like I said, if you are a big government type benefitting from loyal dependents who vote for you or recieve some guaranteed benefits as a rsult of them...these are all excellent programs and investments

[scottw]

seems the people that did not vote for republicans and their budget cut pledge but now want to hold them to their pledge while ignoring the insane spending by the people that the actually voted for who currently mock and impune the republicans for trying to cut spending....they now have the much despised Tea Party to thank for holding the feet of the republicans to the fire and demanding that the 100 Billion promise be met.....I wonder what the budget would look like if the Tea Party and republicans were not involved?

probably go something like this...

Obama proposed courageous, revolutionary, bold, brilliant, genius, pre-Evil Bush Years...2 Trillion Dollar Budget which both reduces spending and increases investments, despite the lunacy the media applauds and hails him as the most brilliant president ever, he's Kennedy and Reagan and soooo much more.....stuff gushing down their legs.....collectively attacking anyone who questions the validity of the numbers as deniers and birthers...


time elaspes...

six months down the road the numbers are "revised" and it is quietly revealed that the buget is actually 4+ Trillion dollars....there were so many pages that noone had read it all...

the media yawns and collectively attacks Sarah Palin about something...

another day in America's decline

[Raven]

when AMERICA's Interests are fellow Americans......

and they're First.... the American Dream First

AMERICA the Country First....

America as a country has Spent or Invested trillians
of dollars into foreign countries problems so we shouldn't
feel a single bit guilty to take care of our OWN.

The corporations haven't been funding the money spent on
Foreign affairs because they are largely not paying the Taxes.

the people are footing the Bill ..... One thing we can learn from
the Egyptian revolution is that collectively we have a voice that
can be heard if we put aside political division.

That "time" is Now.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Raven

when AMERICA's Interests are fellow Americans......

and they're First.... the American Dream First

AMERICA the Country First....

America as a country has Spent or Invested trillians
of dollars into foreign countries problems so we shouldn't
feel a single bit guilty to take care of our OWN.

The corporations haven't been funding the money spent on
Foreign affairs because they are largely not paying the Taxes.

the people are footing the Bill ..... One thing we can learn from
the Egyptian revolution is that collectively we have a voice that
can be heard if we put aside political division.

That "time" is Now.

might want to wait and see how things turn out in Egypt before you decide that's the route to take, I don't think we can determine anything yet exept that MumBarack Obama can hear the voices of protesters halfway across the world but can't hear the protesters when they are right outside his window....

this guy agrees with you...

Ahmadinejad: Egyptian protests herald new Mideast


Feb 11, 7:24 AM (ET)

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI


TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran's president said Friday that Egypt's popular uprising shows a new Islamic Middle East is emerging, one that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claims will have no signs of Israel and U.S. "interference."



if you are a democrat...don't you have to kinda support MuBarack? I'm mean, he's just doing what every democtrat politician does when they get caught cheating, lying, fillandering, stealing, driving on "ambien", not paying taxes, killing women, or just plain ineptitude....etc...they refuse to leave, and their loyalists and wives rally around them no matter how offensive the crime or misdemeanor

[Raven]

Originally Posted by scottw

might want to wait and see how things turn out in Egypt before you decide that's the route to take, I don't think we can determine anything yet exept that MumBarack Obama can hear the voices of protesters halfway across the world but can't hear the protesters when they are right outside his window....

this guy agrees with you...

Ahmadinejad: Egyptian protests herald new Mideast


Feb 11, 7:24 AM (ET)

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI


TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran's president said Friday that Egypt's popular uprising shows a new Islamic Middle East is emerging, one that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claims will have no signs of Israel and U.S. "interference."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
that's funny SHORT STUFF.... MINI Jad
who do you think covered the
happenings when Egypt (Mubarak) closed down the internet

it was companies in AMERICA called Face book and Twitter
that prevented you ALL from a media Black out

(even China squelched all search Inquiries about Egypt via the net)

that short little shorter still DICTATOR can't WIN over
and now they ALL know it...

SAUDI Arabia lying about their oil reserves by 40%
doesn't help the situation, so i do hope the turmoil
continues to bite them all in the A$$ repeatedly.

[justplugit]

The House is introducing the largest non discretionary spending cut in American
history with HR 1 which will cut spending by $100 Billion in the next
7 MONTHS and would eliminate 150 Federal Programs.

Good start, and will also eliminate those large stimulus road signs.
Stimulus musta been good for a few sign companies.

[Chesapeake Bill]

The signs will stay up...that money was already allocated and given out. No new signs will be installed. There is still a lot of unallocated funds.

Cutting $100 billion seems like a lot but when you consider that the budget is $4 trillion the sum represents a paultry amount and focuses on easy targes. A good start yes, but perhaps the wrong target. No one had the guts to address the real issue...and it isn't the smaller programs or the employees...

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Chesapeake Bill

Cutting $100 billion seems like a lot but when you consider that the budget is $4 trillion the sum represents a paultry amount and focuses on easy targes. A good start yes..

A $100 Billion in 7 months is not chump change but won't be the end if
the conservatives have their way.

Let's Go back to the 2.9 Trillion 2008 budget, now THAT would be a real good start.