Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Those arguing against significant budget cuts have a real logic problem « previous next »
Page: 1 2 3 ... 5

burger40

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3379
Offline
: April 05, 2011, 01:43:50 PM

As the debates have been escalating I've heard a lot of the same talking points about why we can't cut spending not just to '08 levels but even a paltry 100 B (yes 100B is paltry given our current state)

My questions would be as follows:
1) (To those who claim such as former McCain Campaign Adviser Mark Zandi that cutting 100B would result in hundreds of thousands of jobs being lost): Aren't these projections from the same models and equations that told us the stimulus would prevent unemployment from breaching 8%? Aren't we completely screwed anyway because if 100B dollars really does = even 100k net jobs then just getting back to fiscal stability at some point will mean hundreds of thousands of jobs getting axed.

2) (To those who say americans everywhere will be dying from lack of heating oil, food, shelter, etc) In the U.K. much more severe cuts have been made, where are the news reports showing even dozens of people dying off bc they no longer can get food or adequate shelter (studies have shown that when assistance dries up people usually find ways to make ends meet by moving in with relatives or other uncomfortable but doable arrangements)..... What about all the people who made similar claims in teh 90's during welfare reform (just google for tons of fun clips and articles)? Even Pres Obama said int eh saddleback debate that he was wrong about what would happen when welfare was reformed. Is it possible that you could also be wrong and people won't indeed die off in massive numbers?

3) If we don't start now then when will we? (The answer to that will certainly be when the economy improves, but we all know what happens then...programs get expanded bc hey we can afford it and times are good then we build up more liabilities that screw us even more at the next downturn)


Thank goodness Paul Ryan at least has the stones to put something out on the table to address our issues although I'm sure he'll get crucified for his effort.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/52499.html

"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." Alexis de Tocqueville

Morgan

User is banned from postingMuted
*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 14658
Offline
#1 : April 05, 2011, 02:21:35 PM

There was a reason why various gov't agencies were initiated. A significant budget cut possibly could be very counterproductive and undo decades of reform that our country has gone through.

For instance. Will Paul Ryan cut the FAA and NTSB's budget resulting in less inspections of our airlines.  Do you want to let the airline industry go unchecked and allow each of them to perform airline inspections on an honor system? Are you willing to supsend the EPA like many of the rightwing politicians have discussed, allowing industry to go unchecked?  It took years for our country to fix problems in industry and Ryan et al are will to undo all of that.

You want to cut the budget? Pull back all military in Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Germany, Central America, The Balkans, South America and cruising all the oceans of the world.


dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 45994
Offline
#2 : April 05, 2011, 09:31:18 PM

There is little doubt that the military budget needs to be brought in line, and that bases in many countries clearly aren't as necessary as they once were.  And with a 5-10% reduction in the military budget annually it would fit into an overall plan to reduce spending - along with addressing redundant bureaus, agencies, fraud in Medicare and Medicaid, welfare issues, immigration issues... there is a rat's nest in DC.   Won't forget tax reform, or any other spending - out of control government spending is the issue.  And it is across the board.

And by the way, no to paying Senators, Congressmen or anyone else for the rest of their lives.  No to a Congressional HC plan - no to Presidential offices, libraries....

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 6893
Offline
#3 : April 05, 2011, 10:46:09 PM

There was a reason why various gov't agencies were initiated. A significant budget cut possibly could be very counterproductive and undo decades of reform that our country has gone through.

For instance. Will Paul Ryan cut the FAA and NTSB's budget resulting in less inspections of our airlines.  Do you want to let the airline industry go unchecked and allow each of them to perform airline inspections on an honor system? Are you willing to supsend the EPA like many of the rightwing politicians have discussed, allowing industry to go unchecked?  It took years for our country to fix problems in industry and Ryan et al are will to undo all of that.

You want to cut the budget? Pull back all military in Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Germany, Central America, The Balkans, South America and cruising all the oceans of the world.

We are spending about 30% more per year than we are taking in as tax receipts. if they don't cut the spending there won't be any agencies. What then?

Morgan

User is banned from postingMuted
*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 14658
Offline
#4 : April 06, 2011, 11:04:52 AM


spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 6893
Offline
#5 : April 06, 2011, 11:23:03 AM

God I have been trying to bang on this drum long and hard for a while now, but it really does not seem to be getting through.

The current top taxation rate is 35% and applies to all who earn 357K or more a year. This based on the last IRS figures released in 2008. Those in this tax bracket earned a grant total of $628 billion. Therefore you can confiscate every single penny the "millionaires and billionaires" earn and you address half (1/3 of the above diagram) of the current deficit spending. Now 'splain to me why budget cuts are not only needed but are mandatory. We do not have, and simply cannot get enough money to pay the bills as they currently stand.

Um Morgan, nice diagram but aren't you sort of playing both ends of the stick here?

Morgan

User is banned from postingMuted
*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 14658
Offline
#6 : April 06, 2011, 05:44:31 PM

I'm an independent that supports the President.

The pie shows that both parties aren't making much of a dent with their proposals.

I do believe that gov't spending is important at certain points in our history when depression threatens as it did when President Obama took office.

The spending can't be sustained, though.

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
#7 : April 06, 2011, 07:00:51 PM

Didn't the Republicans initially ask for $32 billion in cuts? They got $33 billion. Charlie Sheen would have called that winning and gone about his business. The Republicans, on the other hand, raise the bar with a bill proposing $61 billion dollars in cuts? Seems like they are more interested in pacifying the Tea Party than they are the business of governing.


dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 45994
Offline
#8 : April 07, 2011, 06:56:47 AM

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-20/republican-lawmakers-say-house-majority-isn-t-seeking-government-shutdown.html

New Congressmen/Tea party supported looked for 100 B, but since February Republicans have been looking for the 61B.  Continuing resolutions have contained some reductions - none of which have raised the bar that I have read about.  If you have that info please post a link.

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
#9 : April 07, 2011, 08:31:59 AM

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-20/republican-lawmakers-say-house-majority-isn-t-seeking-government-shutdown.html

New Congressmen/Tea party supported looked for 100 B, but since February Republicans have been looking for the 61B.  Continuing resolutions have contained some reductions - none of which have raised the bar that I have read about.  If you have that info please post a link.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/141935-house-gop-splits-difference-offers-74b-in-cuts-to-obama-budget

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/04/us/politics/04budget.html

Originally asked for $32 billion, get $33 billion, then ask for $61 billion. And to make matters worse, Ryan's proposal doesn't even jive with the CBO scoring numbers:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/04/cbo-gop-budget-would-increase-debt-then-stick-it-to-medicare-patients.php

This budget proposal is nothing more than posturing.


dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 45994
Offline
#10 : April 07, 2011, 05:49:28 PM

I guess I am stuck looking at the bill that was passed out of the House of Representatives and the statement that it represents 61 billion in cuts.

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 6893
Offline
#11 : April 07, 2011, 10:07:20 PM

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-20/republican-lawmakers-say-house-majority-isn-t-seeking-government-shutdown.html

New Congressmen/Tea party supported looked for 100 B, but since February Republicans have been looking for the 61B.  Continuing resolutions have contained some reductions - none of which have raised the bar that I have read about.  If you have that info please post a link.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/141935-house-gop-splits-difference-offers-74b-in-cuts-to-obama-budget

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/04/us/politics/04budget.html

Originally asked for $32 billion, get $33 billion, then ask for $61 billion. And to make matters worse, Ryan's proposal doesn't even jive with the CBO scoring numbers:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/04/cbo-gop-budget-would-increase-debt-then-stick-it-to-medicare-patients.php

This budget proposal is nothing more than posturing.


This hasn't got a hope in hell in passing anytime soon. So, we have lots of time to actually take a look at the detail instead of listening to the "people will die" sound bites and "stick to the elderly" opinion pieces.

Current Democrat plans and ideas will bankrupt the country sooner rather than later. They have to start taking the subject seriously instead of just saying no to any spending cut proposed. We simply cannot raise sufficient money from taxes unless we increase the upper income tax rate and corporate tax to 100%, and that will only be enough to squeak in this years deficit. As well all know, all these lovely programs and Departments have automatic budget increases in them, so they had better hope all the folks and Corporations keep on increasing their profits while not being allowed to keep it.

Eventually I would like to think that people will get to realize that although they might get less than they do now under the Republican plan, it beats the crap out of nothing under the Democrat plan.
: April 07, 2011, 10:09:05 PM spartan

burger40

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3379
Offline
#12 : April 08, 2011, 01:45:07 PM

Latest news I heard was they are now down to bickering over 34B on the Dems side and 39B on teh Repubs side....Harry Reid said the Repubs are being extreme. I'm not sure how cutting spending to 2008 levels plus a couple hundred billion more is extreme now...does that mean that all those budgets that Bill Clinton and the repub houses put into law in the 90's were hitleresque in cruelity. I mean we aren't even close to getting back to 2008 spending much less the reasonable budgets of the 90's.

"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." Alexis de Tocqueville

shawn731

****
Starter

Posts : 814
Offline
#13 : April 08, 2011, 01:57:46 PM

Why dont everyone (in washington) be honest and state the truth-"We want to cut spending, but make sure we do not take away all the promises we've made to our special interest groups."
This mess is just mud slinging.  And there are alot of individuals who are going to have to make some very tough choices based off of what is decided in Washington.  IMO there are alot of people who need a swift kick to bring them to reality. 

Morgan

User is banned from postingMuted
*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 14658
Offline
#14 : April 08, 2011, 01:59:14 PM

Too bad the rightwingers are using their anti-abortion religious beliefs as a stance to hold up all of this.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/government-shutdown-sticking-point-planned-parenthood/story?id=13328560
Page: 1 2 3 ... 5
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Those arguing against significant budget cuts have a real logic problem « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools