Cutting Spending

[Common Sense]

cutting spending alone will never put a dent in the deficit or the debt. currently is you add up social security, medicare, medicaid, defense and interest on the debt, it account for approximately 80-85% of the federal budget. now if we cut the entire other 15-20% we still do not put anywhere near a down payment on a debt / deficit reduction. on the other hand if we make drastic cuts to SS, medicare, medicaid and defense we are at risk of alienating seniors and the poor who rely on those services. if we make huge cuts in defense, we also run the risk of increasing unemployment beyond 10%.

when the GOP says that want to go back to 2008 spending levels, those levels still include a huge budget shortfall. approximately $407 billion. (not including the wars).

i am still waiting to hear any member of the GOP tell us how they are going to tackle SS, medicare, medicaid and increase taxes to pay for everything.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...a-plan-to-reduce-the-deficit.html#post2906762

those are good ideas, but how to you balance the budget in the short term? where do the cuts come from and who suffers the most?

 

[Missourian]

cutting spending alone will never put a dent in the deficit or the debt. currently is you add up social security, medicare, medicaid, defense and interest on the debt, it account for approximately 80-85% of the federal budget. now if we cut the entire other 15-20% we still do not put anywhere near a down payment on a debt / deficit reduction. on the other hand if we make drastic cuts to SS, medicare, medicaid and defense we are at risk of alienating seniors and the poor who rely on those services. if we make huge cuts in defense, we also run the risk of increasing unemployment beyond 10%.

when the GOP says that want to go back to 2008 spending levels, those levels still include a huge budget shortfall. approximately $407 billion. (not including the wars).

i am still waiting to hear any member of the GOP tell us how they are going to tackle SS, medicare, medicaid and increase taxes to pay for everything.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...a-plan-to-reduce-the-deficit.html#post2906762

those are good ideas, but how to you balance the budget in the short term? where do the cuts come from and who suffers the most?

I'm smart enough to understand that I don't have the knowledge, education or information to qualify me to answer that question program by program.

But...a good guideline would be to look to the Constitution for the framework of which responsibilities the Federal Government are charged and start cutting the programs that don't conform to that framework.

 

[Common Sense]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...a-plan-to-reduce-the-deficit.html#post2906762

those are good ideas, but how to you balance the budget in the short term? where do the cuts come from and who suffers the most?

I'm smart enough to understand that I don't have the knowledge, education or information to qualify me to answer that question program by program.

But...a good guideline would be to look to the Constitution for the framework of which responsibilities the Federal Government are charged and start cutting the programs that don't conform to that framework.

remember tho, just because things are exactly spelled out in the constitution, doesnt mean that the courts have interpreted the constitution to allow them:
These are things not exactly listed in the constitution:
The Air Force
Congressional Districts
The Electoral College
Executive Order
Executive Privilege
Freedom of Expression
(Absolute) Freedom of Speech and Press
"From each according to his ability..."
God
Immigration
Impeachment means removal from office
Innocent until proven guilty
It's a free country
Judicial Review
Jury of Peers
"Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"
Marriage
Martial Law
No taxation without representation
Number of Justices in the Supreme Court
"Of the people, by the people, for the people"
Paper Money
Political Parties
Primary Elections
Qualifications for Judges
The right to privacy
The right to travel
The right to vote
The separation of church and state
The Separation of Powers Clause
Slavery
"We hold these truths to be self-evident"
Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

 

[VaYank5150]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...a-plan-to-reduce-the-deficit.html#post2906762

those are good ideas, but how to you balance the budget in the short term? where do the cuts come from and who suffers the most?

I'm smart enough to understand that I don't have the knowledge, education or information to qualify me to answer that question program by program.

But...a good guideline would be to look to the Constitution for the framework of which responsibilities the Federal Government are charged and start cutting the programs that don't conform to that framework.

So, eliminating all US farm subsidies could easily be cut as they are not in the Constitution, right?

 

[Missourian]

those are good ideas, but how to you balance the budget in the short term? where do the cuts come from and who suffers the most?

I'm smart enough to understand that I don't have the knowledge, education or information to qualify me to answer that question program by program.

But...a good guideline would be to look to the Constitution for the framework of which responsibilities the Federal Government are charged and start cutting the programs that don't conform to that framework.

remember tho, just because things are exactly spelled out in the constitution, doesnt mean that the courts have interpreted the constitution to allow them:
These are things not exactly listed in the constitution:
The Air Force
Congressional Districts
The Electoral College
Executive Order
Executive Privilege
Freedom of Expression
(Absolute) Freedom of Speech and Press
"From each according to his ability..."
God
Immigration
Impeachment means removal from office
Innocent until proven guilty
It's a free country
Judicial Review
Jury of Peers
"Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"
Marriage
Martial Law
No taxation without representation
Number of Justices in the Supreme Court
"Of the people, by the people, for the people"
Paper Money
Political Parties
Primary Elections
Qualifications for Judges
The right to privacy
The right to travel
The right to vote
The separation of church and state
The Separation of Powers Clause
Slavery
"We hold these truths to be self-evident"
Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

None of those things are programs except the Air Force.

Fold it back in the Army.

 

[Common Sense]

exactly, none of those programs are. neither is social security or medicare. but those were added later into law.

just because something is not in the constitution, doesnt mean that the government should provide it. thats not to say that the govt should provide everything. govt should be a reflection of what the people want.

 

[Missourian]

those are good ideas, but how to you balance the budget in the short term? where do the cuts come from and who suffers the most?

I'm smart enough to understand that I don't have the knowledge, education or information to qualify me to answer that question program by program.

But...a good guideline would be to look to the Constitution for the framework of which responsibilities the Federal Government are charged and start cutting the programs that don't conform to that framework.

So, eliminating all US farm subsidies could easily be cut as they are not in the Constitution, right?

The adults are talking...go score political points in another thread.

 

[VaYank5150]

I'm smart enough to understand that I don't have the knowledge, education or information to qualify me to answer that question program by program.

But...a good guideline would be to look to the Constitution for the framework of which responsibilities the Federal Government are charged and start cutting the programs that don't conform to that framework.

So, eliminating all US farm subsidies could easily be cut as they are not in the Constitution, right?

The adults are talking...go score political points in another thread.

This is a serious question that needs to be answered. Why are farm subsidies continued and not on the GOP table for cuts?

 

[Missourian]

exactly, none of those programs are. neither is social security or medicare. but those were added later into law.

just because something is not in the constitution, doesnt mean that the government should provide it. thats not to say that the govt should provide everything. govt should be a reflection of what the people want.

I don't agree, the Federal Government must be constrained by the limits of the Constitution.

We are seeing the results of the government as only a reflection of what people want.

People want everything, and a representative democracy, that means a majority of voters can vote themselves anything, if there are no Constitutional constraints in place.

A case can be easily made that that is how we reached this untenable situation.

 

[Two Thumbs]

The main goal of every politician is to get re-elected.

Not live up to thier word.

Once we understand that, we need to look in our states and see what we have that will be affected.

If your state is building the latest and coolest jet, rockett, tank, rifle. You can support cuts to the DoD if you want, but the people working in those places that lose thier jobs will vote for someone else.

Farmlands, wanna cut farm subs? sure, see how much pull a hole bunch of pissed off farmers have.

In the end, I agree, we need to make deep deep cuts, just don't cut anything that affects me or I'll vote for someone else.







(not realy, I understand that cutting the debt increases the value of the dollar)

 

[Missourian]

So, eliminating all US farm subsidies could easily be cut as they are not in the Constitution, right?

The adults are talking...go score political points in another thread.

This is a serious question that needs to be answered. Why are farm subsidies continued and not on the GOP table for cuts?

I don't know why we are paying farm subsidies at all right now.

 

[Common Sense]

exactly, none of those programs are. neither is social security or medicare. but those were added later into law.

just because something is not in the constitution, doesnt mean that the government should provide it. thats not to say that the govt should provide everything. govt should be a reflection of what the people want.

I don't agree, the Federal Government must be constrained by the limits of the Constitution.

We are seeing the results of the government as only a reflection of what people want.

People want everything, and a representative democracy, that means a majority of voters can vote themselves anything, if there are no Constitutional constraints in place.

A case can be easily made that that is how we reached this untenable situation.

the constitution has been interpreted to allow these things. if you disagree with the interpretation, then the fault you must place lies solely with the courts.

 

[Missourian]

So, eliminating all US farm subsidies could easily be cut as they are not in the Constitution, right?

The adults are talking...go score political points in another thread.

This is a serious question that needs to be answered. Why are farm subsidies continued and not on the GOP table for cuts?

The GOP doesn't have farm subsidies on the cutting board because their base doesn't support cutting farm subsidies.

Your turn...Why didn't the Democrats, whose base supports cutting farm subsidies, cut them when they had a super majority in Congress and the Presidency?

 

[Missourian]

exactly, none of those programs are. neither is social security or medicare. but those were added later into law.

just because something is not in the constitution, doesnt mean that the government should provide it. thats not to say that the govt should provide everything. govt should be a reflection of what the people want.

I don't agree, the Federal Government must be constrained by the limits of the Constitution.

We are seeing the results of the government as only a reflection of what people want.

People want everything, and a representative democracy, that means a majority of voters can vote themselves anything, if there are no Constitutional constraints in place.

A case can be easily made that that is how we reached this untenable situation.

the constitution has been interpreted to allow these things. if you disagree with the interpretation, then the fault you must place lies solely with the courts.

One of the examples on your list is Judicial Review.

 

[AllieBaba]

The adults are talking...go score political points in another thread.

This is a serious question that needs to be answered. Why are farm subsidies continued and not on the GOP table for cuts?

I don't know why we are paying farm subsidies at all right now.

Because the left have made it impossible for farmers to farm their own land. They bog them down with fines, taxes and restrictions, and they have to pay them so the farmers can follow their insane dictates. Because farmers can't make it if they don't.

Another example of what happens when government meddles in private industry.

 

[Common Sense]

I don't agree, the Federal Government must be constrained by the limits of the Constitution.

We are seeing the results of the government as only a reflection of what people want.

People want everything, and a representative democracy, that means a majority of voters can vote themselves anything, if there are no Constitutional constraints in place.

A case can be easily made that that is how we reached this untenable situation.

the constitution has been interpreted to allow these things. if you disagree with the interpretation, then the fault you must place lies solely with the courts.

One of the examples on your list is Judicial Review.

"We often hear about the Supreme Court striking down a law or a provision in a law, or, more often, reaffirming some law or provision. Take a look in the Constitution — judicial review, as this is known, is nowhere to be found. It seems like a perfectly normal action — after all, what kind of check does the Judicial Branch have on the other two branches if laws and orders cannot be declared unconstitutional. But judicial review is not specifically mentioned. So how did judicial review come to be? In the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), Chief Justice John Marshall declared a federal law, the Judiciary Act of 1789, to be unconstitutional, and thus null and void. This was the first time a Supreme Court ruling overturned a law."


so what you are saying is that there should be no check or balance on congress or the president. currently that check is the courts.

 

[Missourian]

the constitution has been interpreted to allow these things. if you disagree with the interpretation, then the fault you must place lies solely with the courts.

One of the examples on your list is Judicial Review.

"We often hear about the Supreme Court striking down a law or a provision in a law, or, more often, reaffirming some law or provision. Take a look in the Constitution — judicial review, as this is known, is nowhere to be found. It seems like a perfectly normal action — after all, what kind of check does the Judicial Branch have on the other two branches if laws and orders cannot be declared unconstitutional. But judicial review is not specifically mentioned. So how did judicial review come to be? In the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), Chief Justice John Marshall declared a federal law, the Judiciary Act of 1789, to be unconstitutional, and thus null and void. This was the first time a Supreme Court ruling overturned a law."


so what you are saying is that there should be no check or balance on congress or the president. currently that check is the courts.

You say this as though the Judiciary was actually completely separate from the Legislature and the President.

The President appoints the members of the Judiciary and the Legislature confirms them.

The Judiciary usurped the power to interpret, and that worked well enough for awhile but today, the Constitution means anything the ideology of the appointed judge who hears it wants it to mean.

If it can be interpreted to mean anything, it also means nothing...and while I'm not a Constitutional scholar, I'm confident that that was definitely the original intent.

 

[Common Sense]

You say this as though the Judiciary was actually completely separate from the Legislature and the President.

The President appoints the members of the Judiciary and the Legislature confirms them.

The Judiciary usurped the power to interpret, and that worked well enough for awhile but today, the Constitution means anything the ideology of the appointed judge who hears it wants it to mean.

If it can be interpreted to mean anything, it also means nothing...and while I'm not a Constitutional scholar, I'm confident that that was definitely the original intent.

yes they are nominated an confirmed. but they also have lifetime appointments and thus do not have to pander to the special interest. therefore you have taken the idea of re-election and campaigns out of the equation and they can simply interpret the law. this is also why it is not a single judge who can interpret a law, it takes a majority to write the opinion, as well as the minority gets to write a minority opinion. as values change over time this the allows them to revisit and reinterpret laws as society changes. (remember DADT, that used to be legal, and now it is not)

 

[Missourian]

You say this as though the Judiciary was actually completely separate from the Legislature and the President.

The President appoints the members of the Judiciary and the Legislature confirms them.

The Judiciary usurped the power to interpret, and that worked well enough for awhile but today, the Constitution means anything the ideology of the appointed judge who hears it wants it to mean.

If it can be interpreted to mean anything, it also means nothing...and while I'm not a Constitutional scholar, I'm confident that that was definitely the original intent.

yes they are nominated an confirmed. but they also have lifetime appointments and thus do not have to pander to the special interest. therefore you have taken the idea of re-election and campaigns out of the equation and they can simply interpret the law. this is also why it is not a single judge who can interpret a law, it takes a majority to write the opinion, as well as the minority gets to write a minority opinion. as values change over time this the allows them to revisit and reinterpret laws as society changes. (remember DADT, that used to be legal, and now it is not)

So who gets appointed?

True believers.

Look at the Court today. Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[shintao]

Why is it so many of you pretend that cutting spending is not an option for dealing with deficits and debt? Especially, when, in reality, it's the easiest way.

Are you honestly telling me you cant think of one program in the Federal government that we aren't spending too much on?

Did we really need to be paying the salaries of all those financial regulators who had their office computers full of pornography while the wall street wizards were ignore financial regulations?

Do we really need to be spending money for genital cleaning?

Why exactly are we spending so much money telling people how to eat?

Why exactly are we increasing health care costs throughout the country?

Why are we wasting so much money through inefficient use of our military?

Why hasn't the Department of Energy been abolished since the entire mission of that department was to make us energy independent and our situation has gotten incredibly worse since their creation?

Why do we have a Department of Education to take money away from the local communities to send to Washington to give back to the local communities?

What the heck are we paying immigration for if they don't do jack about the illegal immigration problem?

Are you honestly telling me none of these programs can be looked and cut even alittle? Seriously?

We need to stop pretending the option isnt there or the option will never be used.

I can think of a lot of programs to be cut, but like with a doobie smoker in prison, I want to see some "big" programs cut first, and stop the namby pandy bullshit. Gut the military budget and bring American troops home and stop the insanity. Then I will stand by you and gut social programs galore.