GOP Aiming to Cut $4 Trillion

[Two Thumbs]

I don't see how medicare will cost less by putting this in to the hands of the "beloved" sic Insurance companies when their dministration costs is over 20% and the administration cost of the us gvt is less than 1%?

Are the republicans just in bed with the insurance companies and this is why they want to do this? this makes no sense what so ever.

And why in the heck did the Republicans create their own Medicare Pill Bill and illegally pass it in the House without raising taxes to pay for it, and without allowing us to negotiate bulk discounts with Pharma and without the ability for States to buy their lower cost drugs in Canada, during the Bush administration?

Was it purposely to make medicare "Wither on the Vine"....

this pisses me off to no end.

the national homeland security and defense budget has gone from $290 billion a year in the year 2000 to now $819 billion A YEAR in total.

WE ONLY COLLECT IN INCOME TAXES $950 billion to 1 trillion a year and over $800 billion of that revenue is used for our total national defense.*

Profit to a private ins co can be taxed. medicare and medicaid are pure cost for us.

 

[Two Thumbs]

I don't see how medicare will cost less by putting this in to the hands of the "beloved" sic Insurance companies when their dministration costs is over 20% and the administration cost of the us gvt is less than 1%?

Are the republicans just in bed with the insurance companies and this is why they want to do this? this makes no sense what so ever.

And why in the heck did the Republicans create their own Medicare Pill Bill and illegally pass it in the House without raising taxes to pay for it, and without allowing us to negotiate bulk discounts with Pharma and without the ability for States to buy their lower cost drugs in Canada, during the Bush administration?
Was it purposely to make medicare "Wither on the Vine"....

this pisses me off to no end.

the national homeland security and defense budget has gone from $290 billion a year in the year 2000 to now $819 billion A YEAR in total.

WE ONLY COLLECT IN INCOME TAXES $950 billion to 1 trillion a year and over $800 billion of that revenue is used for our total national defense.*

Medicare Part D, the pill bill. Is the only part of medicar/caid that's on or under budget (last I checked)

 

[Two Thumbs]

We have just about the highest infant mortality of any industrial nation. Cutting medical benefits for the young mothers will only make this worst. Ain't America great?

Stop aborting babies.... theres a start on that issue.


Take that red herring and go cook it, I hear they taste great this time of year.

Old rocks is lying [quelle surprise]

Iceland has an infant mortality rate of .29%, America has a rate of .63%

List of countries by infant mortality rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

there are a vast array of industialised countries behind us.

 

[Toro]

how is this different from any of their other "stiick it to the people who need it most" proposals? they are too busy redistributing wealth away from the middle class to the top 1% to have the discussions that REALLY need to be had. i'm not really interested in listening to how there's no money when they renewed tax cuts for rich people.... especially in the face of a fragile recovery.

I don't know if this is the right answer or not. But I do know that it is a serious answer to a serious question.

The Republican Party has been talking about cutting the deficit and cutting spending without cutting anything meaningful. If you are going to cut, you have to cut social security, medicare/medicaid and/or defense. Of those, the one that threatens our financial viability the most is medicare/medicaid. So I give full credit to the Republicans for having the guts to stake out a legitimate answer.

The Democrats, on the other hand, have not offered anything. They are proposing to tax "the rich" but that doesn't come close to resolving our problems. If the Democrats want to keep all these programs, then they are going to have to tell us how they are going to raise our taxes to pay for all this. They're not doing that.

One might say "We shouldn't be doing this during a recession." Fair enough. Then give us a timetable when you are going to start raising taxes / cutting spending some time in the future, say 3 or 5 years from now.

We have to have a serious conversation about this issue. Paul Ryan and his group are offering serious answers, whether one agrees with them or not. It's time other politicians start doing the same.

 

[StevenC]

The Republicans have been acting like pussies for some time, saying they want to cut the deficit but not cut anything that actually matters. This actually matters. Good for them for having some cahones and laying things on the line. This is a conversation America has to have.

how is this different from any of their other "stiick it to the people who need it most" proposals? they are too busy redistributing wealth away from the middle class to the top 1% to have the discussions that REALLY need to be had. i'm not really interested in listening to how there's no money when they renewed tax cuts for rich people.... especially in the face of a fragile recovery.

And until there's campaign finance reform, (which was effectively permanently blocked by citizens united), politicians are going to keep being beholden to their money men and never make the changes that really need to occur.

From what I read they want to do away with some deductions. I would do away with all deductions.

And on campaign finance. Do you feel the same about democrats being beholden to unions, especially public unions?

 

[Care4all]

how is this different from any of their other "stiick it to the people who need it most" proposals? they are too busy redistributing wealth away from the middle class to the top 1% to have the discussions that REALLY need to be had. i'm not really interested in listening to how there's no money when they renewed tax cuts for rich people.... especially in the face of a fragile recovery.

I don't know if this is the right answer or not. But I do know that it is a serious answer to a serious question.

The Republican Party has been talking about cutting the deficit and cutting spending without cutting anything meaningful. If you are going to cut, you have to cut social security, medicare/medicaid and/or defense. Of those, the one that threatens our financial viability the most is medicare/medicaid. So I give full credit to the Republicans for having the guts to stake out a legitimate answer.

The Democrats, on the other hand, have not offered anything. They are proposing to tax "the rich" but that doesn't come close to resolving our problems. If the Democrats want to keep all these programs, then they are going to have to tell us how they are going to raise our taxes to pay for all this. They're not doing that.

One might say "We shouldn't be doing this during a recession." Fair enough. Then give us a timetable when you are going to start raising taxes / cutting spending some time in the future, say 3 or 5 years from now.

We have to have a serious conversation about this issue. Paul Ryan and his group are offering serious answers, whether one agrees with them or not. It's time other politicians start doing the same.

IF moving medicare in to the hands of the private insurers would save money, then maybe i'd agree with you....but i do NOT see how it could, being that admin costs more than 20 fold with insurance companies vs the gvt.

medicare, SS and our defense budget needs reform/cuts....i agree, but i don't see how this plan accomplishes such.

 

[jillian]

I don't know if this is the right answer or not. But I do know that it is a serious answer to a serious question.

The Republican Party has been talking about cutting the deficit and cutting spending without cutting anything meaningful. If you are going to cut, you have to cut social security, medicare/medicaid and/or defense. Of those, the one that threatens our financial viability the most is medicare/medicaid. So I give full credit to the Republicans for having the guts to stake out a legitimate answer.

The Democrats, on the other hand, have not offered anything. They are proposing to tax "the rich" but that doesn't come close to resolving our problems. If the Democrats want to keep all these programs, then they are going to have to tell us how they are going to raise our taxes to pay for all this. They're not doing that.

One might say "We shouldn't be doing this during a recession." Fair enough. Then give us a timetable when you are going to start raising taxes / cutting spending some time in the future, say 3 or 5 years from now.

We have to have a serious conversation about this issue. Paul Ryan and his group are offering serious answers, whether one agrees with them or not. It's time other politicians start doing the same.

Thank you for your response. You know I have great respect for what you have to say. I see your point. But Paul Ryan, to me at least, is only voicing what the repubs have said before -- shrink government until you can drown it in the bathtub. There is a dialogue to be had. But I don't know how we have it under the current circumstances. I'd also kind of like to know where these "deficit hawks" were while they sucked the surplus out of our federal government? Is it wrong for me to point out the double standard? I understand why we need to make cuts. And certainly waste should be looked at everywhere. But I am looking at what the budget cuts are doing in NY. I am looking at what budget cuts are doing nationally. And I don't see how it is the burden of the people who can least afford it to fix this mess.

So yes, there is a dialogue to be had. But the people we now have to have the dialogue with (through reasons I can't even begin to address here) want to shut down the government. They think it is a badge of honor to destroy unions.... destroy the middle class... and keep labor cheap for corporatists. I have one foot in each camp, so I understand both arguments. And there is benefit to both arguments. But I do not trust the motivations of the people who are demanding the cuts which, perhaps, limits the extent of my willingness to compromise with them.

Finally, I have always thought that until political campaigns were government funded, with each politician getting X dollars, then nothing good would occur. No one now is willing to risk the ire of the citizens united types. it is too costly, as we found out in november.

 

[AquaAthena]

The Republicans have been acting like pussies for some time, saying they want to cut the deficit but not cut anything that actually matters. This actually matters. Good for them for having some cahones and laying things on the line. This is a conversation America has to have.

how is this different from any of their other "stiick it to the people who need it most" proposals? they are too busy redistributing wealth away from the middle class to the top 1% to have the discussions that REALLY need to be had. i'm not really interested in listening to how there's no money when they renewed tax cuts for rich people.... especially in the face of a fragile recovery.

And until there's campaign finance reform, (which was effectively permanently blocked by citizens united), politicians are going to keep being beholden to their money men and never make the changes that really need to occur.

This was approved by a dem controlled Congress.

We are deep deep in the hole. We need to do something to fix the situation and keeping every single touchy feely program going has not, is not and will not work.


It's dead in the water anyway. It will pass the House but I doubt the Senate will even vote for it.

"Foreign aid has never been politically popular in the United States, and now is the time to put it on the table in the budget talks. If the Democrats want to shut down the government so that we can give more money in foreign aid, let them do it!"

"When Americans understand the extent to which we, as the nation running the largest budget deficit in the world, are subsidizing almost every other nation on the planet, their patience will be exhausted."

CUT FOREIGN AID BUDGET NOW at DickMorris.com

Off to work peeps and running late because of all this posting...geesh...

 

[jillian]

The Republicans have been acting like pussies for some time, saying they want to cut the deficit but not cut anything that actually matters. This actually matters. Good for them for having some cahones and laying things on the line. This is a conversation America has to have.

how is this different from any of their other "stiick it to the people who need it most" proposals? they are too busy redistributing wealth away from the middle class to the top 1% to have the discussions that REALLY need to be had. i'm not really interested in listening to how there's no money when they renewed tax cuts for rich people.... especially in the face of a fragile recovery.

And until there's campaign finance reform, (which was effectively permanently blocked by citizens united), politicians are going to keep being beholden to their money men and never make the changes that really need to occur.

From what I read they want to do away with some deductions. I would do away with all deductions.

And on campaign finance. Do you feel the same about democrats being beholden to unions, especially public unions?

how would you do away with all deductions? people who run businesses have salaries to pay, offices to rent and operational expenses. if you don't allow those expenses to be deducted, you are taxing gross income instead of net income. that would make running a small business unaffordable.

is that really what you want to do?

 

[jillian]

This was approved by a dem controlled Congress.

We are deep deep in the hole. We need to do something to fix the situation and keeping every single touchy feely program going has not, is not and will not work.


It's dead in the water anyway. It will pass the House but I doubt the Senate will even vote for it.

yes, it was. and to my mind it was stupid.

but do you recall what was going on at the time? the rightwingnuts refusing to vote for START or fund unemployment insurance until rich people got their cuts?

yeah, thought you forgot.

let me know when you're going to stop giving corporate welfare and we'll discuss the "touchy feely" stuff like my son's education and old people's social security and medicare.

 

[gekaap]

The U.S. should cut foreign aid to countries that we have no strategic interest in:

"American foreign aid appropriations have escalated from about $20 billion in 2000 to $50 billion today.

"Almost every single nation on earth gets our foreign aid. The major recipients of the $35 billion in economic aid we dispense are: Afghanistan, $2.6 billion; Israel, $3 billion; Iraq, $766 million; and Egypt, $1.6 billion. But beyond these aid packages, we give Africa $7 billion in economic aid each year. We donate $2 billion to the Western Hemisphere (only about $400 million of it to Haiti). We give Asia, apart from Afghanistan, $2 billion. And we give Europe almost $1 billion.

"Foreign aid has never been politically popular in the United States, and now is the time to put it on the table in the budget talks. If the Democrats want to shut down the government so that we can give more money in foreign aid, let them do it."

More: CUT FOREIGN AID BUDGET NOW at DickMorris.com

THANK YOU!!!! The first thing people always want to do is take the axe to benefits that go to Americans. The FIRST thing we should do is stop spending our tax dollars to benefit other countries. That is the very first place to cut spending.

 

[WillowTree]

I don't know if this is the right answer or not. But I do know that it is a serious answer to a serious question.

The Republican Party has been talking about cutting the deficit and cutting spending without cutting anything meaningful. If you are going to cut, you have to cut social security, medicare/medicaid and/or defense. Of those, the one that threatens our financial viability the most is medicare/medicaid. So I give full credit to the Republicans for having the guts to stake out a legitimate answer.

The Democrats, on the other hand, have not offered anything. They are proposing to tax "the rich" but that doesn't come close to resolving our problems. If the Democrats want to keep all these programs, then they are going to have to tell us how they are going to raise our taxes to pay for all this. They're not doing that.

One might say "We shouldn't be doing this during a recession." Fair enough. Then give us a timetable when you are going to start raising taxes / cutting spending some time in the future, say 3 or 5 years from now.

We have to have a serious conversation about this issue. Paul Ryan and his group are offering serious answers, whether one agrees with them or not. It's time other politicians start doing the same.

Thank you for your response. You know I have great respect for what you have to say. I see your point. But Paul Ryan, to me at least, is only voicing what the repubs have said before -- shrink government until you can drown it in the bathtub. There is a dialogue to be had. But I don't know how we have it under the current circumstances. I'd also kind of like to know where these "deficit hawks" were while they sucked the surplus out of our federal government? Is it wrong for me to point out the double standard? I understand why we need to make cuts. And certainly waste should be looked at everywhere. But I am looking at what the budget cuts are doing in NY. I am looking at what budget cuts are doing nationally. And I don't see how it is the burden of the people who can least afford it to fix this mess.

So yes, there is a dialogue to be had. But the people we now have to have the dialogue with (through reasons I can't even begin to address here) want to shut down the government. They think it is a badge of honor to destroy unions.... destroy the middle class... and keep labor cheap for corporatists. I have one foot in each camp, so I understand both arguments. And there is benefit to both arguments. But I do not trust the motivations of the people who are demanding the cuts which, perhaps, limits the extent of my willingness to compromise with them.

Finally, I have always thought that until political campaigns were government funded, with each politician getting X dollars, then nothing good would occur. No one now is willing to risk the ire of the citizens united types. it is too costly, as we found out in november.

The only people who really want to shut down the government are the democrats and they want to so they can blame the Republicans. Why do you hate your country so much?

 

[rightwinger]

We have just about the highest infant mortality of any industrial nation. Cutting medical benefits for the young mothers will only make this worst. Ain't America great?

We could teach our children not to have children out of wedlock so that we have two responsible parents taking care of the medical bills.

Radical concept, I know. But personally, I'd rather treat the problem and not throw money at the symptoms like you do.

From a government standpoint, what do you propose to do?

 

[rightwinger]

4 trillion over ten years?

We spent $2 trillion just by extending the Bush/Obama tax cuts

 

[Two Thumbs]

how is this different from any of their other "stiick it to the people who need it most" proposals? they are too busy redistributing wealth away from the middle class to the top 1% to have the discussions that REALLY need to be had. i'm not really interested in listening to how there's no money when they renewed tax cuts for rich people.... especially in the face of a fragile recovery.

And until there's campaign finance reform, (which was effectively permanently blocked by citizens united), politicians are going to keep being beholden to their money men and never make the changes that really need to occur.

From what I read they want to do away with some deductions. I would do away with all deductions.

And on campaign finance. Do you feel the same about democrats being beholden to unions, especially public unions?

how would you do away with all deductions? people who run businesses have salaries to pay, offices to rent and operational expenses. if you don't allow those expenses to be deducted, you are taxing gross income instead of net income. that would make running a small business unaffordable.

is that really what you want to do?

It would fall to supply and demand.

A company must have a product. It will buy the product that gets it a deduction. The supplier of it knows there will be a deduction so it can jack up the price. Once that deduction is gone, the supplier will have to lower his price to keep his product in demand.

It's not perfect, but no one will be crushed just b/c they have deductions taken away. If so, they were doomed from the start.

 

[Truthmatters]

The American people do not like the R proposal.

This is a democracy and it will hit the trash can where it belongs

 

[Truthmatters]

"A Massachusetts Republican, on Thursday denounced GOP suggestions to cut social and cultural programs as “irresponsible,” In a Thursday floor speech and in a letter to Senate leaders, Brown said that while cuts “reducing and eliminating needless spending and programs are appropriate … a wholesale reduction in spending, without considering economic, cultural, and social impacts is simply irresponsible."

- Scott Brown

Gotta cut something. Or raise taxes. By a lot, a whole lot. Pick one or the other. Or both. But America is living in a surreal world right now, racking up an enormous amount of debt while covering its eyes and shutting its hears trying to ignore the ramifications of its reckless ways.

We've got to have an adult conversation about taxes and spending. This is part of that conversation.

I bet they will find Americans would rather have a tax increase on the wealthy than dump these programs

 

[WillowTree]

Ryan says.. "Lower the taxes, broaden the tax base." That means an end to takers taking and never giving.

 

[Two Thumbs]

This was approved by a dem controlled Congress.

We are deep deep in the hole. We need to do something to fix the situation and keeping every single touchy feely program going has not, is not and will not work.


It's dead in the water anyway. It will pass the House but I doubt the Senate will even vote for it.

yes, it was. and to my mind it was stupid.

but do you recall what was going on at the time? the rightwingnuts refusing to vote for START or fund unemployment insurance until rich people got their cuts?

yeah, thought you forgot.

let me know when you're going to stop giving corporate welfare and we'll discuss the "touchy feely" stuff like my son's education and old people's social security and medicare.

I didn't forget. There was a lot of stuff going on, to much to mention, but I could bring up a lot of stuff that you didn't mention and claim you forgot. So lets not be that lame.

I am not, was not and will not be for corporate welfare. I was one of many that said to let them suffer and either die off or self fix.

Can your son work? if so, he can work his way through college.
Can you care for your mother? If so. Why do you demand money from me and my children to help you not have to do so?

 

[rightwinger]

"A Massachusetts Republican, on Thursday denounced GOP suggestions to cut social and cultural programs as “irresponsible,” In a Thursday floor speech and in a letter to Senate leaders, Brown said that while cuts “reducing and eliminating needless spending and programs are appropriate … a wholesale reduction in spending, without considering economic, cultural, and social impacts is simply irresponsible."

- Scott Brown

Gotta cut something. Or raise taxes. By a lot, a whole lot. Pick one or the other. Or both. But America is living in a surreal world right now, racking up an enormous amount of debt while covering its eyes and shutting its hears trying to ignore the ramifications of its reckless ways.

We've got to have an adult conversation about taxes and spending. This is part of that conversation.

I bet they will find Americans would rather have a tax increase on the wealthy than dump these programs

Basically, what the Republicans are saying is that "We extended tax cuts on the wealthy" (with Obamas blessing) and we are going to make the poor and elderly pay for it