GOP Aiming to Cut $4 Trillion

I think it's an excellent starting point....A good way to warm up for the Entree.It's the appetizer portion of the meal I hope.Get back to me when we get serious about putting a stop to this runaway Democrat gone amok spending.
 
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?

well, then maybe we can agree that corporations should pay their fair share like we do.

my son is 13. no. he can't work. I'm talking about his public education. also, college now does not cost what it did when i went to college. and i didn't work my way THROUGH college. I worked summers while I went to college. I had student loans which I paid back at a reasonable rate of interest within x number of years after I graduated because I was able to earn enough to live on while I paid that reasonable amount. That circumstance no longer exists.

I figure my son is entitled to the same opportunities that I had. But his college will cost $150,000, mine didn't. The state university I went to now requires something like a 96 average (and heaven knows what SAT grades) because more and more students are competing for the reasonably priced places rather than mortgage their lives on a private school.

I don't demand that you pay for my son's college. I ask that my son have the same opportunities that I had and that the radical right is destroying.

oh.. and i agree with you re legalizing drugs. they should also legalize (and tax) prostitution.

My wife is going back to college and it will cost us $15k for a year. If you have to pony up 150k, you might want to think of going elsewhere.

No one is saying your son can't go. We are saying we shouldn't pay for him to go. If that means community college, then so be it. Supply and demand rules the day, once again. If colleges no longer get mass funding from grants and loans, they will lose studints b/c they can't afford to go [for what ever reason], therefore the college will be forced to lower it's cost.

Legalize prostitution? :eusa_angel:

So what you are saying is; You wanna tax that ass! :eusa_angel::lol:

where is she going to college? if its a community college, that's not acceptable. also, i'll figure she isn't going to be living at the school... i would assume he will be.

no, my son shouldn't go to community college. his mother went to law school because of opportunities available to her. Those opportunities are not charity. I didn't get a single thing that was free. And I certainly won't accept that my son should aspire to less than I did so some CEO's earnings can go up 27% a year while the average worker makes an additional 2% a year. if there were a real true inability for him to have the opportunities that were available to me, then i would understand. but there isn't. and, frankly, the redistribution of wealth to the top 1% by use of tax policy is STILL redistribution of wealth. The middle class doesn't exist without government intervention and the song of woe by the "i hate government" types isn't compelling to me.

You can choose to live that way. I don't.
 
Last edited:
The Democrats are the 'Party of No' at this point. They haven't been helpful at all. At least the Republicans are trying to fix things. I'm willing to give them credit for this. So WTG Republicans.

Republicans know this is a Republic.. only dimwit democrats think it is a democracy.. :cuckoo:
 
Try and pass it in this democracy.

see what happens

It will pass the House but the sissy dims in the Senate won't have the stones to put it up for a vote.

The dems want to destroy America by killing it with debt.

Why do you support destroying America?

perhaps if you stopped calling people who disagree with you "dims", you might be able to have a discussion on the issues.

the question could be asked, "why do you want to turn this country into a banana republic"?




come on sissy.. you call your opponents "wingnuts" and sech! :lol:
 
Try and pass it in this democracy.

see what happens

It will pass the House but the sissy dims in the Senate won't have the stones to put it up for a vote.

The dems want to destroy America by killing it with debt.

Why do you support destroying America?

perhaps if you stopped calling people who disagree with you "dims", you might be able to have a discussion on the issues.

the question could be asked, "why do you want to turn this country into a banana republic"?

I tend to respond in kind.

A reasonable poster gets a reasonable response..

Junk like banana republic...

I don't know how travled you are, or if you pay any attention to what goes on in other places.

If you wanna see what happens when a country goes broke b/c they spent way more than they could take in, just look a Greece. Riot after riot. And no, I don't mean protest. of people demanding the government keep spending.

Sorry, the idea of spending our way out is a failed idea. It's going to suck for most of us.

We either all take a bite of the shit sandwich or go down in literal flames.
 
well, then maybe we can agree that corporations should pay their fair share like we do.

my son is 13. no. he can't work. I'm talking about his public education. also, college now does not cost what it did when i went to college. and i didn't work my way THROUGH college. I worked summers while I went to college. I had student loans which I paid back at a reasonable rate of interest within x number of years after I graduated because I was able to earn enough to live on while I paid that reasonable amount. That circumstance no longer exists.

I figure my son is entitled to the same opportunities that I had. But his college will cost $150,000, mine didn't. The state university I went to now requires something like a 96 average (and heaven knows what SAT grades) because more and more students are competing for the reasonably priced places rather than mortgage their lives on a private school.

I don't demand that you pay for my son's college. I ask that my son have the same opportunities that I had and that the radical right is destroying.

oh.. and i agree with you re legalizing drugs. they should also legalize (and tax) prostitution.

My wife is going back to college and it will cost us $15k for a year. If you have to pony up 150k, you might want to think of going elsewhere.

No one is saying your son can't go. We are saying we shouldn't pay for him to go. If that means community college, then so be it. Supply and demand rules the day, once again. If colleges no longer get mass funding from grants and loans, they will lose studints b/c they can't afford to go [for what ever reason], therefore the college will be forced to lower it's cost.

Legalize prostitution? :eusa_angel:

So what you are saying is; You wanna tax that ass! :eusa_angel::lol:

where is she going to college? if its a community college, that's not acceptable. also, i'll figure she isn't going to be living at the school... i would assume he will be.

no, my son shouldn't go to community college. his mother went to law school because of opportunities available to her. Those opportunities are not charity. I didn't get a single thing that was free. And I certainly won't accept that my son should aspire to less than I did so some CEO's earnings can go up 27% a year while the average worker makes an additional 2% a year. if there were a real true inability for him to have the opportunities that were available to me, then i would understand. but there isn't. and, frankly, the redistribution of wealth to the top 1% by use of tax policy is STILL redistribution of wealth. The middle class doesn't exist without government intervention and the song of woe by the "i hate government" types isn't compelling to me.

You can choose to live that way. I don't.

So, you advocate for the government to "set the payscales"? Is this correct?
 
Now THAT is a budget plan.

Republicans will present this week a 2012 budget proposal that would cut more than $4 trillion from federal spending projected over the next decade and transform the Medicare health program for the elderly, a move that will dramatically reshape the budget debate in Washington. ...

The plan would essentially end Medicare, which now pays most of the health-care bills for 48 million elderly and disabled Americans, as a program that directly pays those bills. Mr. Ryan and other conservatives say this is necessary because of the program's soaring costs. Medicare cost $396.5 billion in 2010 and is projected to rise to $502.8 billion in 2016. At that pace, spending on the program would have doubled between 2002 and 2016.

Mr. Ryan's proposal would apply to those currently under the age of 55, and, for those Americans would convert Medicare into a "premium support" system. Participants from that group would choose from an array of private insurance plans when they reach 65 and become eligible, and the government would pay about the first $15,000 in premiums. Those who are poorer or less healthy would receive bigger payments than others. ...

The proposal would also convert Medicaid, the health program for the poor, into a series of block grants to give states more flexibility. And it is expected to suggest significant cuts in Social Security, while proposing fewer details on how to achieve them. ...

Conservative activists who are familiar with the Ryan plan said they expect it to call for a fundamental overhaul of the tax system, with a 25% top rate for both individuals and corporations, compared to the current 35% top rate. It is expected to raise about the same amount of money as the current system, however. Lawmakers already are considering ways to accomplish that by reducing or eliminating some deductions and other tax breaks.

Some conservatives also expected the budget plan to tout a temporary tax change that would let U.S. multinationals bring home as much as $1 trillion in profits at a greatly reduced tax rate. That money currently is parked overseas, beyond the reach of U.S. corporate taxation.

...

GOP Budget Aim: Cut $4 Trillion From Spending - WSJ.com

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.

One day you'll start thinking for yourself.
 
My wife is going back to college and it will cost us $15k for a year. If you have to pony up 150k, you might want to think of going elsewhere.

No one is saying your son can't go. We are saying we shouldn't pay for him to go. If that means community college, then so be it. Supply and demand rules the day, once again. If colleges no longer get mass funding from grants and loans, they will lose studints b/c they can't afford to go [for what ever reason], therefore the college will be forced to lower it's cost.

Legalize prostitution? :eusa_angel:

So what you are saying is; You wanna tax that ass! :eusa_angel::lol:

where is she going to college? if its a community college, that's not acceptable. also, i'll figure she isn't going to be living at the school... i would assume he will be.

no, my son shouldn't go to community college. his mother went to law school because of opportunities available to her. Those opportunities are not charity. I didn't get a single thing that was free. And I certainly won't accept that my son should aspire to less than I did so some CEO's earnings can go up 27% a year while the average worker makes an additional 2% a year. if there were a real true inability for him to have the opportunities that were available to me, then i would understand. but there isn't. and, frankly, the redistribution of wealth to the top 1% by use of tax policy is STILL redistribution of wealth. The middle class doesn't exist without government intervention and the song of woe by the "i hate government" types isn't compelling to me.

You can choose to live that way. I don't.

So, you advocate for the government to "set the payscales"? Is this correct?

sorry willow, i'm not going to bother with troll questions.

let grown ups talk. mmmmkay?

what i will suggest is that you re-read and tell me where i said that.

comprehension is your friend. try it.
 
where is she going to college? if its a community college, that's not acceptable. also, i'll figure she isn't going to be living at the school... i would assume he will be.

no, my son shouldn't go to community college. his mother went to law school because of opportunities available to her. Those opportunities are not charity. I didn't get a single thing that was free. And I certainly won't accept that my son should aspire to less than I did so some CEO's earnings can go up 27% a year while the average worker makes an additional 2% a year. if there were a real true inability for him to have the opportunities that were available to me, then i would understand. but there isn't. and, frankly, the redistribution of wealth to the top 1% by use of tax policy is STILL redistribution of wealth. The middle class doesn't exist without government intervention and the song of woe by the "i hate government" types isn't compelling to me.

You can choose to live that way. I don't.

So, you advocate for the government to "set the payscales"? Is this correct?

sorry willow, i'm not going to bother with troll questions.

let grown ups talk. mmmmkay?

what i will suggest is that you re-read and tell me where i said that.

comprehension is your friend. try it.

It wasn't a troll question. It was an honest question. The left wing complains constantly about the gap in CEO vs the workers pay scales. Do you or do you not advocate for "government setting the payscales."?
 
So, you advocate for the government to "set the payscales"? Is this correct?

sorry willow, i'm not going to bother with troll questions.

let grown ups talk. mmmmkay?

what i will suggest is that you re-read and tell me where i said that.

comprehension is your friend. try it.

It wasn't a troll question. It was an honest question. The left wing complains constantly about the gap in CEO vs the workers pay scales. Do you or do you not advocate for "government setting the payscales."?

Your question seemed pretty clear and reasonable to me the first time regarding the post you responded to
 
i have no problem with those that buy the corporation's products, be the ones who help pay the cor[poration's taxes....

it would be unfair for those of us who do NOT buy the corporation's products, have to pay for their share of taxes Willow.

I see your wisdom there Care 4 nuttin.. You'd buy GE light bulbs cause Immelt is obie wan's buddy and GE pays Zero taxes.. got it. :cuckoo:

incoherent gibberish to me.....

I have NEVER supported companies making billions upon billions in profits, while taking my taxes in a credit.

but I did answer your original question and you come back with WHAT? nothing but nonsense willow....I guess that's just your thing.... :(
 
i have no problem with those that buy the corporation's products, be the ones who help pay the cor[poration's taxes....

it would be unfair for those of us who do NOT buy the corporation's products, have to pay for their share of taxes Willow.

I see your wisdom there Care 4 nuttin.. You'd buy GE light bulbs cause Immelt is obie wan's buddy and GE pays Zero taxes.. got it. :cuckoo:

incoherent gibberish to me.....

I have NEVER supported companies making billions upon billions in profits, while taking my taxes in a credit.

but I did answer your original question and you come back with WHAT? nothing but nonsense willow....I guess that's just your thing.... :(








i have no problem with those that buy the corporation's products, be the ones who help pay the cor[poration's taxes....

it would be unfair for those of us who do NOT buy the corporation's products, have to pay for their share of taxes Willow



:cuckoo:
 
Who disagrees with the idea that if corporations are taxed those taxes are passed on to the consumer? Anybody?

me...it's a nice story but considering the "free market" once they raise their prices way over what people will pay, they will go out of business.
 
So, you advocate for the government to "set the payscales"? Is this correct?

sorry willow, i'm not going to bother with troll questions.

let grown ups talk. mmmmkay?

what i will suggest is that you re-read and tell me where i said that.

comprehension is your friend. try it.

It wasn't a troll question. It was an honest question. The left wing complains constantly about the gap in CEO vs the workers pay scales. Do you or do you not advocate for "government setting the payscales."?

Jilly willy doesn't do reality all that well.
 
Once again this is a Democracy and a republic is a type of democracy.

Its the definition of the words.

How do you think the American people would vote on ending medicare?

Keep medicare or save the country from crushing debt.

gee, that's a tuffy.

Besides the fact that 70% of the nation do not want Medicare to go away and just disagree on how its run kind of kills the choice.

again doing away of Medicare will not solve our debt problem.

You audit medicare, You audit all government programs. You close loops holes in the tax system, You tax corporations. If they dont like it they can leave, but bottom line is where ever they run to those things will eventually change as well.
Seems these corporations are willing to bend over for the likes of China. (john deere) But not the USA? that reeks of anti patriotism if i ever saw it. I'd point that out and see how they like it.

You slash the military and bring people home from bases.

but of course these things will never happen. Everyone at the top is circling jerking each other in order to gain more power, while we here at the bottom squabble over gays and abortion,retards from Alaska, and Birth certificates.

What a moron, Tax corporations,, if they don't like it they can leave, but if they leave they are anti patriotic..

Yep, slash the military, that's the ticket,, let Scotland defend you,, yep..
 
It's pretty simple. Start giving everyone free houses, cars, groceries,.....like the government and it's endless charity entitlements right now, put it to a vote and it will not go away. This is what we were warned about by those angry white men who founded the country AKA----- sacking the treasury....and it's not sustainable. Combine endless entitlements with perpetual wars and....voila, we have a government in its death throes.
 
Who disagrees with the idea that if corporations are taxed those taxes are passed on to the consumer? Anybody?

me...it's a nice story but considering the "free market" once they raise their prices way over what people will pay, they will go out of business.

Right, you mean like when oil prices go up the price of gasoline doesn't?

No not like that at all because OPEC is screwing us all. They have 10 million reasons why the oil costs so much but none of them involve the words greed, monopoly, or collusion.
 
Reason has an excellent article regarding getting federal spending down to 19% of GDP.

Snippets:

Here’s an appalling snapshot: During fiscal year 2010, which ended on September 30, the government spent around $3.6 trillion, or 25 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), while collecting $2.1 trillion in tax revenue, or 14.5 percent of GDP. The resulting deficit was $1.5 trillion. The total debt held by the public—the sum of all accumulated annual deficits and interest payments—reached 63 percent of GDP.

You have to go back to 1946, in the immediate aftermath of World War II, to find spending that was as large a percentage of GDP. You need to return to 1945 to find a deficit that big on a percentage basis as well. Just a few years ago, in 2007, the debt was 36.2 percent of GDP. If current trends continue, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects, the number will reach 87 percent in 2020. Most economists talk about a debt equal to 60 percent of GDP as a trigger point where investors become very nervous about a country’s ability to pay its obligations.

(snip)

In fiscal year 2010, the federal government spent 25 percent of GDP, well above the historical average. Since 1950 annual expenditures have averaged just under 20 percent of GDP. According to the CBO’s “alternative scenario” budget projection—which assumes the most likely policy changes, including legislators’ concessions to interest groups such as doctors and senior citizens—spending at its current trajectory will increase to 26 percent of GDP in 2020 and to 32 percent in 2030.

(snip)

The 19 Percent Solution

As noted, annual federal revenue since 1950 has averaged just under 18 percent of GDP. Sometimes the percentage is a bit lower, and sometimes it is a bit higher. In 2010, for instance, due to the weak economy, revenue was only 14.5 percent of GDP. Under Bill Clinton, revenues reached 19.9 percent, 19.8 percent, and 20.6 percent between 1998–2000, helping to produce surpluses. Such upticks are typically short-lived, and to the extent that they produce surpluses, political pressure inevitably builds to reduce revenue levels or return the money to taxpayers in one form or another—through rebates, tax cuts, or increased spending. It’s worth remembering that both major-party candidates campaigned on tax cuts during the 2000 election.

Under the CBO’s basic projection, which amounts to little more than running numbers supplied by politicians, federal revenue will rise to 20 percent of GDP in 2015 and then climb even higher, reaching 21 percent in 2020 and 22.3 percent in 2030. If history is any guide, such estimates are pure fantasy. Under the CBO’s more realistic “alternative scenario,” federal revenue will equal about 19 percent of GDP within a few years and then stay around that level. Even that projection is a bit of a stretch, to judge from the last 60 years, but it is far more plausible than the basic projection. For the purposes of this budgeting exercise, we are willing to give the alternative forecast the benefit of the doubt.

So as a starting point, we assume that federal revenue will be about 19 percent of GDP in any given year. To put that into plain numbers, the GDP in 2010 was about $14.6 trillion. If the government spent 19 percent of GDP, it would have spent no more than $2.8 trillion, as opposed to the $3.6 trillion it actually shelled out. (We use fiscal year 2010 figures because, as of this writing, no federal budget has been passed for fiscal year 2011.) Federal spending will vary from year to year, especially in response to such unpredictable events as natural disasters, recessions, and acts of war. But like a family that dips into savings or lives on credit cards during short downturns, the government can survive such swings from time to time.

In absolute dollars, getting to 19 percent immediately would mean cutting $829 billion out of the budget, which isn’t a politically realistic target at the moment. Getting to 19 percent within a few years, though, would require a series of far smaller cuts because of the expected economic recovery. One of the tasks assigned to Obama’s debt commission was finding ways to close the primary spending gap (the deficit excluding interest payments) in 2015. That would mean cutting about $243 billion from a budget projected to be $4.1 trillion.

That’s a 5.9 percent reduction, the sort of cut that many businesses and households have managed relatively easily during the recession. In its “A Thousand Cuts” study, the Center for American Progress lays out (with reservations) a series of spending cuts that total $255 billion in current dollars. The trims include a 75 percent reduction in farm subsidies (saving $11 billion), a 12.5 percent cut in military spending (saving $96 billion), and $53 billion in terminated “tax expenditures”—spending done through the tax code such as the child tax credit or the home mortgage interest deduction.


The 19 Percent Solution - Reason Magazine
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top