Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Not quite...Here we go with the political stalemate.
Repubs say "Cut!"
Dems say "What?"
Repubs say "Cut!"
Dems say "But cut what?"
Repubs say "Cut!"
Dems say "The military!"
Repubs say "Cut!"
Dems say "The military!"
But don't even utter a whisper about reducing the baseline increases, let alone propose actual cuts, in spending for their beloved domestic socialistic welfare state.
We have already cut domestic spending. Your turn.
Not quite...Here we go with the political stalemate.
Repubs say "Cut!"
Dems say "What?"
Repubs say "Cut!"
Dems say "But cut what?"
Repubs say "Cut!"
Dems say "The military!"
Repubs say "Cut!"
Dems say "The military!"
But don't even utter a whisper about reducing the baseline increases, let alone propose actual cuts, in spending for their beloved domestic socialistic welfare state.
We have already cut domestic spending. Your turn.
Not quite...
Repubs say "Cut!"
Dems say "The military!"
Repubs say "Cut!"
Dems say "The military!"
But don't even utter a whisper about reducing the baseline increases, let alone propose actual cuts, in spending for their beloved domestic socialistic welfare state.
We have already cut domestic spending. Your turn.
Another boldface lie by the troll....
That makes it even sillier.Did you even read the article? The proposal is over 10 years. Not 1.The point is that you cannot cut $1T in spending when $655B was spent.I think you are leaving out Discretionary Spending. Let's look at 2010:
That makes it even sillier.Did you even read the article? The proposal is over 10 years. Not 1.The point is that you cannot cut $1T in spending when $655B was spent.
Assuming that federal spending does not increase at -ALL- from FY2009, you're talking $1T
across $35.1T in spending, a 2.8% reduction in spending.
Assuming that Federal spending grows at just 4% for each of the next 10 years - half of the average growth of federal spending over the last 10 years) that's $1T over almost $45T, or 2.2% reduction in spending.
There's lots of time and effort here that could be put into something that makes a significant difference.
I see you ddin't even TRY try to address what I said.That makes it even sillier.Did you even read the article? The proposal is over 10 years. Not 1.
Assuming that federal spending does not increase at -ALL- from FY2009, you're talking $1T
across $35.1T in spending, a 2.8% reduction in spending.
Assuming that Federal spending grows at just 4% for each of the next 10 years - half of the average growth of federal spending over the last 10 years) that's $1T over almost $45T, or 2.2% reduction in spending.
There's lots of time and effort here that could be put into something that makes a significant difference.
Whats silly is you came in here ready to argue and didn't even bother reading the article first.
I see you ddin't even TRY try to address what I said.That makes it even sillier.
Assuming that federal spending does not increase at -ALL- from FY2009, you're talking $1T
across $35.1T in spending, a 2.8% reduction in spending.
Assuming that Federal spending grows at just 4% for each of the next 10 years - half of the average growth of federal spending over the last 10 years) that's $1T over almost $45T, or 2.2% reduction in spending.
There's lots of time and effort here that could be put into something that makes a significant difference.
Whats silly is you came in here ready to argue and didn't even bother reading the article first.
The cuts have to come across the board, not just from one sector.I guess a page and a half before this went off topic is not too bad.
The cuts have to come across the board, not just from one sector.I guess a page and a half before this went off topic is not too bad.
I, for one, am all for cutting the needless and wasteful military spending associated with maintaining quasi-empire in Europe, Japan and elsewhere.....It won't be too difficult to bring military budgets within the percentages in the OP, with that as an important first step.
Yet we rarely, if ever, get to hear those who would so cheerfully cut the military, wield the cleaver in the direction of their beloved socialistic welfare state...Indeed, they'll be the first ones to glom onto the money not spent in that military waste, in order to squander on further expansion of those equally pointless and failed programs.
Your red herring still doesn't t address what I said. This supposed $100B/yr cut strung over 10 years is meaningless compared to the total amount of momey spent, especially given the exceptionally low rates of projected growth in that spending. It also does not address the REAL issue behind the deficts - out of control etitlement spending, as that proposed $100B cut is 20% of just the GROWTH of entitlement spending.So if it's only 2.2% and thats not enough of a cut like you say, then how would you cut the military budget so that it is a worthwhile cut and makes an actual difference?I see you ddin't even TRY try to address what I said.Whats silly is you came in here ready to argue and didn't even bother reading the article first.
Your red herring still doesn't t address what I said. This supposed $100B/yr cut strung over 10 years is meaningless compared to the total amount of momey spent, especially given the exceptionally low rates of projected growth in that spending. It also does not address the REAL issue behind the deficts - out of control etitlement spending, as that proposed $100B cut is 20% of just the GROWTH of entitlement spending.So if it's only 2.2% and thats not enough of a cut like you say, then how would you cut the military budget so that it is a worthwhile cut and makes an actual difference?I see you ddin't even TRY try to address what I said.
Until that issue is addressed, there need be no conversation regarding cutting defense as defense spending doesn't drive the deficit.
Yes... which is a useless exercise.Your red herring still doesn't t address what I said. This supposed $100B/yr cut strung over 10 years is meaningless compared to the total amount of momey spent, especially given the exceptionally low rates of projected growth in that spending. It also does not address the REAL issue behind the deficts - out of control etitlement spending, as that proposed $100B cut is 20% of just the GROWTH of entitlement spending.So if it's only 2.2% and thats not enough of a cut like you say, then how would you cut the military budget so that it is a worthwhile cut and makes an actual difference?
Until that issue is addressed, there need be no conversation regarding cutting defense as defense spending doesn't drive the deficit.
So start a thread about your specific plans to cut entitlement programs. This thread is about ways to cut from military spending.
You can inflate any number by inputing other things to it, just as we see here.25% is a big chunk that deserves some cutting.
....
In 1 trillion dollars...there's got to be something you can cut that matters.
I guess a page and a half before this went off topic is not too bad.
