How would YOU cut the deficit?

[M14 Shooter]

Hold on...
Let me find my calculator
Umm 3 + 2 = 5
Yup...It all works out

Even -you- are smart enough to understand that your response avoids the point and does not satisfy the request.

Want me to explain "Trickle Down Economics" to you?

Ok, maybe I was wrong about even -you- being that smart.
No... I want you to show that cutting the things you suggest would save the amounts you claim.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'd roll back spending to the 2007 level (pre the financial crisis), and hold it flat until tax receipts exceeded outlays.

Lets also roll taxes back to 2001 levels and the whole deficit will reduce much faster

So, how much -is- The Obama's tax cut going to cost?

 

[code1211]

What do you think is an 'acceptable' deficit?
The FY2009 deficit was $1413B - what will you cut to get down to that 'acceptable' deficit?

Note that to asnwer the 2nd question, you must include dollar amounts and explain where those figures came from.
That is:
Specify what programs you'd cut/taxes you'd raise, how much they would save/generate, and how you know.

The debt and deficit commission that Obama asked to put forth conclusions had a good set of ideas. Paul Ryan has a good set of ideas.

If we need to have the folks like the general population who knows nothing of this to make the plan as you are asking, then a good first blush is to figure what we collected last year and create a budget based on that.

If not that, then just pick up the 2008 budget and use that.

Regardless of what we cut, we have to cut plenty of it.

1.413 Trillion deficit? In 1998, the whole budget was just a little more than our projected deficit. This can't happen. Paul Ryan is the only national voice that has a clue.

 

[auditor0007]

1. Increase taxes
2. Cut Spending

Now there is an answer, lol. Of course we need to do both, but the question, especially on the cutting side, is where? The truth of the matter is that the bulk of cuts must come from the programs that eat up the most money, namely the Military, SS, and Medicare. I did not include Medicaid because without any other safety net, it must be kept in place. On top of cuts in the Big Three, smaller cuts could be made across the board with just about every program out there, without having to completely cut many programs.

The biggest long term expense we have that is completely underfunded is Medicare. And while Ryan's idea of privatizing it would cap costs, I don't think that anyone wants to see this, not even the insurance companies. The best way to reduce spending for SS and Medicare is simple; raise the retirement age and start raising it sooner rather than later. Over the next twenty years, the retirement age needs to move up to 70 or 71. This is the only way to guarantee full benefits to future retirees. Whether people like it or not, they are going to have to work longer or fund their early retirement on their own.

Last of all, of course taxes need to be raised. By how much, I do not know. What I do know is that the bulk of the raise in taxes will have to come from the wealthy, because they are the only ones who have anything left. And I'm tired of hearing how only the wealthy pay taxes. While it is true that the poor and lower middle class pay few or no federal income taxes, everyone who works pays into SS and Medicare, and that is part of the federal budget. On top of that, all other taxes, excise, sales, property, use, and others take a much bigger chunk out of the paychecks of those who make the least. When you look at all taxes, even the not so well off are paying at least 20%.

Bottom line is that we do need to make significant cuts, and we also have to raise taxes. The key is to not make raising taxes the cure all, without actually making the cuts first. Increasing taxes so that we can increase spending over and over again is not where we need to or can afford to go.

 

[boedicca]

I'd roll back spending to the 2007 level (pre the financial crisis), and hold it flat until tax receipts exceeded outlays.

Lets also roll taxes back to 2001 levels and the whole deficit will reduce much faster

So, how much -is- The Obama's tax cut going to cost?

Nothing. Fedearl income tax rates in 2007 were the same as they are now, and tax receipts were nearly $2.6T.

Our problem is economic growth. Rolling back spending and freeing up resources to invest in and create jobs for the private sector will encourage growth. Once receipts increase, the surplus can be used to pay down debt.

 

[auditor0007]

What do you think is an 'acceptable' deficit?
The FY2009 deficit was $1413B - what will you cut to get down to that 'acceptable' deficit?

Note that to asnwer the 2nd question, you must include dollar amounts and explain where those figures came from.
That is:
Specify what programs you'd cut/taxes you'd raise, how much they would save/generate, and how you know.

The debt and deficit commission that Obama asked to put forth conclusions had a good set of ideas. Paul Ryan has a good set of ideas.

If we need to have the folks like the general population who knows nothing of this to make the plan as you are asking, then a good first blush is to figure what we collected last year and create a budget based on that.

If not that, then just pick up the 2008 budget and use that.

Regardless of what we cut, we have to cut plenty of it.

1.413 Trillion deficit? In 1998, the whole budget was just a little more than our projected deficit. This can't happen. Paul Ryan is the only national voice that has a clue.

While I'm glad Paul Ryan has put forth a proposal to cut Medicare spending, all his proposal would do is transfer the costs from the federal government to the individual, and it would leave many individuals unable to afford the care they will need. Most likely, it would increase the overall cost of care for the elderly as we already know the insurance companies cannot do it as efficiently as the government.

 

[percysunshine]

How would YOU cut the deficit?

Declare Marshal law and fire 1/2 of government workers....but that's just me.

 

[slukasiewski]

I'd cut Michelle's MacDonald's budget

 

[MikeK]

we won in Iraq, we are leaving

Pardon me for focusing on this single item, which is not relevant to the discussion, but that fantastic delusion just jumped out and screamed to be addressed. You said "we won in Iraq?" What exactly did we win?

Invading and occupying Iraq earned us the reputation as a militarily aggressive rogue nation.

It cost us over 4,000 American lives and created tens of thousands of disabled veterans -- maimed, disfigured and psychologically crippled, formerly productive citizens.

It already has cost us in the trillions of dollars and is still adding up.

It cost us a useful ally, Saddam Hussein, who was keeping Iran in check and had served us well in our conflict with that increasingly threatening nation. He was an effectively secular enemy of our fanatical Islamist enemies. And the enemy of our enemy is our friend, whether we like it or not.

And you said we "won" in Iraq. Do you know who won in Iraq? Saudi Arabia, Iran, Israel and the Military Industrial Complex. And next to Iraq we are the big loser.

Instead of invading Iraq we should have aligned with Hussein in an invasion of Saudi Arabia and supported his occupation of that country, in which case we would now be sitting in the catbird seat, paying .50 a gallon for gas -- and the World Trade Center Towers would still be standing.

So let me guess -- you're an undercover Zionist, aren't you?

 

[Wiseacre]

It seems to me the primary objective for the present is economic growth and reducing unemployment, neither of which the gov't is good at. So, until both of these objectives are met taxes should pretty much remain as they are. However, I like Ryan's proposal to reduce the tax rate and eliminate or reduce tax loopholes, deductions, and credits. It's ridiculous to have guys like Buffett paying zero taxes. Also, I'd eliminate corporate taxes altogether, we're only getting a couple hundred billion in revenue anyway, and that should bring a lot more capital back home.

On the spending side, real reductions are going to have to be made on the big ticket things, primarily defense and the entitlements. There's just no way around it, knocking off a few billion here and there in discretionary spending won't cut it (pun intended). Nevertheless, I'd start with returning those categories (ds) back to 2008 levels.

Then I'd look at the recent GAO report concerning gov't waste, and carefully eliminate as many duplicate or outdated programs as possible. Sen Coburn said we could save as much as $200 billion just doing that. Not a bad start.

There are a few federal dep'ts that I see no need for, such as Education, HUD, and HHS. These should be state issues that the federal gov't really has no business in.

Defense is going to have to take a hit with everyone else, which means we can't be starting anymore wars unless our national security is jeopardized. Start with a cool 100 billion in cuts there, and I'd let the Sec'y of Defense and the services make the calls for where to cut instead of letting the Congress be involved. Keep politics out of it and make the cuts that the military decides it least needs.

Which leaves the entitlement programs and welfare. We're going to have to stop paying people not to work, we never should have extended it for 13 months in the 1st place, but once it's over, it should be really over. Get a job.

We're going to have to fix Social Security. Now. Raise the cap from $106,800 to an adjusted higher number and tie that cap to future increases in inflation and/or wages. Or a combination of both. Raise the retirement age by a year for everybody under 50 and another year for those under 40, and another year for those under 30. And we can't be sending checks to millionaires and billionaires, I know they paid in but they don't need it.

Which leaves healthcare as the last big part of the budget. I think Ryan's budget proposal is the way to go, even though it's going to hurt our seniors after the first 10 years. But we can't maintain a system that has no incentive for consumers to keep costs down. Gov't run healthcare is far too fraudulent and wasteful, ObamaCare has got to go.

Sorry, got no numbers for you. These changes may not completely balance the budget but it'll sure cut the deficits down considerably. Once the economy gets going then I'd look at a consumption tax that excludes food and clothing as a way to at least break even and maybe begin to pay down that debt.

 

[Charles_Main]

What do you think is an 'acceptable' deficit?
The FY2009 deficit was $1413B - what will you cut to get down to that 'acceptable' deficit?

Note that to asnwer the 2nd question, you must include dollar amounts and explain where those figures came from.
That is:
Specify what programs you'd cut/taxes you'd raise, how much they would save/generate, and how you know.

I don't think any deficit is acceptable. Government should live within it's means.

I am not going to spell out what I would cut specifically. Lets just say, Nothing would be off the table.

 

[Gadawg73]

we won in Iraq, we are leaving

Pardon me for focusing on this single item, which is not relevant to the discussion, but that fantastic delusion just jumped out and screamed to be addressed. You said "we won in Iraq?" What exactly did we win?

Invading and occupying Iraq earned us the reputation as a militarily aggressive rogue nation.

It cost us over 4,000 American lives and created tens of thousands of disabled veterans -- maimed, disfigured and psychologically crippled, formerly productive citizens.

It already has cost us in the trillions of dollars and is still adding up.

It cost us a useful ally, Saddam Hussein, who was keeping Iran in check and had served us well in our conflict with that increasingly threatening nation. He was an effectively secular enemy of our fanatical Islamist enemies. And the enemy of our enemy is our friend, whether we like it or not.

And you said we "won" in Iraq. Do you know who won in Iraq? Saudi Arabia, Iran, Israel and the Military Industrial Complex. And next to Iraq we are the big loser.

Instead of invading Iraq we should have aligned with Hussein in an invasion of Saudi Arabia and supported his occupation of that country, in which case we would now be sitting in the catbird seat, paying .50 a gallon for gas -- and the World Trade Center Towers would still be standing.

So let me guess -- you're an undercover Zionist, aren't you?

Decent post until you claimed Hussein was a "useful ally".
And the Saudi analysis is insane.
But please roll me not one but TWO out of your bag.

 

[slukasiewski]

Specify what programs you'd cut/taxes you'd raise, how much they would save/generate, and how you know.

Cut the office of the President, Vice President, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

We'd save trillions.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

How would YOU cut the deficit?

Start at the TOP-of-the-list.....

....and, work our way down.

Find-out what's NEEDED....then, cut-out the "fat".​

 

[MikeK]

Decent post until you claimed Hussein was a "useful ally".
And the Saudi analysis is insane.

But please roll me not one but TWO out of your bag.

I always welcome constructive criticism. So if you disagree, please explain why.

Hussein didn't attack us. Fifteen of the nineteen shahids who did attack us were Saudi. None were Iraqi.

I saw no good reason for Bush-1 to interfere with Hussein when he attacked Kuwait in '91. In fact, his next move would have been on Saudi Arabia and we should have backed him on it. But the Bush Dynasty and the Saudi Royal Family are a lot closer than kissin' cousins, so that "wouldn't stand." Another big problem there is Hussein was not friendly with our kissin' cousin, Israel, which is another very big reason why we attacked and neutralized him. If he had occupied Saudi Arabia his eye would have been on Israel.

But that was containable and I believe with Hussein as our ally in Saudi Arabia we would be in one hell of a strong, comfortable position today, instead of the weakened, broke-ass situation we find ourselves in.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I'd cut 1.5 trillion across the board, including any unneccary and unconstitutional spending.

Ah, yes.....The LAZY-ASS Option!!!!!

NEVER get TOO-detailed....by taking one-area-of-spending (at-a-time), and DEMAND those (who $upport the $pending) JU$TIFY their spending!!!!

(We might catch too-many of our favorite-politicos in that "net"....and, it'll be too-much like WORK!)

 

[M14 Shooter]

Decent post until you claimed Hussein was a "useful ally".
And the Saudi analysis is insane.

But please roll me not one but TWO out of your bag.

I always welcome constructive criticism. So if you disagree, please explain why.

Hussein didn't attack us. Fifteen of the nineteen shahids who did attack us were Saudi. None were Iraqi.

I saw no good reason for Bush-1 to interfere with Hussein when he attacked Kuwait in '91. In fact, his next move would have been on Saudi Arabia and we should have backed him on it. But the Bush Dynasty and the Saudi Royal Family are a lot closer than kissin' cousins, so that "wouldn't stand." Another big problem there is Hussein was not friendly with our kissin' cousin, Israel, which is another very big reason why we attacked and neutralized him. If he had occupied Saudi Arabia his eye would have been on Israel.

But that was containable and I believe with Hussein as our ally in Saudi Arabia we would be in one hell of a strong, comfortable position today, instead of the weakened, broke-ass situation we find ourselves in.

How is a topic about cutting the deficit the appropriate place to discuss your hatred of Jews? Please stay on topic.

 

[skookerasbil]

Obama vows to cut huge deficit in half
By MIKE ALLEN | 2/22/09 6:58 AM EDT

President Obama will announce Monday that he plans to cut the nation’s projected annual deficit in half by the end of his first term, a senior administration official said Saturday.

The plan will make explicit what Obama officials have been suggesting for months: Contrary to his campaign promise, Obama will allow the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans expire as scheduled at the end of 2010 instead of seeking their repeal sooner. Officials determined that seeking to raise the taxes earlier during a recession was a bad idea, advisers said.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/19124.html















Think of all the suckers who believed this guy................



Fcukking suckers.................

[/IMG]

 

[xsited1]

What do you think is an 'acceptable' deficit?
The FY2009 deficit was $1413B - what will you cut to get down to that 'acceptable' deficit?

Note that to asnwer the 2nd question, you must include dollar amounts and explain where those figures came from.
That is:
Specify what programs you'd cut/taxes you'd raise, how much they would save/generate, and how you know.

I just read an interesting article on this. Here's a quick overview:

Cut Education subsidies - $40 billion
Cut Farm subsidies - $20 billion
Withdraw troops from Iraq and Afghanistan - $100 billion
Cut Federal Worker pay by 10% - $30 billion
Cut energy subsidies - $20 billion
End drug war - $15 billion
Social Security made voluntary - $40 billion
Cut housing subsidies - $45 billion
Cut transportation programs - $80 billion

And the link:

Cato Puts Budget-cutting Debate in Perspective
Downsizing the Federal Government | Chris Edwards | Cato Institute

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Decent post until you claimed Hussein was a "useful ally".
And the Saudi analysis is insane.

But please roll me not one but TWO out of your bag.

I always welcome constructive criticism. So if you disagree, please explain why.

Hussein didn't attack us. Fifteen of the nineteen shahids who did attack us were Saudi. None were Iraqi.

I saw no good reason for Bush-1 to interfere with Hussein when he attacked Kuwait in '91.

Hell.....the Bush Admin (more-or-less) gave Hussein PERMISSION to invade Kuwait!!!​

"On July 25,President Saddam Hussein of Iraq summoned the United States Ambassador to Baghdad, April Glaspie (United States Ambassador to Iraq, 1988–1990), to his office in the last high-level contact between the two Governments before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait on Aug. 2. Here are excerpts from a document described by Iraqi Government officials as a transcript of the meeting, which also included the Iraqi Foreign Minister, Tariq Aziz. A copy was provided to The New York Times by ABC News, which translated from the Arabic. The State Department has declined to comment on its accuracy.

**​

TARIQ AZIZ: Our policy in OPEC opposes sudden jumps in oil prices.

HUSSEIN: Twenty-five dollars a barrel is not a high price.

GLASPIE: We have many Americans who would like to see the price go above $25 because they come from oil-producing states.

HUSSEIN: The price at one stage had dropped to $12 a barrel and a reduction in the modest Iraqi budget of $6 billion to $7 billion is a disaster.

GLASPIE: I think I understand this. I have lived here for years. I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.

I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late 60's. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly."

BUSHCO Gave Saddam Hussein GREEN-LIGHT!!​