Name Your Cuts

[Common Sense]

So with the big gains by the Repubs in the last election the political landscape has changed again. Repubs campaigned on a mantra of cutting spending and cutting the deficit. But I have yet to hear a viable solution for either.

Case in point the tax cuts on the table. There is not argument from me that is our money and we should be able to keep more of it. (although we do have some of the lowest taxes rates in history) But in order to offset the tax cuts, there obviously needs to cuts made to spending.

The reality is though that defense, medicare, medicaid and interest on the debt account for approx 85% of the federal budget. that leaving 15% of the budget let, even if we were to eliminate the entire other 15% we would still fall short of cutting the deficit. Now neither Repubs or Dems are willing to make cuts to any of these previously listed programs out of fear of a backlash by voters. So where do these cuts come from?

suggestions........

 

[shintao]

Cut the military 95%, and make them make due, by bring our military home.

 

[Common Sense]

Cut the military 95%, and make them make due, by bring our military home.

so you think we shouldnt keep and maintain a military? that effectively what a 95% cut means.

and did you also miss the part where i said neither repubs or dems are willing to cut defenSE?

 

[Bern80]

So with the big gains by the Repubs in the last election the political landscape has changed again. Repubs campaigned on a mantra of cutting spending and cutting the deficit. But I have yet to hear a viable solution for either.

Case in point the tax cuts on the table. There is not argument from me that is our money and we should be able to keep more of it. (although we do have some of the lowest taxes rates in history) But in order to offset the tax cuts, there obviously needs to cuts made to spending.

The reality is though that defense, medicare, medicaid and interest on the debt account for approx 85% of the federal budget. that leaving 15% of the budget let, even if we were to eliminate the entire other 15% we would still fall short of cutting the deficit. Now neither Repubs or Dems are willing to make cuts to any of these previously listed programs out of fear of a backlash by voters. So where do these cuts come from?

suggestions........

Everything. No sacred cows. Starting with the biggest first. Yep, I'm pointing at you military. Do we really need established bases in some 52 countries across the globe? And don't get me started on that back up, state-of-the-art jet engine.........

Disolve the federal dept. of education. Edcucation takes micro management to meet the indiviudal learning needs of millions of children. A federal dept. that can only set standards for everyone can not effectively do that. Leave it to the states to fund and districts to do it how they see best.

Entitlements must fundamentally change. I would like everyone to take responsibility for funding their after working years, but here's my compromise. After x date Social Security is going to mean what it says. Specifically the 'security' part. I am fine with helping people that truly need help so I say we all agree that social security only goes to those that can show a need. Being the humanitarians we all agree to pay into it with the understanding that it's only going to be used by those that need it (not sure about the constitutionality of that though). That should make it solvent and maybe even lower the SS payroll tax.

 

[Common Sense]

i will just add opinion to your cuts (some of which i think are viable btw) and hope for a response.

if we simply close foreign military bases i see this impact:

1 - how many jobs will be lost?
2 - will the president and other diplomats have save places to land abroad?
3 - if we need to defend ourselves abroad, from where would we be able to launch attacks

Department of Education - annual budget $46.7 billion (1.9% of the 2010 federal budget)

i can see reason for reducing the department. but if we were to cut this department completely.

1 - how would we set standards for testing and college admissions?
2 - would states need to have agreements that a diploma in one state is equal a diploma in another state? and if so, who would state the standards across state lines?

Social Security (i agree needs to be reformed as well)

1 - how do you overcome the argument of the people who will simply say "well if im never going to receive SS, then why should i pay into the system"
2 - what should the cut off be in retirement age and income levels to qualify?

 

[Agit8r]

for starters, we can stop subsidizing aviation insurance.

Start phasing out farm subsidies.

Immigration laws provide for the confiscation of farmland on which illegal immigrants labor. This can then be auctioned off for cash to pay down the debt. We need to seriously scale back our commitments to world policing.

Scrap Medicaid Part D, and simply limit the intellectual property rights on patent medicine to what is needed to recoup the companies investment in research and developement.

 

[WillowTree]

Before we cut anthing that affects American households we should cut off ALL foreign welfare, all foreign wars, and all foreign occupation. It that doesn't do it go to the next thing on the list. Cut congressional pay and benefits, cut off their ability to exempt themselves to any law they pass.

 

[G.T.]

Before we cut anthing that affects American households we should cut off ALL foreign welfare, all foreign wars, and all foreign occupation. It that doesn't do it go to the next thing on the list. Cut congressional pay and benefits, cut off their ability to exempt themselves to any law they pass.

The occupiers get paychecks, hence that affects American households.

 

[boedicca]

Here's a good approach from Reason:

The CBO, the non-partisan agency charged with estimating the effects of legislation on government costs, has produced a long-term budget outlook in which Bush-era tax rates remain unchanged. Their conclusion is that over the next decade, "government revenues would remain at about 19 percent of GDP, near their historical averages." That's actually a bit higher than the historical average, but is within the bounds of reason.

A balanced budget in 2020 based on 19 percent of GDP would mean $1.3 trillion in cuts over the next decade, or about $129 billion annually out of ever-increasing budgets averaging around $4.1 trillion. Note that these are not even absolute cuts, but trims from expected increases in spending.

To get a more concrete sense of what getting to 19 percent means, here is a table of projected major budget expenditures in total dollars, followed by the amount that needs to be cut each year from the expected budget to get an annual 3.6 percent decrease across the board.

Looking at the chart below, the question becomes: Could you, say, find $129 billion dollars of cuts in a 2016 budget that squeezes through the door at $4.3 trillion?

How to Balance the Budget Without Raising Taxes - Reason Magazine


All it takes is $129B per year, without piling on new programs.

 

[WillowTree]

Before we cut anthing that affects American households we should cut off ALL foreign welfare, all foreign wars, and all foreign occupation. It that doesn't do it go to the next thing on the list. Cut congressional pay and benefits, cut off their ability to exempt themselves to any law they pass.

The occupiers get paychecks, hence that affects American households.

so you are in favor of continuing to occupy Iraq. yes?

 

[NYcarbineer]

for starters, we can stop subsidizing aviation insurance.

Start phasing out farm subsidies. Immigration laws provide for the confiscation of farmland on which illegal immigrants labor. This can then be auctioned off for cash to pay down the debt. We need to seriously scale back our commitments to world policing.

Scrap Medicaid Part D, and simply limit the intellectual property rights on patent medicine to what is needed to recoup the companies investment in research and developement.

And the Senators from the farm states will say no and that will be the end of that.

 

[G.T.]

Before we cut anthing that affects American households we should cut off ALL foreign welfare, all foreign wars, and all foreign occupation. It that doesn't do it go to the next thing on the list. Cut congressional pay and benefits, cut off their ability to exempt themselves to any law they pass.

The occupiers get paychecks, hence that affects American households.

so you are in favor of continuing to occupy Iraq. yes?

I'm not the one who said I didn't want to affect American households, you were.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Before we cut anthing that affects American households we should cut off ALL foreign welfare, all foreign wars, and all foreign occupation. It that doesn't do it go to the next thing on the list. Cut congressional pay and benefits, cut off their ability to exempt themselves to any law they pass.

Politically impossible to do. You might as well propose balancing the budget from the profits of massive unicorn exports to the land of Nod.

 

[Avatar4321]

First off, We aren't discussing tax cuts. We are discussing not raising taxes. IE We are arguing for the Status Quo. Personally, I think we should argue for tax cuts after Obama's stirring speech today.

Second, 15% spending cut across the board. Eliminate the Department of Education, Energy, and May as well eliminate Homeland security as well. We did fine without it before the last 8 years.

 

[Intense]

STATEMENT OF PURPOSEThe future of liberty depends on reclaiming America's first principles. "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization," as Thomas Jefferson warned, "it expects what never was and never will be." Widespread ignorance of American history is but the most recognized symptom of the troubling decline in popular knowledge of fundamental principles. We face an education system that upholds mediocrity in the name of relativism; an ever-expanding and centralized government, unmoored from constitutional limits; judges openly making laws and shaping society based on pop-philosophy rather than serious jurisprudence; and growing confusion over America's legitimate role in the world, made all the more apparent by the fundamental threat posed by radical Islamists. At the root of all these problems is a pervasive doubt about the core principles that define America and ought to inform our politics and policy.

As the leading public policy institution focused on American liberty, The Heritage Foundation must lead the call to awaken our country and get it back on course. We must recall the nation to its first principles, reinvigorate American constitutionalism, and revive the sturdy virtues required for self-government. We must restore the principles of America's Founders to their proper role in the public and political discourse, influencing public policy and reforming government to reflect constitutional limits. We must rebuild and unify a robust conservatism around, and in defense of, these core principles, and identify and develop current and future policymakers, opinion-makers, and leaders who understand, articulate, and will promote these principles. In short, our vision, building on the great successes of the modern conservative movement, must now be to save America by reclaiming its truths and its promises and conserving its liberating principles for ourselves and our posterity.
First Principles | The Heritage Foundation

 

[G.T.]

First off, We aren't discussing tax cuts. We are discussing not raising taxes. IE We are arguing for the Status Quo. Personally, I think we should argue for tax cuts after Obama's stirring speech today.

Second, 15% spending cut across the board. Eliminate the Department of Education, Energy, and May as well eliminate Homeland security as well. We did fine without it before the last 8 years.

Wrong. As the proposal stands now, there are ADDITIONAL cuts.

 

[Bern80]

i will just add opinion to your cuts (some of which i think are viable btw) and hope for a response.

if we simply close foreign military bases i see this impact:

1 - how many jobs will be lost?
2 - will the president and other diplomats have save places to land abroad?
3 - if we need to defend ourselves abroad, from where would we be able to launch attacks

1)A lot. There's no two ways about it. Shrinking government signifcantly is going to mean fewer government jobs. But other countries, especially in Europe are doing it because they are where we will be if we don't. Their governments are getting so big that the chickens are finally coming home to roost as they say. I believe the U.K. is in the process of elminating something like half a million government jobs.
2)I would think so. The president doesn't need to land at a military base. Security can be upped for international flights. Does the president only land on military bases when he goes overseas now? Seriously asking. I don't know.
3) That's where we have to make some decisions. But just as an example I don't think we need two huge military bases in one country like we do in South Korea.

Department of Education - annual budget $46.7 billion (1.9% of the 2010 federal budget)

i can see reason for reducing the department. but if we were to cut this department completely.

1 - how would we set standards for testing and college admissions?
2 - would states need to have agreements that a diploma in one state is equal a diploma in another state? and if so, who would state the standards across state lines?

Along the same lines of 'no sacred cows' in terms of mentality that needs to be adopted to actually do something significant, another menataity that needs to be dropped is the idea that 'well that's to small to make a difference anyway so we'll just leave it'. I think I big part of this is going to need to be a shift not just in fiscal policy, but plain 'ol principle as well. i.e. the earmark debate. Earmarks are almost nothing in terms of the federal budget, but getting rid of them is a matter of principle. All of the back room dealing that earmarks come from I believe hurt the legislative process and corrupts leaders

1) I wouldn't set a standard. Let colleges let in who they want to let in.

2) I think that's already the case. What I mean is I don't believe there is any federal law that requires a state to treat a high school grad from one state the same as the treat a high school grad from another state.

Social Security (i agree needs to be reformed as well)

1 - how do you overcome the argument of the people who will simply say "well if im never going to receive SS, then why should i pay into the system"
2 - what should the cut off be in retirement age and income levels to qualify?

1) 'tough shit' would be my first inclination. I would explain to them that this is a compromise. That even though we would like a perfect world where everyone was responsible and took care of all their own financial affairs, we don't live in that perfect world. So as a compromise we will lower your SS tax (in lieu of getting rid of it altogether) to pay for only those that really need some social security.

2) 70 or permanently disabled to qualify for SS. I'm just throwing out numbers but say anyone born after 2015 is on the new plan.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Close foreign bases and ports. Keep only the ones that are needed.
Stop unemplyment on 1/1/11
make it harder to get and keep welfare
flat tax and close the IRS
cut congress pay in 1/2
close the DoE, it made things worse
combine many of our police into larger forces
make states fund much of what they should be funding
DoT, closed, it only funds unions anyway

off the top of my head.

 

[Common Sense]

First off, We aren't discussing tax cuts. We are discussing not raising taxes. IE We are arguing for the Status Quo. Personally, I think we should argue for tax cuts after Obama's stirring speech today.

Second, 15% spending cut across the board. Eliminate the Department of Education, Energy, and May as well eliminate Homeland security as well. We did fine without it before the last 8 years.

this thread is not about tax cuts or not raising taxes at all.

this thread is about cuts to the budget and overall spending.

 

[bodecea]

So with the big gains by the Repubs in the last election the political landscape has changed again. Repubs campaigned on a mantra of cutting spending and cutting the deficit. But I have yet to hear a viable solution for either.

Case in point the tax cuts on the table. There is not argument from me that is our money and we should be able to keep more of it. (although we do have some of the lowest taxes rates in history) But in order to offset the tax cuts, there obviously needs to cuts made to spending.

The reality is though that defense, medicare, medicaid and interest on the debt account for approx 85% of the federal budget. that leaving 15% of the budget let, even if we were to eliminate the entire other 15% we would still fall short of cutting the deficit. Now neither Repubs or Dems are willing to make cuts to any of these previously listed programs out of fear of a backlash by voters. So where do these cuts come from?

suggestions........

Farm and Tobacco subsedies.

Cut back military contracting at least 50%.