What is the Party of No Ideas (the Dims) proposing we should cut $$$

i'd start with 5-10% cuts across the board, but after that i would have to go case by case.

Although that's a STEP, I question if it makes sense overall.

I mean, isn't it possible that our national security interests MIGHT actually make any cuts in defense appropriations a risk not worth taking? (I mean, not just the threat of international terrorism, but the ever growing risks of the newly emboldened Communist Chinese and the dangerously provocative behavior of nations like North Korea, not to mention the growing likelihood of a re-emerging Russian SOVIET "Union" taking place.)

Maybe we could MODIFY that 5 or 10% ACROSS the BOARD thing to something else, like: Subject to the review process, all departments, programs, agencies, etc., will face the prospect of a 10% cut. The review process MIGHT lead to DEEPER cuts, but in some cases it could lead to lighter cuts or no cuts at all.

Couldn't we succeed by taking THAT approach and then legitimately debating the merits on a case by case basis?
 
The liberal Democratics love to pretend that the GOP is the Party of No.

But the GOP has come up with a proposal to cut 2.5 TRILLION dollars of spending. If we accept the rough figure that we are slightly over 14 TRILLION dollars in debt, then 2.5 TRILLION in cuts is pretty substantial (even spread out over 10 years). http://rsc.jordan.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Spending_Reduction_Act--TWOPAGER.pdf

We can argue about the wisdom of WHICH programs, etc., would be cut. There will be claims that the GOP is seeking to kill off the poor and the aged. "Those heartless GOP bastards." Standard liberal Democrat Parody propaganda. (Of course, they will have to find a way to make those irresponsible claims in a civil fashion, now.)

Whatever.

Here's the question:

What budgetary items are the liberal Democratics telling us they would cut?

Are there some budget lines, items etc. upon which the GOP and the liberal Democratics already agree? (If so, let's get to it. Start trimming.) I'm sure there are items and lines, etc., upon which they will absolutely DISAGREE. Fair enough. That's what debates are for.

So, now, I want to hear from liberal Democratics. How much cutting are YOU guys proposing? In what specific areas? What lines of the budget? What programs?

In short, stop pointing your stubby little fingers at the GOP. Step up to the plate or to the mic. Take your hacks.

What kind of budget proposals are YOU guys coming up with to address the dire problems associated with our massive debt problem?

(Later, I'd also like to hear how the various states are going to deal with the retirement program shortfalls? Any proposals on that. Not that it matters all that much. But I believe the numbers in THAT realm make the Federal figures pale in comparison.... So, somebody sooner or later is going to have to admit the problem and we are all going to have to confront it. That should be a pretty harmonious, civil discussion. I'm sure.)

Democrats don't cut spending. They spend like drunken sailors with filthy mouths.. yawannaknowwhy? cause it's not they money.

so bush was a dem?
stop opening your mouth, i am tired of smelling shit

If you're truly tired of smelling shit ypu'd take yo head out yo ass.. but you con't.
 
you can't cut everything that matters and not touch the things that are really the problem.

no matter how much repugs want to starve government until the loons can drown it in a bathtub.

Thanks. That was --

gibberish.

You are not usually prone to posting unintelligible blithering tripe. So, why not take a deep breath and, literally, try again?

If (and you really were unclear, so I.

no. i don't want to try again. you got the response the pathetic hack O/P deserved. I don't respond to 'dim' since i'm not. :)

and to my rightwing friends, the repugs was intended as a response to the o/p and does not reflect the opinions of the management.

well, except as to the wingnuttiest...
 
you can't cut everything that matters and not touch the things that are really the problem.

no matter how much repugs want to starve government until the loons can drown it in a bathtub.

Thanks. That was --

gibberish.

You are not usually prone to posting unintelligible blithering tripe. So, why not take a deep breath and, literally, try again?

If (and you really were unclear, so I.

no. i don't want to try again. you got the response the pathetic hack O/P deserved. I don't respond to 'dim' since i'm not. :)

and to my rightwing friends, the repugs was intended as a response to the o/p and does not reflect the opinions of the management.

well, except as to the wingnuttiest...

well whack a lu lu stand up on your own two feet, put down the kool aid and tell us how you'd save a little dough ray me.
 
i'd start with 5-10% cuts across the board, but after that i would have to go case by case.

Although that's a STEP, I question if it makes sense overall.

I mean, isn't it possible that our national security interests MIGHT actually make any cuts in defense appropriations a risk not worth taking? (I mean, not just the threat of international terrorism, but the ever growing risks of the newly emboldened Communist Chinese and the dangerously provocative behavior of nations like North Korea, not to mention the growing likelihood of a re-emerging Russian SOVIET "Union" taking place.)

Maybe we could MODIFY that 5 or 10% ACROSS the BOARD thing to something else, like: Subject to the review process, all departments, programs, agencies, etc., will face the prospect of a 10% cut. The review process MIGHT lead to DEEPER cuts, but in some cases it could lead to lighter cuts or no cuts at all.

Couldn't we succeed by taking THAT approach and then legitimately debating the merits on a case by case basis?

The military needs to get some fiscal accountability going. They waste at least 10% on mismanagement, wouldn't you agree?

When forced to make cuts, those mismanaged items start to come into focus. Whether the pain would be felt where the pain should be felt by cutting the military budget remains to be seen. I would hate to see the boots on the ground harmed by those from above keeping theirs while those below suffer.
 
you can't cut everything that matters and not touch the things that are really the problem.

no matter how much repugs want to starve government until the loons can drown it in a bathtub.

Thanks. That was --

gibberish.

You are not usually prone to posting unintelligible blithering tripe. So, why not take a deep breath and, literally, try again?

If (and you really were unclear, so I.

no. i don't want to try again. you got the response the pathetic hack O/P deserved. I don't respond to 'dim' since i'm not. :)

and to my rightwing friends, the repugs was intended as a response to the o/p and does not reflect the opinions of the management.

well, except as to the wingnuttiest...

Silly little lass. I don't care about your pathetic attempts to employ ad hominem. I was just pointing out that because of the obtuse words you cobbled together, your post ended up being plain old gibberish.

Whatever. I see your liberal brothers and sisters in the Democrat Parody posting here all the time and it seems like they couldn't say "Republican" if their lives depended on it. No. They seem obligated to say "Repubs" all the time. Well, fine. So I called you Democratics, "Dims," instead.

Get over it, Jilly.

The fact remains, you guys are awfully light on substance. You guys love to claim that the GOP is the "Party of No." Like conservatives should be offended by that. :cuckoo: I've said it before, and I tell you again:

I embrace it. I'm not a Republican. I dumped them. They were too much like the Dims. Who needs a Dim Party and a Dim-lite Party? But even so, to the extent they have found their voice at all and the word they give voice to is "NO," as it pertains to the Obama Administration Agenda of proposed policies, I'm all FOR them being the "Party of No." When it comes to the profligate spending that most legislation these days lays out, I prefer GRIDLOCK.

But the Dims have NO answers. They are institutionally opposed to NOT SPENDING. They see the "problem" of a huge deficit and, for the "solution," they try to SPEND more money. Their myopia is dangerous. So, ala a question I heard asked the other day by Mark Levin, I ask it bluntly here:

WHAT do YOU guys say can be cut and should be cut to end the culture of such massive reckless and unfunded spending?

I have been pleasantly SURPRISED to see a few liberals here (not ones I would have predicted in advance, either) step up to the plate to at least START to address that question. I would not have been surprised to see YOU, for example, willing to take a stab at it. I am a little surprised you chose to play hack, instead, Jilly.

*shrug*
 
Last edited:
i'd start with 5-10% cuts across the board, but after that i would have to go case by case.

Although that's a STEP, I question if it makes sense overall.

I mean, isn't it possible that our national security interests MIGHT actually make any cuts in defense appropriations a risk not worth taking? (I mean, not just the threat of international terrorism, but the ever growing risks of the newly emboldened Communist Chinese and the dangerously provocative behavior of nations like North Korea, not to mention the growing likelihood of a re-emerging Russian SOVIET "Union" taking place.)

Maybe we could MODIFY that 5 or 10% ACROSS the BOARD thing to something else, like: Subject to the review process, all departments, programs, agencies, etc., will face the prospect of a 10% cut. The review process MIGHT lead to DEEPER cuts, but in some cases it could lead to lighter cuts or no cuts at all.

Couldn't we succeed by taking THAT approach and then legitimately debating the merits on a case by case basis?

it makes sense, can you name anything in the entire history of man that doesn't have some sort of "Pork".

i'd do 5% across the board and do the review to see if we couldnt find more cuts. Hell you could review the cuts in the 5% and make sure they where worth it.

I dont disagree with the bold. One thing you cant to is just cancel out a agency, funding out right without doing a review.

No. I agree with you to the extent that there is PROBABLY "pork" in all bills and funding provisions. That's why I am content to say "no sacred cows." If the Pentagon cannot ACTUALLY justify some programs etc., CUT!

I also agree with you that cutting without a review is irrational. But we will likely have much disagreement as to HOW we assess these programs when conducting those "reviews." Seems unavoidable. But that's no reason not to start it just the same.
 
The liberal Democratics love to pretend that the GOP is the Party of No.

But the GOP has come up with a proposal to cut 2.5 TRILLION dollars of spending. If we accept the rough figure that we are slightly over 14 TRILLION dollars in debt, then 2.5 TRILLION in cuts is pretty substantial (even spread out over 10 years). http://rsc.jordan.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Spending_Reduction_Act--TWOPAGER.pdf

We can argue about the wisdom of WHICH programs, etc., would be cut. There will be claims that the GOP is seeking to kill off the poor and the aged. "Those heartless GOP bastards." Standard liberal Democrat Parody propaganda. (Of course, they will have to find a way to make those irresponsible claims in a civil fashion, now.)

Whatever.

Here's the question:

What budgetary items are the liberal Democratics telling us they would cut?

Are there some budget lines, items etc. upon which the GOP and the liberal Democratics already agree? (If so, let's get to it. Start trimming.) I'm sure there are items and lines, etc., upon which they will absolutely DISAGREE. Fair enough. That's what debates are for.

So, now, I want to hear from liberal Democratics. How much cutting are YOU guys proposing? In what specific areas? What lines of the budget? What programs?

In short, stop pointing your stubby little fingers at the GOP. Step up to the plate or to the mic. Take your hacks.

What kind of budget proposals are YOU guys coming up with to address the dire problems associated with our massive debt problem?

(Later, I'd also like to hear how the various states are going to deal with the retirement program shortfalls? Any proposals on that. Not that it matters all that much. But I believe the numbers in THAT realm make the Federal figures pale in comparison.... So, somebody sooner or later is going to have to admit the problem and we are all going to have to confront it. That should be a pretty harmonious, civil discussion. I'm sure.)


Democrats don't cut spending. They spend like drunken sailors with filthy mouths.. yawannaknowwhy? cause it's not they money.

When was the last time the Republicans balanced a budget???

How about.....never
 
Thanks. That was --

gibberish.

You are not usually prone to posting unintelligible blithering tripe. So, why not take a deep breath and, literally, try again?

If (and you really were unclear, so I.

no. i don't want to try again. you got the response the pathetic hack O/P deserved. I don't respond to 'dim' since i'm not. :)

and to my rightwing friends, the repugs was intended as a response to the o/p and does not reflect the opinions of the management.

well, except as to the wingnuttiest...

Silly little lass. I don't care about your pathetic attempts to employ ad hominem. I was just pointing out that because of the obtuse words you cobbled together, your post ended up being plain old gibberish.

Whatever. I see your liberal brothers and sisters in the Democrat Parody posting here all the time and it seems like they couldn't say "Republican" if their lives depended on it. No. They seem obligated to say "Repubs" all the time. Well, fine. So I called you Democratics, "Dims," instead.

Get over it, Jilly.

The fact remains, you guys are awfully light on substance. You guys love to claim that the GOP is the "Party of No." Like conservatives should be offended by that. :cuckoo: I've said it before, and I tell you again:

I embrace it. I'm not a Republican. I dumped them. They were too much like the Dims. Who needs a Dim Party and a Dim-lite Party? But even so, to the extent they have found their voice at all and the word they give voice to is "NO," as it pertains to the Obama Administration Agenda of proposed policies, I'm all FOR them being the "Party of No." When it comes to the profligate spending that most legislation these days lays out, I prefer GRIDLOCK.

But the Dims have NO answers. They are institutionally opposed to NOT SPENDING. They see the "problem" of a huge deficit and, for the "solutiuon," they try to SPEND more money. Their myopia is dangerous. So, ala a question I heard asked the other day by Mark Levin, I ask it bluntly here:

WHAT do YOU guys say can be cut and should be cut to end the culture of such massive reckless and unfunded spending?

I have been pleasantly SURPRISED to see a few liberals here (not ones I would have predicted in advance, either) step up to the plate to at least START to address that question. I would not have been surprised to see YOU, for example, willing to take a stab at it. I am a little surprised you chose to play hack, instead, Jilly.

*shrug*


Don't confuse me for a leftist. I'm not.
 
The liberal Democratics love to pretend that the GOP is the Party of No.

But the GOP has come up with a proposal to cut 2.5 TRILLION dollars of spending. If we accept the rough figure that we are slightly over 14 TRILLION dollars in debt, then 2.5 TRILLION in cuts is pretty substantial (even spread out over 10 years). http://rsc.jordan.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Spending_Reduction_Act--TWOPAGER.pdf

We can argue about the wisdom of WHICH programs, etc., would be cut. There will be claims that the GOP is seeking to kill off the poor and the aged. "Those heartless GOP bastards." Standard liberal Democrat Parody propaganda. (Of course, they will have to find a way to make those irresponsible claims in a civil fashion, now.)

Whatever.

Here's the question:

What budgetary items are the liberal Democratics telling us they would cut?

Are there some budget lines, items etc. upon which the GOP and the liberal Democratics already agree? (If so, let's get to it. Start trimming.) I'm sure there are items and lines, etc., upon which they will absolutely DISAGREE. Fair enough. That's what debates are for.

So, now, I want to hear from liberal Democratics. How much cutting are YOU guys proposing? In what specific areas? What lines of the budget? What programs?

In short, stop pointing your stubby little fingers at the GOP. Step up to the plate or to the mic. Take your hacks.

What kind of budget proposals are YOU guys coming up with to address the dire problems associated with our massive debt problem?

(Later, I'd also like to hear how the various states are going to deal with the retirement program shortfalls? Any proposals on that. Not that it matters all that much. But I believe the numbers in THAT realm make the Federal figures pale in comparison.... So, somebody sooner or later is going to have to admit the problem and we are all going to have to confront it. That should be a pretty harmonious, civil discussion. I'm sure.)


Democrats don't cut spending. They spend like drunken sailors with filthy mouths.. yawannaknowwhy? cause it's not they money.

When was the last time the Republicans balanced a budget???

How about.....never

They've been guilty too. not as bad as the democrat pelosi but bad.. you guys are aware she and obie wan have added a cool 5 trillion dollars to the debt,, and now they have the balls to suggest we need to do something about our infrastructure,, wait a bit.. the Chinese will fix it, they own it..
 
But the Dims have NO answers. They are institutionally opposed to NOT SPENDING. They see the "problem" of a huge deficit and, for the "solutiuon," they try to SPEND more money. Their myopia is dangerous. So, ala a question I heard asked the other day by Mark Levin, I ask it bluntly here:

WHAT do YOU guys say can be cut and should be cut to end the culture of such massive reckless and unfunded spending?

I have been pleasantly SURPRISED to see a few liberals here (not ones I would have predicted in advance, either) step up to the plate to at least START to address that question. I would not have been surprised to see YOU, for example, willing to take a stab at it. I am a little surprised you chose to play hack, instead, Jilly.

*shrug*

Will Obama suggest more spending at the State of the Union address?

Especially on the heals of the discussion going on regarding the accounting shell game the feds are playing:

"Could the Fed go broke? The answer to this question was 'Yes,' but is now 'No,'" said Raymond Stone, managing director at Stone & McCarthy in Princeton, New Jersey. "An accounting methodology change at the central bank will allow the Fed to incur losses, even substantial losses, without eroding its capital."

"Any future losses the Fed may incur will now show up as a negative liability as opposed to a reduction in Fed capital, thereby making a negative capital situation technically impossible," said Brian Smedley, a rates strategist at Bank of America-Merrill Lynch and a former New York Fed staffer.

"The timing of the change is not coincidental, as politicians and market participants alike have expressed concerns since the announcement (of a second round of asset buys) about the possibility of Fed 'insolvency' in a scenario where interest rates rise significantly," Smedley and his colleague Priya Misra wrote in a research note.

News Headlines


I tend to think that he'll revisit his 'we have to spend our way out of debt' rhetoric, however it will be phrased very cleverly.
 
no. i don't want to try again. you got the response the pathetic hack O/P deserved. I don't respond to 'dim' since i'm not. :)

and to my rightwing friends, the repugs was intended as a response to the o/p and does not reflect the opinions of the management.

well, except as to the wingnuttiest...

Silly little lass. I don't care about your pathetic attempts to employ ad hominem. I was just pointing out that because of the obtuse words you cobbled together, your post ended up being plain old gibberish.

Whatever. I see your liberal brothers and sisters in the Democrat Parody posting here all the time and it seems like they couldn't say "Republican" if their lives depended on it. No. They seem obligated to say "Repubs" all the time. Well, fine. So I called you Democratics, "Dims," instead.

Get over it, Jilly.

The fact remains, you guys are awfully light on substance. You guys love to claim that the GOP is the "Party of No." Like conservatives should be offended by that. :cuckoo: I've said it before, and I tell you again:

I embrace it. I'm not a Republican. I dumped them. They were too much like the Dims. Who needs a Dim Party and a Dim-lite Party? But even so, to the extent they have found their voice at all and the word they give voice to is "NO," as it pertains to the Obama Administration Agenda of proposed policies, I'm all FOR them being the "Party of No." When it comes to the profligate spending that most legislation these days lays out, I prefer GRIDLOCK.

But the Dims have NO answers. They are institutionally opposed to NOT SPENDING. They see the "problem" of a huge deficit and, for the "solutiuon," they try to SPEND more money. Their myopia is dangerous. So, ala a question I heard asked the other day by Mark Levin, I ask it bluntly here:

WHAT do YOU guys say can be cut and should be cut to end the culture of such massive reckless and unfunded spending?

I have been pleasantly SURPRISED to see a few liberals here (not ones I would have predicted in advance, either) step up to the plate to at least START to address that question. I would not have been surprised to see YOU, for example, willing to take a stab at it. I am a little surprised you chose to play hack, instead, Jilly.

*shrug*


Don't confuse me for a leftist. I'm not.

Actually, although YOU stepped up to the plate to discuss the matter in a fairly serious and mature (and dare I say it? in a civil) fashion, I wasn't thinking of you when I said I was "surprised."

I hate to compliment libs, generally, since that could put them in a bad light with their brother and sister libs -- especially of the unduly partisan hack variety. It seems I'm not very well appreciated or liked here by all manner of libs. :lol: Thus, a compliment from ME is kind of like a slap in their face, even if I'm being genuine. Or maybe ESPECIALLY when I'm being genuine.

But anyway, there have been a couple of surprises in that way for me on this thread.

Sarah G., of course, cannot handle it. But that comes as no surprise. :lol:
 
Silly little lass. I don't care about your pathetic attempts to employ ad hominem. I was just pointing out that because of the obtuse words you cobbled together, your post ended up being plain old gibberish.

Whatever. I see your liberal brothers and sisters in the Democrat Parody posting here all the time and it seems like they couldn't say "Republican" if their lives depended on it. No. They seem obligated to say "Repubs" all the time. Well, fine. So I called you Democratics, "Dims," instead.

Get over it, Jilly.

The fact remains, you guys are awfully light on substance. You guys love to claim that the GOP is the "Party of No." Like conservatives should be offended by that. :cuckoo: I've said it before, and I tell you again:

I embrace it. I'm not a Republican. I dumped them. They were too much like the Dims. Who needs a Dim Party and a Dim-lite Party? But even so, to the extent they have found their voice at all and the word they give voice to is "NO," as it pertains to the Obama Administration Agenda of proposed policies, I'm all FOR them being the "Party of No." When it comes to the profligate spending that most legislation these days lays out, I prefer GRIDLOCK.

But the Dims have NO answers. They are institutionally opposed to NOT SPENDING. They see the "problem" of a huge deficit and, for the "solutiuon," they try to SPEND more money. Their myopia is dangerous. So, ala a question I heard asked the other day by Mark Levin, I ask it bluntly here:

WHAT do YOU guys say can be cut and should be cut to end the culture of such massive reckless and unfunded spending?

I have been pleasantly SURPRISED to see a few liberals here (not ones I would have predicted in advance, either) step up to the plate to at least START to address that question. I would not have been surprised to see YOU, for example, willing to take a stab at it. I am a little surprised you chose to play hack, instead, Jilly.

*shrug*


Don't confuse me for a leftist. I'm not.

Actually, although YOU stepped up to the plate to discuss the matter in a fairly serious and mature (and dare I say it? in a civil) fashion, I wasn't thinking of you when I said I was "surprised."

I hate to compliment libs, generally, since that could put them in a bad light with their brother and sister libs -- especially of the unduly partisan hack variety. It seems I'm not very well appreciated or liked here by all manner of libs. :lol: Thus, a compliment from ME is kind of like a slap in their face, even if I'm being genuine. Or maybe ESPECIALLY when I'm being genuine.

But anyway, there have been a couple of surprises in that way for me on this thread.

Sarah G., of course, cannot handle it. But that comes as no surprise. :lol:



That's cool, Liability. Thanks for the words.
 
it makes sense, can you name anything in the entire history of man that doesn't have some sort of "Pork".

i'd do 5% across the board and do the review to see if we couldnt find more cuts. Hell you could review the cuts in the 5% and make sure they where worth it.

I dont disagree with the bold. One thing you cant to is just cancel out a agency, funding out right without doing a review.

No. I agree with you to the extent that there is PROBABLY "pork" in all bills and funding provisions. That's why I am content to say "no sacred cows." If the Pentagon cannot ACTUALLY justify some programs etc., CUT!

I also agree with you that cutting without a review is irrational. But we will likely have much disagreement as to HOW we assess these programs when conducting those "reviews." Seems unavoidable. But that's no reason not to start it just the same.

prove we would disagree?

I would personally hire an independent account, Background check to make sure that person has no ties to any "private companies" you know, bribes, kickbacks, lobbyists, and then i would just go over the numbers.

why make things complicated when the honest, easy thing to do, is to keep it simple.

I have no idea what that first sentence means.

I would love to see an army of accountants assess all that stuff. I would be thrilled to assist in the reviews, even without an accounting background.

A GREAT deal of the debate would STILL (unavoidably) be political in nature. But I am not afraid of compromise. A compromise to achieve useful results is not a moral defect. It is a compromise of PRINCIPLES that has to be avoided. Still and all, some compromise is healthy.

My expectation is that it would be very quickly concluded that there is nothing simple in ANY part of it. And even so, I see no reason not to get started ASAP.

A rough start, a terrible drive and jarring bumps along the way is still more progress than we've had in this mess in many years. The time has long since come to get started and deal with the lumps, bumps and bruises as necessary.
 
The Republican plan of $250 billion a year is a nice start, but in reality, you have to cut $600-$700 billion a year to get the budget back in line. (About half the budget deficit is due to slow economic growth, which will be eliminated when the economy eventually gets back to trendline.)

If I were in charge of the budget, I would raise taxes and cut spending, with the emphasis - 75% - on cutting spending.

Cutting spending of $450-$525 billion means hitting social security, medicare and defense, since those are three quarters of the budget. To cut social security and medicare, I would begin clawing back social security and medicare benefits to middle class recipients and above, with greater clawbacks to those up the income ladder.

For defense, I would begin shutting bases down both around the world and start withdrawing troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. If we choose to remain in those countries, then we pay for it by raising additional taxes. We also should consolidate bases around the country. Republicans say we should run government like a business. OK, so let's apply that thinking to the military, and start shutting down and consolidating bases around the country. Some Congressman or Senator gets his panties in a knot when the base in his district/state gets shut down? Too bad. That's how business operates.

For the rest of government, I would find a way to eliminate $100-$150 billion. Some of those Republican ideas are good ones.

For taxes, I would raise $150-$250 billion by eliminating most loopholes, including the mortgage deduction, and lowering the marginal income tax rates. I would cut corporate taxes and eliminate the estate tax. I would stop taxing Americans who do not live in this country, and not tax foreigners who do not live or have left the country. I would also introduce a national VAT, or a sales tax.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top