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

[rightwinger]

Defense can still be cut ...but not an arbitrary 10-15% across the board cut

We spend more on our military than the next 20 countries combined. But our military is as big as we have defined we need. To change the military, we need to redefine its mission. Do we need to be the protectors of the globe? Do we need 1500 nuclear warheads when they haven't been used in 65 years? Should the EU pick up more of the global burden?

Lets look at what we really need our military to do and cut there

You might be surprised to learn that many conservatives (but I'll speak just for myself at this juncture) might agree with that thinking. I can tell you for a fact, I'm in agreement.

The "debates" over what our "missions" are and ought to be may not lead to harmony. I suspect that many people (my bet is that it will be mostly liberals) would be ALL FOR cutting the military's role all over the world. But, I also suspect that many conservatives will agree in principle.

For example, I have seen one conservative (Libertarian, actually) friend regularly question why we need to still have troops in Germany and in Japan.

I have seen conservatives agree -- again in broad strokes -- with liberals on the proposition that the proper role of the United States of America in the world does NOT include taking on the task of being "the World's Policeman."

I also agree that any discussion of "how much" we should be spending on our military is VERY MUCH determined (logically) by HOW we define the role of our military in terms of our needs.

All of that said, I suspect that we CAN end up cutting the fat (or at least a good portion of it) from our military budget. In the process, it SEEMS to be possible to actually cut the military appropriations part of the federal budget (and the role it plays in our massive deficit) without endangering our security.

We have not relooked the mission of the military in 20 years. At that time, the cold war was over, the threat of the USSR was gone and we were looking for a cold war dividend in our economy.

Since that time we have reconstituted the military to the point where we have returned to the strength we had 20 years ago. At some point we need to accurately assess what the real threat to this country is and field a military that realistically counters that threat.

Being the world policeman for no compensation is not a prudent use of our tax dollars. We spend billions of dollars protecting oil rich countries and receive nothing for it

 

[Liability]

Defense can still be cut ...but not an arbitrary 10-15% across the board cut

We spend more on our military than the next 20 countries combined. But our military is as big as we have defined we need. To change the military, we need to redefine its mission. Do we need to be the protectors of the globe? Do we need 1500 nuclear warheads when they haven't been used in 65 years? Should the EU pick up more of the global burden?

Lets look at what we really need our military to do and cut there

You might be surprised to learn that many conservatives (but I'll speak just for myself at this juncture) might agree with that thinking. I can tell you for a fact, I'm in agreement.

The "debates" over what our "missions" are and ought to be may not lead to harmony. I suspect that many people (my bet is that it will be mostly liberals) would be ALL FOR cutting the military's role all over the world. But, I also suspect that many conservatives will agree in principle.

For example, I have seen one conservative (Libertarian, actually) friend regularly question why we need to still have troops in Germany and in Japan.

I have seen conservatives agree -- again in broad strokes -- with liberals on the proposition that the proper role of the United States of America in the world does NOT include taking on the task of being "the World's Policeman."

I also agree that any discussion of "how much" we should be spending on our military is VERY MUCH determined (logically) by HOW we define the role of our military in terms of our needs.

All of that said, I suspect that we CAN end up cutting the fat (or at least a good portion of it) from our military budget. In the process, it SEEMS to be possible to actually cut the military appropriations part of the federal budget (and the role it plays in our massive deficit) without endangering our security.

We have not relooked the mission of the military in 20 years. At that time, the cold war was over, the threat of the USSR was gone and we were looking for a cold war dividend in our economy.

Since that time we have reconstituted the military to the point where we have returned to the strength we had 20 years ago. At some point we need to accurately assess what the real threat to this country is and field a military that realistically counters that threat.

Being the world policeman for no compensation is not a prudent use of our tax dollars. We spend billions of dollars protecting oil rich countries and receive nothing for it

Again, that part of the debate is premature.

When President Clinton took us into Kosovo, the thinking seems to have been (no matter what other labels you might apply) that we had some obligation to serve as a world-stage policeman.

I would dispute (in fact, I would flatly deny) that our basis for going into Iraq and Afghanistan is based on that kind of "world's policeman" type thinking.

I will join with my pal Oddball in asking whether it might not be time to bring our troops OUT of Japan and Germany. But let's not pretend that doing such things comes with no cost. And we'd damn well better take ALL of the costs into account before we bust a move.

That said, in the proper forum and at the right time, I think we'd ALL benefit enormously from getting into the seeds and fully and honestly engaging in some serious debate on what our role on the world stage IS and what it ought to be. For as you suggested earlier, if we can define the mission, we can then consider, on a firmer basis, the costs of whatever choices we make.

I'm not saying that we can't start that debate on the proper role of the U.S. military. I just think it unduly clutters THIS thread. Perfectly good fodder for another thread, though.

 

[rightwinger]

You might be surprised to learn that many conservatives (but I'll speak just for myself at this juncture) might agree with that thinking. I can tell you for a fact, I'm in agreement.

The "debates" over what our "missions" are and ought to be may not lead to harmony. I suspect that many people (my bet is that it will be mostly liberals) would be ALL FOR cutting the military's role all over the world. But, I also suspect that many conservatives will agree in principle.

For example, I have seen one conservative (Libertarian, actually) friend regularly question why we need to still have troops in Germany and in Japan.

I have seen conservatives agree -- again in broad strokes -- with liberals on the proposition that the proper role of the United States of America in the world does NOT include taking on the task of being "the World's Policeman."

I also agree that any discussion of "how much" we should be spending on our military is VERY MUCH determined (logically) by HOW we define the role of our military in terms of our needs.

All of that said, I suspect that we CAN end up cutting the fat (or at least a good portion of it) from our military budget. In the process, it SEEMS to be possible to actually cut the military appropriations part of the federal budget (and the role it plays in our massive deficit) without endangering our security.

We have not relooked the mission of the military in 20 years. At that time, the cold war was over, the threat of the USSR was gone and we were looking for a cold war dividend in our economy.

Since that time we have reconstituted the military to the point where we have returned to the strength we had 20 years ago. At some point we need to accurately assess what the real threat to this country is and field a military that realistically counters that threat.

Being the world policeman for no compensation is not a prudent use of our tax dollars. We spend billions of dollars protecting oil rich countries and receive nothing for it

Again, that part of the debate is premature.

When President Clinton took us into Kosovo, the thinking seems to have been (no matter what other labels you might apply) that we had some obligation to serve as a world-stage policeman.

I would dispute (in fact, I would flatly deny) that our basis for going into Iraq and Afghanistan is based on that kind of "world's policeman" type thinking.

I will join with my pal Oddball in asking whether it might not be time to bring our troops OUT of Japan and Germany. But let's not pretend that doing such things comes with no cost. And we'd damn well better take ALL of the costs into account before we bust a move.

That said, in the proper forum and at the right time, I think we'd ALL benefit enormously from getting into the seeds and fully and honestly engaging in some serious debate on what our role on the world stage IS and what it ought to be. For as you suggested earlier, if we can define the mission, we can then consider, on a firmer basis, the costs of whatever choices we make.

I'm not saying that we can't start that debate on the proper role of the U.S. military. I just think it unduly clutters THIS thread. Perfectly good fodder for another thread, though.

The Military, Social Security and Medicare are the largest pieces of the budget. You can't cut spending significantly while keeping them sacred cows

 

[snjmom]

No takers?

Raise full retirement to 70. Remove the FICA caps. Eliminate fee-for-service and incentivize best practice for gov health recipients. Get out of Iraq and Afghanistan and focus 10% of that budget on new energy sources. Tax short-selling profits at 50%. Eliminate farm subsidies on anything bigger than 100 acres. Require service for college grants. Reduce Federal highway aid. Eliminate the mortgage deduction. Freeze Medicare payments. Eliminate the Bush cuts.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Serious cuts wont be made until the Republicans take the Senate and White House back. That's just the reality. Look to 2012. Nothing will get done until then.

 

[rightwinger]

Serious cuts wont be made until the Republicans take the Senate and White House back. That's just the reality. Look to 2012. Nothing will get done until then.

The only presidents in the last 35 years who have been fiscally conservative are Carter and Clinton. Neither were Republicans

How often do we need to hear "trust us this time"??

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Serious cuts wont be made until the Republicans take the Senate and White House back. That's just the reality. Look to 2012. Nothing will get done until then.

The only presidents in the last 35 years who have been fiscally conservative are Carter and Clinton. Neither were Republicans

How often do we need to hear "trust us this time"??

Not gonna argue with you on that. I always said Clinton was more of a Conservative than George Bush was. But people used to ridicule me for saying that. George Bush was anything but a Conservative. I would even say that this current President is just Bush's Third Term. I see very little differences in policy. I can't go with you on Carter being a Conservative though. As far as your "trust us this time" goes,i seriously doubt you were going to vote Republican anyway. You're not the kind of voter they're counting on in 2012. You'll likely vote for another Bush Term in 2012. I'll wait and see though. I still hold out hope that a real Conservative will come around in 2012. Call me an optimist.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Serious cuts wont be made until the Republicans take the Senate and White House back. That's just the reality. Look to 2012. Nothing will get done until then.

The only presidents in the last 35 years who have been fiscally conservative are Carter and Clinton. Neither were Republicans

How often do we need to hear "trust us this time"??

The last president to actually reduce the federal budget during all of his eight years was Coolidge. Clinton has done a far better job than our current and previous presidents in terms of fiscal responsibility.

 

[rightwinger]

Serious cuts wont be made until the Republicans take the Senate and White House back. That's just the reality. Look to 2012. Nothing will get done until then.

The only presidents in the last 35 years who have been fiscally conservative are Carter and Clinton. Neither were Republicans

How often do we need to hear "trust us this time"??

Not gonna argue with you on that. I always said Clinton was more of a Conservative than George Bush was. But people used to ridicule me for saying that. George Bush was anything but a Conservative. I would even say that this current President is just Bush's Third Term. I see very little differences in policy. I can't go with you on Carter being a Conservative though. As far as your "trust us this time" goes,i seriously doubt you were going to vote Republican anyway. You're not the kind of voter they're counting on in 2012. You'll likely vote for another Bush Term in 2012. I'll wait and see though. I still hold out hope that a real Conservative will come around in 2012. Call me an optimist.

I managed to vote for Reagan and Daddy Bush four times. Carter kept a balanced budget but managed to fuck up everything else related to the economy. Clinton had a booming economy and could have used it to spend like crazy...he didn't

I have still yet to see a Republican who was fiscally conservative

 

[LibocalypseNow]

The only presidents in the last 35 years who have been fiscally conservative are Carter and Clinton. Neither were Republicans

How often do we need to hear "trust us this time"??

Not gonna argue with you on that. I always said Clinton was more of a Conservative than George Bush was. But people used to ridicule me for saying that. George Bush was anything but a Conservative. I would even say that this current President is just Bush's Third Term. I see very little differences in policy. I can't go with you on Carter being a Conservative though. As far as your "trust us this time" goes,i seriously doubt you were going to vote Republican anyway. You're not the kind of voter they're counting on in 2012. You'll likely vote for another Bush Term in 2012. I'll wait and see though. I still hold out hope that a real Conservative will come around in 2012. Call me an optimist.

I managed to vote for Reagan and Daddy Bush four times. Carter kept a balanced budget but managed to fuck up everything else related to the economy. Clinton had a booming economy and could have used it to spend like crazy...he didn't

I have still yet to see a Republican who was fiscally conservative

Yea they sure do sell ya a whole lot of B.S. during campaigns. You vote for one thing but then you get something completely different. Bush was sold as a solid Conservative but he turned out to be anything but that. And unfortunately we're in the middle of his Third Term. Will there be another Bush Term? I guess we'll see in 2012. Like i said,i'm still holding out hope that a real Conservative will come along in 2012. I'm trying to stay positive i guess. That's my New Years resolution anyway. lol!

 

[shintao]

Raise full retirement to 70. Those would be my starters.

Why not just eliminate retirement, everybody knows we are slaves anyway. Do the nature thing, like ants, work till you die and throw you on the pile of corpses.

 

[shintao]

We have not relooked the mission of the military in 20 years. At that time, the cold war was over, the threat of the USSR was gone and we were looking for a cold war dividend in our economy.

Since that time we have reconstituted the military to the point where we have returned to the strength we had 20 years ago. At some point we need to accurately assess what the real threat to this country is and field a military that realistically counters that threat.

Being the world policeman for no compensation is not a prudent use of our tax dollars. We spend billions of dollars protecting oil rich countries and receive nothing for it

Again, that part of the debate is premature.

When President Clinton took us into Kosovo, the thinking seems to have been (no matter what other labels you might apply) that we had some obligation to serve as a world-stage policeman.

I would dispute (in fact, I would flatly deny) that our basis for going into Iraq and Afghanistan is based on that kind of "world's policeman" type thinking.

I will join with my pal Oddball in asking whether it might not be time to bring our troops OUT of Japan and Germany. But let's not pretend that doing such things comes with no cost. And we'd damn well better take ALL of the costs into account before we bust a move.

That said, in the proper forum and at the right time, I think we'd ALL benefit enormously from getting into the seeds and fully and honestly engaging in some serious debate on what our role on the world stage IS and what it ought to be. For as you suggested earlier, if we can define the mission, we can then consider, on a firmer basis, the costs of whatever choices we make.

I'm not saying that we can't start that debate on the proper role of the U.S. military. I just think it unduly clutters THIS thread. Perfectly good fodder for another thread, though.

The Military, Social Security and Medicare are the largest pieces of the budget. You can't cut spending significantly while keeping them sacred cows

We made no promises to keep the military, but we did SS. So keep your promises and get rid of the others.

 

[rightwinger]

Again, that part of the debate is premature.

When President Clinton took us into Kosovo, the thinking seems to have been (no matter what other labels you might apply) that we had some obligation to serve as a world-stage policeman.

I would dispute (in fact, I would flatly deny) that our basis for going into Iraq and Afghanistan is based on that kind of "world's policeman" type thinking.

I will join with my pal Oddball in asking whether it might not be time to bring our troops OUT of Japan and Germany. But let's not pretend that doing such things comes with no cost. And we'd damn well better take ALL of the costs into account before we bust a move.

That said, in the proper forum and at the right time, I think we'd ALL benefit enormously from getting into the seeds and fully and honestly engaging in some serious debate on what our role on the world stage IS and what it ought to be. For as you suggested earlier, if we can define the mission, we can then consider, on a firmer basis, the costs of whatever choices we make.

I'm not saying that we can't start that debate on the proper role of the U.S. military. I just think it unduly clutters THIS thread. Perfectly good fodder for another thread, though.

The Military, Social Security and Medicare are the largest pieces of the budget. You can't cut spending significantly while keeping them sacred cows

We made no promises to keep the military, but we did SS. So keep your promises and get rid of the others.

Not looking at those who are retired or near retirement.

But if you are over 20 years from retirement, adding a few years is not a breech of contract.

Neither is ending the Social Security cap

 

[Liability]

We have not relooked the mission of the military in 20 years. At that time, the cold war was over, the threat of the USSR was gone and we were looking for a cold war dividend in our economy.

Since that time we have reconstituted the military to the point where we have returned to the strength we had 20 years ago. At some point we need to accurately assess what the real threat to this country is and field a military that realistically counters that threat.

Being the world policeman for no compensation is not a prudent use of our tax dollars. We spend billions of dollars protecting oil rich countries and receive nothing for it

Again, that part of the debate is premature.

When President Clinton took us into Kosovo, the thinking seems to have been (no matter what other labels you might apply) that we had some obligation to serve as a world-stage policeman.

I would dispute (in fact, I would flatly deny) that our basis for going into Iraq and Afghanistan is based on that kind of "world's policeman" type thinking.

I will join with my pal Oddball in asking whether it might not be time to bring our troops OUT of Japan and Germany. But let's not pretend that doing such things comes with no cost. And we'd damn well better take ALL of the costs into account before we bust a move.

That said, in the proper forum and at the right time, I think we'd ALL benefit enormously from getting into the seeds and fully and honestly engaging in some serious debate on what our role on the world stage IS and what it ought to be. For as you suggested earlier, if we can define the mission, we can then consider, on a firmer basis, the costs of whatever choices we make.

I'm not saying that we can't start that debate on the proper role of the U.S. military. I just think it unduly clutters THIS thread. Perfectly good fodder for another thread, though.

The Military, Social Security and Medicare are the largest pieces of the budget. You can't cut spending significantly while keeping them sacred cows

True, true, true and true.

Which means that none of them can be sacred cows. All have to go under the microscope. All will have to be part of the debate. And it is very likely that cuts in each will -- to greater or lesser extents -- be required.

I say the foregoing ^ just in case anything I have said in this thread leads anybody to think that I have said anything to the contrary.

It looks almost as though you think I'm disagreeing. I'm not.

All I'm saying is that the specific debates on each of those (and all the others) should take place separately in order for each "discussion" to be coherent and manageable.

 

[Liability]

Well, you are reverting to form. Too bad.

I said absolutely nothing that says I wish to (or am ever inclined to) jump without looking.

I am not interested in a specific debate (at this point) on the merits of the DoE nor on any other particular program, Agency, Department, etc. What I have suggested so far (and I thought you were more or less on the same page) is that we need to place all of it under scrutiny.

For example, if you think (like leftwinger has expressed it) that the military budget cannot be deemed a sacred cow, but that instead it should have its budget determined within the context of defining what it is actually expected to accomplish -- and that what it is expected to accomplish comes with some significant issues that need to be debated and ironed out -- then you would probably agree that we need to (A) come to grips with defining the proper role and scope of the U.S. military and THEN (B) look at the overall military budget to determine which programs, etc., fit within that definition.

Once we have a rough framework, we can wander into the thorny weeds on a budgetary line by line basis.

And no, it doesn't matter where we rank in the international arena for "education" when we are not yet debating that budgetary item. And it may not EVER matter if we determine that to the extent a problem exists, it is NOT the role of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (under our Constitutionally agreed upon form of LIMITED GOVERNMENT) to involve itself in that STATE issue. First things first, Plaz.

I am not reverting, i am telling you what i am seeing from you.

Then you are falling into the same trap the Tea party was/is in. Talk about cuts but when actual debate forms its " I dont want to". Well Debate needs to happen about these agencies and programs.
Its called the evolution of a topic. I have run into this problem before. Typically its, We have a problem, the parties agree, now instead of talking about it, people want to blame.

so the way i see it is, you are more comfortable with the military budget and not the DOE, which if you notice i laid out exactly the rough frame work. Military, Education, Healthcare, it really doesnt matter. The system is basically the same.

Yes rank does matter, because it shows how important a section can be. If that section has any impact on the ranking. Again had you read my posts on the DOE you would have known that the DOE has a very limited Role. More to the point on their website it states directly that local school boards and states have basically full control over their students, and that the feds have NO role in education standards. (( IE what the kids are taught)

again you are tossing out constitution for images and nothing more. If you want to keep on repeating limited gov, and constitution, toss a wig on and move to alaska.

What You "see" is different than anything I have done. You are reverting to form.

The Tea Party hasn't fallen into any trap. And nothing I'm doing is akin to anything they've done in any event.

What I'm saying is that each proposal for a cut (military, Social Security, etc) needs to go under the microscope and GET debated. Just not in THIS thread. It's too cluttered that way. You end up with a cacophony rather than anything coherent.

If you want to "debate" the wisdom of having a DoE, great. Separate thread.

If you want to debate the nature of the U.S. military's proper role in the world as a prelude to any discussion about how we should fund the nation's military, great again. Separate thread.

You want to debate Social Security and how we need to deal with the projected costs which, presently, are not able to be properly covered without some serious systemic review and overhaul! I'm down with that, too. Separate thread.

That balance of your rhetoric is childish blather and it is merely an example of you reverting to form. Not interested. There are other threads where I will happily give you shit for tat. Nope. Not a typo. But, separate thread required.

 

[Provocateur]

Bush tried to move the country toward privatization of social security.

USATODAY.com - Bush moves to privatize Social Security

Why did liberals get their nickers in a twist when he went that direction?

I don't recall what their opposition was...except that it was "Bush" and apparently anything smaller government is like throwing acid in their eyes.

 

[rightwinger]

Bush tried to move the country toward privatization of social security.

USATODAY.com - Bush moves to privatize Social Security

Why did liberals get their nickers in a twist when he went that direction?

I don't recall what their opposition was...except that it was "Bush" and apparently anything smaller government is like throwing acid in their eyes.

Did you happen to miss the stock market crash of 2007-2008?

 

[Provocateur]

Bush tried to move the country toward privatization of social security.

USATODAY.com - Bush moves to privatize Social Security

Why did liberals get their nickers in a twist when he went that direction?

I don't recall what their opposition was...except that it was "Bush" and apparently anything smaller government is like throwing acid in their eyes.

Did you happen to miss the stock market crash of 2007-2008?

The exploration of partial privatization started before 2004. Are you suggesting that liberals were concerned that the market might not be viable enough 3 years later? As if that is a greater concern than the unsustainable package we have now?

 

[rightwinger]

Bush tried to move the country toward privatization of social security.

USATODAY.com - Bush moves to privatize Social Security

Why did liberals get their nickers in a twist when he went that direction?

I don't recall what their opposition was...except that it was "Bush" and apparently anything smaller government is like throwing acid in their eyes.

Did you happen to miss the stock market crash of 2007-2008?

The exploration of partial privatization started before 2004. Are you suggesting that liberals were concerned that the market might not be viable enough 3 years later? As if that is a greater concern than the unsustainable package we have now?

Investment in the stock market is available through 401Ks and IRAs . For most Americans, Social Security is the only defined benefit plan available.

Social Security has been working for 75 years now...why mess it up?

 

[Provocateur]

Did you happen to miss the stock market crash of 2007-2008?

The exploration of partial privatization started before 2004. Are you suggesting that liberals were concerned that the market might not be viable enough 3 years later? As if that is a greater concern than the unsustainable package we have now?

Investment in the stock market is available through 401Ks and IRAs . For most Americans, Social Security is the only defined benefit plan available.

Social Security has been working for 75 years now...why mess it up?

Wrong on so many levels.