Compromise 1...Budget

[shintao]

What does cutting 99 percent of the military even mean other than the budget goes from 600B to 6B? That's not going to happen.

If you are not willing to cut 99% of the military budget, I am for increasing social entitlements by 50% and locking in Obama Care, and still going after corporate aid, the illegals, etc.

US Troops should be on US soil, and it is a damned shame to see corporations use of them as cannon fodder.

 

[DiamondDave]

No, domestic entitlement has already been cut to bone under Bush. Cut 99% of the military and corporate aid entirely, and I would consider a 20% increase for domestic programs.

And the entitlement junkie rears his ugly head

Coming from the mouth of the king of entitlements, I find that a compliment.

Audit defense spending... go after contractors not living up to contracts... double check quotes and go through everything with a fine tooth comb... almost guaranteed this would trim 10% from the military budget

We don't need waste more money on the military audits & BS, just slash it 99% and put US troops on US ground. How simple is that Entitlement King?? You might want ol Odd Ball to read up and quote what the founding fathers had to say about US Troops!!!

Cut all corporate aid, farm aid, and individual entitlement aid by 100%... none of it belongs ANYWHERE in government

That is a fair compromise.

Please show 1 single quote of me supporting any government entitlement... we'll be waiting

Peacenick wants to slash the national defense (military) though it is a direct charge of the federal government

The problem with past internal audits (coming from someone who actually served) is that internal audits are like asking a 5 year old to limit and justify their Halloween candy intake.... too wide spread are the tendrils of power and influence in the system.... it is that way in the military spending system just as it is in the congressional spending system

 

[Care4all]

the defense of our nation is a constitutional given, having a standing army is not.

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be
for a longer Term than two Years;

 

[The Rabbi]

fiscal 2009 defense spending was $730 BILLION

fiscal 2000 defense spending was $300 BILLION

WE CAN CERTAINLY cut out alot of waste and inefficiencies from our defense budget....AT LEAST 200 Billion a year.

OK. Which defense responsibility do you want to see cut? Where do you think it's OK for Americans to be endangered? Which American interests do you want to see foiled?

 

[uptownlivin90]

1. End the drug war.
2. Bring home our troops from Europe and most of Asian (South Korea being the only reasonable suggestion).
3. End corporate welfare and illegalize bank bailouts.
4. Audit the fed and eliminate the IRS.
5. Dissolve the Department of Homeland Security .
6. Dissolve the Department of Education to solely an oversight agency.
6. Dissolve USAID to an emergency response agency. No more aid going to nations on an annual basis. No more aid to Israel and Pakistan either.
7. Scale back entitlements gradually by 4% each year for the next 10 years.
8. Privatize social security.

 

[Care4all]

fiscal 2009 defense spending was $730 BILLION

fiscal 2000 defense spending was $300 BILLION

WE CAN CERTAINLY cut out alot of waste and inefficiencies from our defense budget....AT LEAST 200 Billion a year.

OK. Which defense responsibility do you want to see cut? Where do you think it's OK for Americans to be endangered? Which American interests do you want to see foiled?

you first....

if you only had only $500 BILLION a year to spend in defense of our nation, what would you spend it on?

 

[The Rabbi]

fiscal 2009 defense spending was $730 BILLION

fiscal 2000 defense spending was $300 BILLION

WE CAN CERTAINLY cut out alot of waste and inefficiencies from our defense budget....AT LEAST 200 Billion a year.

OK. Which defense responsibility do you want to see cut? Where do you think it's OK for Americans to be endangered? Which American interests do you want to see foiled?

you first....

if you only had only $500 BILLION a year to spend in defense of our nation, what would you spend it on?

Ah there we go. The old Care4all debate technique: fly in, drop a load of shit, and fly out again.
I'm not the one who thinks defense spending ought to be cut by nearly a third.

 

[Care4all]

OK. Which defense responsibility do you want to see cut? Where do you think it's OK for Americans to be endangered? Which American interests do you want to see foiled?

you first....

if you only had only $500 BILLION a year to spend in defense of our nation, what would you spend it on?

Ah there we go. The old Care4all debate technique: fly in, drop a load of shit, and fly out again.
I'm not the one who thinks defense spending ought to be cut by nearly a third.

hmmmmmm....there ya go again Rabbi.....talking out two sides of your mouth....tsk tsk tsk!!!!

here YOU SAY we need to bring our budget to the 2004 budget...

Simply enact the same budget we had in 2004 and everything will be fine.
2004 expenditures:$2.318T [
2010 revenue:$2.381T

What's hard about that??

well dear, you need to put your money where your mouth is....and OWN UP for goodness sakes, to your OWN statements!

the 2004 budget for our Defense dept IS $250 BILLION LESS than the 2009 defense spending....the 2004 budget for defense was 450 billion

that means you need to cut our defense spending by 50 BILLION MORE than the $200 billion i had suggested.

SOOOOOOOO, GO FOR IT....LET'S HEAR it, oh wise Rabbi....where would you spend the $450 billion(2004 level) on the defense of this nation?

 

[Sallow]

If Republicans offered to cut Defense by 10%, would Democrats agree to cut all entitlement spending by the same amount?

Does entitlement spending include:

Farm subsidies
Corporate tax incentives
Veterans benefits
Social Security
Capital gains

Capital gains isn't entitlement spending. SS, medicare, welfare, medicaid, are entitlement spending. But to answer your question, specifically veterans, I would focus more on defense contracting waste. There's plenty of it. We could cut 10 percent out and still have the most advanced military in the world. I would not cut veterans benefits, even though they get crappy service.

End SS. All seniors continue to receive what they put in. The rest of us receive a lump sum x amount of dollars depending on the amount we have put in. Yeah, farm subsidies need to be cut along with corporate welfare ie the fed continuously bailing out banking, financial institutions.

Why?

SS is a very successful program and fully funded. Doesn't add a dime in expenditures. It's "tipping point" is decades away. And it's pretty easy to remedy..bump up the contribution limit.

 

[The Rabbi]

you first....

if you only had only $500 BILLION a year to spend in defense of our nation, what would you spend it on?

Ah there we go. The old Care4all debate technique: fly in, drop a load of shit, and fly out again.
I'm not the one who thinks defense spending ought to be cut by nearly a third.

hmmmmmm....there ya go again Rabbi.....talking out two sides of your mouth....tsk tsk tsk!!!!

here YOU SAY we need to bring our budget to the 2004 budget...

Simply enact the same budget we had in 2004 and everything will be fine.
2004 expenditures:$2.318T [
2010 revenue:$2.381T

What's hard about that??

well dear, you need to put your money where your mouth is....and OWN UP for goodness sakes, to your OWN statements!

the 2004 budget for our Defense dept IS $250 BILLION LESS than the 2009 defense spending....the 2004 budget for defense was 450 billion

that means you need to cut our defense spending by 50 BILLION MORE than the $200 billion i had suggested.

SOOOOOOOO, GO FOR IT....LET'S HEAR it, oh wise Rabbi....where would you spend the $450 billion(2004 level) on the defense of this nation?

Every place we spent it in 2004. Is that so hard?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Does entitlement spending include:

Farm subsidies
Corporate tax incentives
Veterans benefits
Social Security
Capital gains

Capital gains isn't entitlement spending. SS, medicare, welfare, medicaid, are entitlement spending. But to answer your question, specifically veterans, I would focus more on defense contracting waste. There's plenty of it. We could cut 10 percent out and still have the most advanced military in the world. I would not cut veterans benefits, even though they get crappy service.

End SS. All seniors continue to receive what they put in. The rest of us receive a lump sum x amount of dollars depending on the amount we have put in. Yeah, farm subsidies need to be cut along with corporate welfare ie the fed continuously bailing out banking, financial institutions.

Why?

SS is a very successful program and fully funded. Doesn't add a dime in expenditures. It's "tipping point" is decades away. And it's pretty easy to remedy..bump up the contribution limit.

Sure, Sallow, that sounds great. Take more out of my pay that I'll never see. Fully funded! It's an IOU fest anymore. We need an opt in/opt out system. I'm pretty sure that I could invest my own money over my working career better than the fed at 2 percent and Im pretty sure that you could too. Some people can't though, they deserve the opt in provision, lol.

 

[Paulie]

Ah there we go. The old Care4all debate technique: fly in, drop a load of shit, and fly out again.
I'm not the one who thinks defense spending ought to be cut by nearly a third.

hmmmmmm....there ya go again Rabbi.....talking out two sides of your mouth....tsk tsk tsk!!!!

here YOU SAY we need to bring our budget to the 2004 budget...

Simply enact the same budget we had in 2004 and everything will be fine.
2004 expenditures:$2.318T [
2010 revenue:$2.381T

What's hard about that??

well dear, you need to put your money where your mouth is....and OWN UP for goodness sakes, to your OWN statements!

the 2004 budget for our Defense dept IS $250 BILLION LESS than the 2009 defense spending....the 2004 budget for defense was 450 billion

that means you need to cut our defense spending by 50 BILLION MORE than the $200 billion i had suggested.

SOOOOOOOO, GO FOR IT....LET'S HEAR it, oh wise Rabbi....where would you spend the $450 billion(2004 level) on the defense of this nation?

Every place we spent it in 2004. Is that so hard?

You really think there was no waste in the 2004 defense budget?

Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
Antigua
Argentina
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belgium
Belize
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana
Brazil
Bulgaria
Burma
Burundi
Cambodia
Cameroon
Canada
Chad
Chile
China
Colombia
Congo
Costa Rica
Cote D'lvoire
Cuba
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Djibouti
Dominican Republic
East Timor
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Fiji

Finland
France
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Guatemala
Guinea
Haiti
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iraq
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Latvia
Lebanon
Liberia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Macedonia
Madagascar
Malawi
Malaysia
Mali
Malta
Mexico
Mongolia
Morocco
Mozambique
Nepal
Netherlands
New Zealand
Nicaragua

Niger
Nigeria
North Korea
Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Qatar
Romania
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Serbia and Montenegro
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Slovenia
Spain
South Africa
South Korea
Sri Lanka
Suriname
Sweden
Switzerland
Syria
Tanzania
Thailand
Togo
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Turkey
Turkmenistan
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
Uruguay
Venezuela
Vietnam
Yemen
Zambia
Zimbabwe

You can't find some countries in that list that we don't need to be in?

 

[The Rabbi]

Does entitlement spending include:

Farm subsidies
Corporate tax incentives
Veterans benefits
Social Security
Capital gains

Capital gains isn't entitlement spending. SS, medicare, welfare, medicaid, are entitlement spending. But to answer your question, specifically veterans, I would focus more on defense contracting waste. There's plenty of it. We could cut 10 percent out and still have the most advanced military in the world. I would not cut veterans benefits, even though they get crappy service.

End SS. All seniors continue to receive what they put in. The rest of us receive a lump sum x amount of dollars depending on the amount we have put in. Yeah, farm subsidies need to be cut along with corporate welfare ie the fed continuously bailing out banking, financial institutions.

Why?

SS is a very successful program and fully funded. Doesn't add a dime in expenditures. It's "tipping point" is decades away. And it's pretty easy to remedy..bump up the contribution limit.

If the Left didn't lie they'd have nothing to say:

The financial outlook for Social Security is little changed from last year. The short term outlook is worsened by a deeper recession than was projected last year, but the overall 75-year outlook is nevertheless somewhat improved primarily because a provision of the ACA is expected to cause a higher share of labor compensation to be paid in the form of wages that are subject to the Social Security payroll tax than would occur in the absence of the legislation. The Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Fund, however, is now projected to become exhausted in 2018, two years earlier than in last year’s report. Thus, changes to improve the financial status of the DI program are needed soon.

Social Security expenditures are expected to exceed tax receipts this year for the first time since 1983. The projected deficit of $41 billion this year (excluding interest income) is attributable to the recession and to an expected $25 billion downward adjustment to 2010 income that corrects for excess payroll tax revenue credited to the trust funds in earlier years. This deficit is expected to shrink substantially for 2011 and to return to small surpluses for years 2012-2014 due to the improving economy. After 2014 deficits are expected to grow rapidly as the baby boom generation’s retirement causes the number of beneficiaries to grow substantially more rapidly than the number of covered workers. The annual deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets in amounts less than interest earnings through 2024, and then by redeeming trust fund assets until reserves are exhausted in 2037, at which point tax income would be sufficient to pay about 75 percent of scheduled benefits through 2084. The projected exhaustion date for the combined OASI and DI Trust Funds is unchanged from last year’s report.

The long-run financial challenges facing Social Security and those that remain for Medicare should be addressed soon. If action is taken sooner rather than later, more options will be available and more time will be available to phase in changes so that those affected have adequate time to prepare

from the trustees report 2010.

 

[Sallow]

Sure, Sallow, that sounds great. Take more out of my pay that I'll never see. Fully funded! It's an IOU fest anymore. We need an opt in/opt out system. I'm pretty sure that I could invest my own money over my working career better than the fed at 2 percent and Im pretty sure that you could too. Some people can't though, they deserve the opt in provision, lol.

Well if you plan on dying before your retirement..sure..you aren't going to see it.

Opt in/out would not work..for a number of reasons. First off..it wouldn't be fully funded any longer..and there might be some Constitutional issues.

SSI basically allows one to live with a bit of dignity when their working lives have come to an end.

What is so bad about that?

 

[Paulie]

Sure, Sallow, that sounds great. Take more out of my pay that I'll never see. Fully funded! It's an IOU fest anymore. We need an opt in/opt out system. I'm pretty sure that I could invest my own money over my working career better than the fed at 2 percent and Im pretty sure that you could too. Some people can't though, they deserve the opt in provision, lol.

Well if you plan on dying before your retirement..sure..you aren't going to see it.

Opt in/out would not work..for a number of reasons. First off..it wouldn't be fully funded any longer..and there might be some Constitutional issues.

SSI basically allows one to live with a bit of dignity when their working lives have come to an end.

What is so bad about that?

Might be some constitutional issues??

Please do elaborate.

 

[Sallow]

Capital gains isn't entitlement spending. SS, medicare, welfare, medicaid, are entitlement spending. But to answer your question, specifically veterans, I would focus more on defense contracting waste. There's plenty of it. We could cut 10 percent out and still have the most advanced military in the world. I would not cut veterans benefits, even though they get crappy service.

End SS. All seniors continue to receive what they put in. The rest of us receive a lump sum x amount of dollars depending on the amount we have put in. Yeah, farm subsidies need to be cut along with corporate welfare ie the fed continuously bailing out banking, financial institutions.

Why?

SS is a very successful program and fully funded. Doesn't add a dime in expenditures. It's "tipping point" is decades away. And it's pretty easy to remedy..bump up the contribution limit.

If the Left didn't lie they'd have nothing to say:

The financial outlook for Social Security is little changed from last year. The short term outlook is worsened by a deeper recession than was projected last year, but the overall 75-year outlook is nevertheless somewhat improved primarily because a provision of the ACA is expected to cause a higher share of labor compensation to be paid in the form of wages that are subject to the Social Security payroll tax than would occur in the absence of the legislation. The Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Fund, however, is now projected to become exhausted in 2018, two years earlier than in last year’s report. Thus, changes to improve the financial status of the DI program are needed soon.

Social Security expenditures are expected to exceed tax receipts this year for the first time since 1983. The projected deficit of $41 billion this year (excluding interest income) is attributable to the recession and to an expected $25 billion downward adjustment to 2010 income that corrects for excess payroll tax revenue credited to the trust funds in earlier years. This deficit is expected to shrink substantially for 2011 and to return to small surpluses for years 2012-2014 due to the improving economy. After 2014 deficits are expected to grow rapidly as the baby boom generation’s retirement causes the number of beneficiaries to grow substantially more rapidly than the number of covered workers. The annual deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets in amounts less than interest earnings through 2024, and then by redeeming trust fund assets until reserves are exhausted in 2037, at which point tax income would be sufficient to pay about 75 percent of scheduled benefits through 2084. The projected exhaustion date for the combined OASI and DI Trust Funds is unchanged from last year’s report.

The long-run financial challenges facing Social Security and those that remain for Medicare should be addressed soon. If action is taken sooner rather than later, more options will be available and more time will be available to phase in changes so that those affected have adequate time to prepare

from the trustees report 2010.

Aside for it's alarmist tone..it basically supports what I posted. SSI is funded for quite some time to come..and small adjustments would deal with future shortfalls. Raising the contribution limit, moderately, would basically do the trick.

 

[The Rabbi]

Why?

SS is a very successful program and fully funded. Doesn't add a dime in expenditures. It's "tipping point" is decades away. And it's pretty easy to remedy..bump up the contribution limit.

If the Left didn't lie they'd have nothing to say:

The financial outlook for Social Security is little changed from last year. The short term outlook is worsened by a deeper recession than was projected last year, but the overall 75-year outlook is nevertheless somewhat improved primarily because a provision of the ACA is expected to cause a higher share of labor compensation to be paid in the form of wages that are subject to the Social Security payroll tax than would occur in the absence of the legislation. The Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Fund, however, is now projected to become exhausted in 2018, two years earlier than in last year’s report. Thus, changes to improve the financial status of the DI program are needed soon.

Social Security expenditures are expected to exceed tax receipts this year for the first time since 1983. The projected deficit of $41 billion this year (excluding interest income) is attributable to the recession and to an expected $25 billion downward adjustment to 2010 income that corrects for excess payroll tax revenue credited to the trust funds in earlier years. This deficit is expected to shrink substantially for 2011 and to return to small surpluses for years 2012-2014 due to the improving economy. After 2014 deficits are expected to grow rapidly as the baby boom generation’s retirement causes the number of beneficiaries to grow substantially more rapidly than the number of covered workers. The annual deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets in amounts less than interest earnings through 2024, and then by redeeming trust fund assets until reserves are exhausted in 2037, at which point tax income would be sufficient to pay about 75 percent of scheduled benefits through 2084. The projected exhaustion date for the combined OASI and DI Trust Funds is unchanged from last year’s report.

The long-run financial challenges facing Social Security and those that remain for Medicare should be addressed soon. If action is taken sooner rather than later, more options will be available and more time will be available to phase in changes so that those affected have adequate time to prepare

from the trustees report 2010.

Aside for it's alarmist tone..it basically supports what I posted. SSI is funded for quite some time to come..and small adjustments would deal with future shortfalls. Raising the contribution limit, moderately, would basically do the trick.

Uh, sure it does. No problems here.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Sure, Sallow, that sounds great. Take more out of my pay that I'll never see. Fully funded! It's an IOU fest anymore. We need an opt in/opt out system. I'm pretty sure that I could invest my own money over my working career better than the fed at 2 percent and Im pretty sure that you could too. Some people can't though, they deserve the opt in provision, lol.

Well if you plan on dying before your retirement..sure..you aren't going to see it.

Opt in/out would not work..for a number of reasons. First off..it wouldn't be fully funded any longer..and there might be some Constitutional issues.

SSI basically allows one to live with a bit of dignity when their working lives have come to an end.

What is so bad about that?

You got me laughing too hard man. Hell, it's already unconstitutional. By my plan it would be 50 percent unconstitutional. See, compromise, lol.

Allowing one to choose what to do with they're money seems more reasonable to me. SS is predicated on the citizen being to dumb to know what to do with his or her money. Arrogant is the word that comes to mind on the part of the federal government.