Where do YOU Think Gov't Should Cut Spending?

[eflatminor]

Just a thought, but where would you think the government needs to cut spending?

You neglected to offer an "all of the above" choice in your poll.

Specifically, I endorse the Mack Penny Plan.

The Mack Penny Plan would balance the federal budget in eight years by cutting one penny out of every federal dollar spent for six years and capping spending at 18% of GDP beginning in the seventh year. If Congress fails to make the necessary cuts, the plan triggers automatic, across-the-board cuts to meet the yearly caps.

It's basically a phasing in of learning to live within our means. We currently collect just over $2 trillion in tax revenue. We managed to live just fine on that amount less than 10 years ago. We can live on it today. Besides, passing debt to those yet to be born so we can live large is immoral, IMO.

 

[eflatminor]

LBJ's "war on poverty" spent trillions of dollars putting more people in poverty.

Correct!

 

[BreezeWood]

revamp the tax code - everyone pays minimum 7%, progressing proportionately 1% for income above $50,000.00 to top out at 30% tax at 1 million and above - no deductions.

 

[longknife]

I did a quick Google on What it Costs to Run Congress and came up with:

The Impolitic: The real cost of Congress
Congress Costs How Much Again?? : The Sundries Shack
A truly frightening site @ http://library.clerk.house.gov/reference-files/112_20120104_Salary.pdf
What CONGRESS Really Costs You: $2.8 Billion a Year THE PROBLEMS RUN MUCH DEEPER THAN THE SCANDALS AND PERKS YOU HAVE READ ABOUT. INDEED, NO MATTER HOW EXTRAVAGANT AND INEFFICIENT YOU NOW BELIEVE CONGRESS IS WITH YOUR MONEY, THE REALITY IS WORSE. - A

So, if Congress was/is serious about reducing the cost of government, they certainly should start by cleaning their own house.

Think of it for a moment - WE not only pay the Senator and Representative their salaries but for their personal staffs and ancillary costs of their being there.

Then, we end up paying for all the employees of the various committees and sub-committees. And then, there is of course all their "fact-finding" efforts such as taking their familiar with them to investigate why the water is rising in Venice, Italy or how the locals harvest coconuts in Bali.

How many millions - or even billions - could be saved just by judicial spending in CONGRESS itself?

 

[Oddball]

revamp the tax code - everyone pays minimum 7%, progressing proportionately 1% for income above $50,000.00 to top out at 30% tax at 1 million and above - no deductions.

Right...Because a gubmint that takes in $3+ trillion and still can't make ends meet surely needs to do a better job shaking down the rustics.

 

[saveliberty]

But...but...YOU NEED TO TAX THE RICH MORE!!!

Somebody call the Whaambulance.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Just a thought, but where would you think the government needs to cut spending?

I'd start with Congress. Pay them minimum wage and only when they are in session; provide them only the benefits affored to workers in the fast food industry, i.e., Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

 

[bripat9643]

You realize that if Congress does nothing with the "fiscal cliff", that is exactly what happens.

That's too draconian. It would take money out of the pockets of those that can least afford it.

You mean your hero Clinton took money from the people who could least afford it?

 

[GuyPinestra]

revamp the tax code - everyone pays minimum 7%, progressing proportionately 1% for income above $50,000.00 to top out at 30% tax at 1 million and above - no deductions.

Did you even bother to read the thread title, moron?

"Where do YOU Think Gov't Should Cut Spending?"

How does your post EVEN COME CLOSE to addressing the question?

 

[AmericanFirst]

Just a thought, but where would you think the government needs to cut spending?

Start with repealing the stupid obamacare law.

 

[Glensather]

See, this is what I like to see. Serious discussion about problems without screaming at each other (well, not as much as usual).
Now if can keep the radicals away from this thread (on both sides), we'll be in business.

Education in general. It should be a state run program. Then we create 50 separate programs that can show us what truly works best.

How do you feel about private education? It's my understanding that in many cases private education is leagues ahead of public education.

Do you think it would be good to have the government step aside and allow the private sector to have a bigger role in education?

Libs kill me they want to get more money from the rich as if that will fix much of anything...

I think it's a start, in many ways, but it's not the only solution.
And honestly, I think we wouldn't have to raise the taxes on the rich so much as close all the loopholes in the tax code that allow them to get away with paying no taxes.

I'd also start by STOPPING this action that has been instituted under Obama!!!
Production on Federal Leases is DOWN!
While President Obama has been touting in recent days that his administration is promoting oil drilling in the United States, oil production on federally owned lands has in fact declined by 17,000 barrels per day since he took office in 2009.

I think this is a direct result of Obama's "War on Oil" so to speak. He's so focused on getting alternative energy sources that he's allowing Oil production to decline.

Now, I'm a big fan of alternative energy sources, but we can't afford the research into making it... viable, I guess? Maybe in time we can get off of oil, but it's the best thing we've got right now, and we don't need to let go of it just yet.

You neglected to offer an "all of the above" choice in your poll.

Specifically, I endorse the Mack Penny Plan.

The Mack Penny Plan would balance the federal budget in eight years by cutting one penny out of every federal dollar spent for six years and capping spending at 18% of GDP beginning in the seventh year. If Congress fails to make the necessary cuts, the plan triggers automatic, across-the-board cuts to meet the yearly caps.

It's basically a phasing in of learning to live within our means. We currently collect just over $2 trillion in tax revenue. We managed to live just fine on that amount less than 10 years ago. We can live on it today. Besides, passing debt to those yet to be born so we can live large is immoral, IMO.

That's why it's multiple choice

Also I've never heard of this plan before now. Is it something congress is considering?

I did a quick Google on What it Costs to Run Congress and came up with:

The Impolitic: The real cost of Congress
Congress Costs How Much Again?? : The Sundries Shack
A truly frightening site @ http://library.clerk.house.gov/reference-files/112_20120104_Salary.pdf
What CONGRESS Really Costs You: $2.8 Billion a Year THE PROBLEMS RUN MUCH DEEPER THAN THE SCANDALS AND PERKS YOU HAVE READ ABOUT. INDEED, NO MATTER HOW EXTRAVAGANT AND INEFFICIENT YOU NOW BELIEVE CONGRESS IS WITH YOUR MONEY, THE REALITY IS WORSE. - A

So, if Congress was/is serious about reducing the cost of government, they certainly should start by cleaning their own house.

Think of it for a moment - WE not only pay the Senator and Representative their salaries but for their personal staffs and ancillary costs of their being there.

Then, we end up paying for all the employees of the various committees and sub-committees. And then, there is of course all their "fact-finding" efforts such as taking their familiar with them to investigate why the water is rising in Venice, Italy or how the locals harvest coconuts in Bali.

How many millions - or even billions - could be saved just by judicial spending in CONGRESS itself?

That's a good find.
It's nice to know that we've been paying for people who don't have direct influence on Congress as well as the Congressmen themselves.

Except, you know, it's not nice at all.

 

[BreezeWood]

revamp the tax code - everyone pays minimum 7%, progressing proportionately 1% for income above $50,000.00 to top out at 30% tax at 1 million and above - no deductions.

Did you even bother to read the thread title, moron?

"Where do YOU Think Gov't Should Cut Spending?"

How does your post EVEN COME CLOSE to addressing the question?

Other (Please Explain)

with an adequate source of income from the sectors able to afford it, is the basis for whether spending cuts are necessary or not.

there may be adequate revenue to maintain present levels of necessary spending while reducing the budget deficit by tax code legislation alone - as proved during the Clinton Administration of management over hyperbole.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Slash the Department of Energy, Education, and HHS.

Slash Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, welfare, etc.

Raise the Social Security tax on all income, no income ceiling. It doesn't make sense the system is going broke but we don't tax income above a certain level.

Oh, destroy Obamacare....that's about $2T saved.

 

[bripat9643]

with an adequate source of income from the sectors able to afford it, is the basis for whether spending cuts are necessary or not.

there may be adequate revenue to maintain present levels of necessary spending while reducing the budget deficit by tax code legislation alone - as proved during the Clinton Administration of management over hyperbole.

Clinton cut defense spending every year he was in office, shit stain. The Republicans also rammed welfare reform down his throat and forced him to cut spending there.

 

[bripat9643]

Slash the Department of Energy, Education, and HHS.

Slash Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, welfare, etc.

Raise the Social Security tax on all income, no income ceiling. It doesn't make sense the system is going broke but we don't take income above a certain level.

Oh, destroy Obamacare....that's about $2T saved.

**** raising Social Security taxes. Why should the rich pay more if they aren't going to receive more?

 

[GuyPinestra]

revamp the tax code - everyone pays minimum 7%, progressing proportionately 1% for income above $50,000.00 to top out at 30% tax at 1 million and above - no deductions.

Did you even bother to read the thread title, moron?

"Where do YOU Think Gov't Should Cut Spending?"

How does your post EVEN COME CLOSE to addressing the question?

Other (Please Explain)

with an adequate source of income from the sectors able to afford it, is the basis for whether spending cuts are necessary or not.

there may be adequate revenue to maintain present levels of necessary spending while reducing the budget deficit by tax code legislation alone - as proved during the Clinton Administration of management over hyperbole.

IOW, we don't have to cut spending if we can raise taxes high enough?

Let me repeat myself from a different thread. You can 'tax the rich' 100%, liquidate their assets AND liquidate the Fortune 500, it still won't get you what you need to maintain current spending, let alone reduce the debt.

Then what do you do NEXT year?

 

[GoneBezerk]

Without doing that, they will get NOTHING.

The system is going broke, so soon rich people will be banned from getting a dime back after they paid into the system for decades.

It is wrong someone that makes $35,000 a year pays Social Security on all their income and someone that makes a million a year only pays taxes up to whatever the ceiling is....$85,000?

Everyone should pay into Social Security against all their income, so everyone that pays can get something back in the end.

Slash the Department of Energy, Education, and HHS.

Slash Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, welfare, etc.

Raise the Social Security tax on all income, no income ceiling. It doesn't make sense the system is going broke but we don't take income above a certain level.

Oh, destroy Obamacare....that's about $2T saved.

**** raising Social Security taxes. Why should the rich pay more if they aren't going to receive more?

 

[eflatminor]

You neglected to offer an "all of the above" choice in your poll.

Specifically, I endorse the Mack Penny Plan.

The Mack Penny Plan would balance the federal budget in eight years by cutting one penny out of every federal dollar spent for six years and capping spending at 18% of GDP beginning in the seventh year. If Congress fails to make the necessary cuts, the plan triggers automatic, across-the-board cuts to meet the yearly caps.

It's basically a phasing in of learning to live within our means. We currently collect just over $2 trillion in tax revenue. We managed to live just fine on that amount less than 10 years ago. We can live on it today. Besides, passing debt to those yet to be born so we can live large is immoral, IMO.

That's why it's multiple choice

Also I've never heard of this plan before now. Is it something congress is considering?

I wish! The vast majority in Congress think it's RADICAL to suggest we slightly reduce the planned rate of increased spending. Actual CUTS? No frickin' way.

 

[AmyNation]

Off the top of my head

Cut the tsa
Cut the dept of education
Combine CIA and FBI

 

[Wehrwolfen]

I did a quick Google on What it Costs to Run Congress and came up with:

The Impolitic: The real cost of Congress
Congress Costs How Much Again?? : The Sundries Shack
A truly frightening site @ http://library.clerk.house.gov/reference-files/112_20120104_Salary.pdf
What CONGRESS Really Costs You: $2.8 Billion a Year THE PROBLEMS RUN MUCH DEEPER THAN THE SCANDALS AND PERKS YOU HAVE READ ABOUT. INDEED, NO MATTER HOW EXTRAVAGANT AND INEFFICIENT YOU NOW BELIEVE CONGRESS IS WITH YOUR MONEY, THE REALITY IS WORSE. - A

So, if Congress was/is serious about reducing the cost of government, they certainly should start by cleaning their own house.

Think of it for a moment - WE not only pay the Senator and Representative their salaries but for their personal staffs and ancillary costs of their being there.

Then, we end up paying for all the employees of the various committees and sub-committees. And then, there is of course all their "fact-finding" efforts such as taking their familiar with them to investigate why the water is rising in Venice, Italy or how the locals harvest coconuts in Bali.

How many millions - or even billions - could be saved just by judicial spending in CONGRESS itself?

I hope that when you are talking about Congress you are also including the Senate. While we're at it force term limits on both Congress and the Senate.