GOP 2012 budget to make $4 trillion-plus in cuts

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by Randell1234, Apr 3, 2011.

Loading...
  1. Randell1234

    Randell1234 Moderator

    I never claim to be a "political person" so I am sure I am missing something. We are taught that debt is bad, buy what you can afford, be responsible in spending, don't over extend yourself, blah, blah, blah, and let's not get into the ROI stuff! Why would people get so upset when a proposel to cut spending is made when we are trillions in debt? Do people have the mindset that cuts are bad and debt is good? Or is it - cut someplace but no place that effect me?

    Is overspending (Dem or Rep) bad? This is not a "political side" discussion...this is a "balance your checkbook" discussion.

    GOP 2012 budget to make $4 trillion-plus in cuts - GOP 2012 budget to make $4 trillion-plus in cuts - Yahoo! News
     
  2. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    :iagree: However... :firedevil:

    Cuts are fine, as long as they are done responsibly.

    To give a microlevel comparison, you could cut your food budget in half by bringing food to work, learning to cook, and buying nonperishables in bulk. Cut it by too much more and you'll be eating ramen noodle soup three times a day, which will grossly effect your health in the long-run, ruin your quality of life AND be more expensive overall when the differential of healthcare costs are factored in.

    Back to the macrolevel, you could significantly cut funding to roads and bridges, but soon enough the potholes and collapses would be both a mess to live in and more expensive overall when the repairs, lawsuits and inevitable stalls in commerce occur.

    There is also the fact that cuts have a finite limit. You can't cut your spending to a number lower than 0, but you still might be in debt, so there needs to be improvements on both ends. Cut waste and find new forms of revenue. It's a balancing equation so simple and obvious that there is no way that politicians will ever figure it out.
     
  3. OutsideTheBox

    OutsideTheBox New Member

    I don't see the problem long term most experts say there will be critical food shortages worldwide in most high population nations like China, leaving us the big food producer with a few other nations. Then we will have the leverage you waive the debt or take our food as payment at what prices we set OR starve and let your people go ballistic (after we feed our people first). What choice will nations have we owe money to anyway we could go to police emergency powers, tell them to go to hell and default we can feed and house and clothe every citizen if we rationed and wait out the rest of the world as they get that shock and recover over decades. If they decide to force the issue we are a major nuclear power I would be hard pressed to see invasion as an option for anyone that cares about not getting nuked into the stone age.

    Seems to me not an issue at all borrow until we can't, default or if food is scarce use that as leverage. Any way I see it we will be alright.

    I think our best move is to prepare to get by with far less oil and setting up a system just in case WWII sort of rationing is needed as long as people are housed, fed, clothed and entertained with some work to do even if government supported for extra rations most people will behave.
     
  4. Abner

    Abner Well-Known Member

    I have not read the plan/article as I am on the road, but I imagine there is nothing about cutting corporate welfare. I am all for cutting, but let's cut everything evenly. We should also raise taxes.

    Abner



     
  5. Ted Heiks

    Ted Heiks Moderator and Distinguished Senior Member

    Since when (what calendar year) has the federal budget defecit been measured in trillions? :saeek:
     
  6. AUTiger00

    AUTiger00 New Member

    Say that in Richmond and that Southern hospitality you're so fond of will disappear real quick.
     
  7. Abner

    Abner Well-Known Member

    That's ok. Wouldn't be the first time someone doesn't like my views. Of course, I don't have to like theirs either. God Bless America!

    Abner :)
     
  8. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    Somethings seem less useful than others. For example, does the U.S. really need to outspend every other country in the world combined on military matters?

    Good news, my friend, there's a place on your tax return where you can pay more to help offset the public debt. Be generous!

    -=Steve=-
     
  9. major56

    major56 Active Member

    “Good news, my friend, there's a place on your tax return where you can pay more to help offset the public debt. Be generous!”

    -=Steve=-


    Outstanding reply Steve!!! :smokin:
     
  10. louieknucks

    louieknucks Member

    "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."

    - Sen. Barack Obama, March 20, 2006
     
  11. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    It's amazing how little President Obama resembles Candidate Obama. He ran against Bush's record, then turned his tenure into what may as well have been Bush's third term.

    -=Steve=-
     
  12. diplox

    diplox New Member

    Taxes should be raised before any cuts to essential and social services are made, honestly.

    Paul Ryan's 2012 proposed budget of course, doesn't do that, in fact Ryan wants to further reduce taxes for the wealthiest Americans. Which pretty much means excessively deep cuts to social programs, and a further redistribution of wealth away from the lower and middle class towards the wealthy.

    Mind you, I agree with reducing the debt, but I think when they say everyone has to make sacrifices, they should really mean everyone. They need to stop balancing their budget entirely on the backs of the poor.
     
  13. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    I think most people would agree that loopholes should be closed before taxes are raised.
     
  14. diplox

    diplox New Member

    Perhaps, but everyone in Congress has their sacred cow in the tax code they don't want to give up.
     
  15. AUTiger00

    AUTiger00 New Member

    I hate to break this to you, but wealthy Americans pay more than their fair share. The upper 50% of wage earners pay 97% of all taxes, while the lower 50% only pay 3%. How is that fair and equitable? And don't fire back with some moronic statement about how the wealthy have the means to pay more so they should. We aren't a socialist society (yet) and we shouldn't start punishing people for being successful.
     
  16. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    People with the top one percent of incomes pay over one third of all the personal income tax that's collected. People in the bottom fifty percent of incomes pay just 2.7% of all the personal income tax that's collected. That's hardly redistributing wealth from the poor to the rich, it's quite the opposite. Now, you may think that redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor is a good thing, but calling what it isn't is awfully disingenuous.

    -=Steve=-
     
  17. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    Heh, AUTiger00, looks like we shop at the same store....

    -=Steve=-
     
  18. AUTiger00

    AUTiger00 New Member


    Yep. The Intelligence and Reason Store. Love that place.
     
  19. Randell1234

    Randell1234 Moderator

    'Historic' deal to avoid government shutdown

    WASHINGTON – Perilously close to a government shutdown, President Barack Obama and congressional leaders forged agreement late Friday night on a deal to cut more than $37 billion in federal spending and avert the first closure in 15 years.

    Obama hailed the deal as "the biggest annual spending cut in history," and House Speaker John Boehner said that over the next decade it would cut government spending by $500 billion.

    "This is historic, what we've done," said the third man in the talks, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

    They announced the agreement less than an hour before government funding was due to run out. Still under the gun, lawmakers raced to pass an interim measure to prevent a shutdown, however brief, and keep the federal machinery running for the next several days.


    'Historic' deal to avoid government shutdown - Yahoo! News

    I love this line - "This is historic, what we've done," said the third man in the talks, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. Does he mean stop the shut down or the fact that it was driven to this point? Somehow I am sure this was still Bush's fault.
     
  20. major56

    major56 Active Member

    With the U.S. National Debt outstanding continuing to escalate at an average of $4.08 billion per day since 9/28/2007 (re U.S. National Debt Clock); cutting $37 billion doesn’t even scratch the surface…

    From 9/28/2007 to 4/09/2011: that’s 1,289 days or 3 years, 6 months, and 12 days x $4.08 billion per day...

    Another President /Congressional dog-and-pony show…(?)

    The Outstanding U.S. Public Debt as of 09 Apr 2011 at 04:22:26 AM GMT is (re U.S. National Debt Clock):
    $14,269,414,625,833.12

    Do the math…

    Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)
    Thru 4/07/3022: $14,264,245,526,311.58
     

Share This Page