What Should Prez Obama Cut To Bring Down Gov. Spending

thoughtone

Rising Star
Registered
I think a drastic cut in the military budget is in order. The military budget is now 50% of the budget. I have many threads posted on this board that illustrate bloated military spending and an entire thread on what Eisenhower said about the military industrial complex that is too hot for junior GOP on BGOL to respond to.
 
Welfare. Military. That's it.

Welfare was virtually eliminated under Clinton. The little that is left is pawltry compared to the other government obligations. With all due respect, stop parroting the right wing talking points.

BTW, how about Pell Grants?
 
Nothing needs to be cut per say. What is needed is better oversight. People are pissed at both the military complex and the welfare system because there's no accountability. Because of this, people take advantage of both systems and money is wasted.
 
Nothing needs to be cut per say. What is needed is better oversight. People are pissed at both the military complex and the welfare system because there's no accountability. Because of this, people take advantage of both systems and money is wasted.


You hit the nail on the head with that. The same idea goes for education. The university i used to go to had these petty cash cards for faculty to use and there were idiot professors abusing it and getting massages and buying clothes with it. There was almost no oversight for the longest time. Hope they got smarter now.
 
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/if88PgI-vfU&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/if88PgI-vfU&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
 
bump_signs.jpg
 
Obama biggest recipient of BP cash


While the BP oil geyser pumps millions of gallons of petroleum into the Gulf of Mexico, President Barack Obama and members of Congress may have to answer for the millions in campaign contributions they’ve taken from the oil and gas giant over the years.


BP and its employees have given more than $3.5 million to federal candidates over the past 20 years, with the largest chunk of their money going to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Donations come from a mix of employees and the company’s political action committees — $2.89 million flowed to campaigns from BP-related PACs and about $638,000 came from individuals.


On top of that, the oil giant has spent millions each year on lobbying — including $15.9 million last year alone — as it has tried to influence energy policy.


During his time in the Senate and while running for president, Obama received a total of $77,051 from the oil giant and is the top recipient of BP PAC and individual money over the past 20 years, according to financial disclosure records.

An Obama spokesman rejected the notion that the president took big oil money.

“President Obama didn’t accept a dime from corporate PACs or federal lobbyists during his presidential campaign,” spokesman Ben LaBolt said. “He raised $750 million from nearly four million Americans. And since he became president, he rolled back tax breaks and giveaways for the oil and gas industry, spearheaded a G20 agreement to phase out fossil fuel subsidies, and made the largest investment in American history in clean energy incentives.”


In Congress, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), who last week cautioned that the incident should “not be used inappropriately” to halt Obama’s push for expansion of offshore drilling, has been one of the biggest beneficiaries of BP’s largesse. Her comments created some blowback, with critics complaining that she is too blasé about the impact of the disaster, even though she was among the first lawmakers to call for a federal investigation into the spill.


As the top congressional recipient in the last cycle and one of the top BP cash recipients of the past two decades, Landrieu banked almost $17,000 from the oil giant in 2008 alone and has lined her war chest with more than $28,000 in BP cash overall.


“Campaign contributions, from energy companies or from environmental groups, have absolutely no impact on Sen. Landrieu’s policy agenda or her response to this unprecedented disaster in the Gulf,” said Landrieu spokesman Aaron Saunders. “The senator is proud of the broad coalition she’s built since her first day in the Senate to address the energy and environmental challenges in Louisiana and in the nation. This disaster only makes the effort to promote and save Louisiana’s coast all that more important.”


Several BP executives have given directly to Landrieu’s campaign, including current and previous U.S. operation Presidents Lamar McKay and Robert Malone. Other donors include Margaret Hudson, BP’s America vice president, and Benjamin Cannon, federal affairs director for the U.S. branch. Donations ranged from $1,000 to $2,300 during the past campaign cycle.


Environmentalists complain that Landrieu has played down the impact of oil spills.


“I mean, just the gallons are so minuscule compared to the benefits of U.S. strength and security, the benefits of job creation and energy security,” Landrieu said at a hearing last month on offshore drilling. “So while there are risks associated with everything, I think you understand that they are quite, quite minimal.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html

The throats of every defense contract CEO, oil company head, and Republican. :rolleyes:
 
I think a drastic cut in the military budget is in order. The military budget is now 50% of the budget. I have many threads posted on this board that illustrate bloated military spending and an entire thread on what Eisenhower said about the military industrial complex that is too hot for junior GOP on BGOL to respond to.


All jokes aside, the president's most acute priority is to uphold the constitution and protect our borders.

The constitution doesn't say congress should provide everyone with food stamps, cash for clunkers, a house or free healthcare.

PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE DOES NOT MEAN PROVIDE!!!
GREAT EXPLANATION

Misrepresentations which remind me of amateur biblical exegetes, picking out a few words of the bible and extrapolating meaning ad infinitum.
"promote the general welfare" is simply a justification listed as to "why" a constitution was required. The only meaning you can take from it is quite literal - (remember this is the preamble) - that the document itself is asserted to "promote the general welfare":
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Translation: "The people of the US are writing this document as a covenant for a bunch of reasons. We think that everything that follows this preamble is going to achieve these things"
The Preamble does not grant any particular authority to the federal government and it does not prohibit any particular authority. It establishes the fact that the federal government has no authority outside of what follows the preamble, as amended.
-----------

Mentioned in the United States' Preamble to the Constitution, "Welfare" means health, happiness, prosperity or well-being. The country has an interest in promoting or maintaining the well-being and liberty of its people.

A common misconception is that the "General Welfare" mentioned in the constitution is synonymous with our modern "welfare" programs.

Congress was granted the power to promote the general welfare of the nation by the Constitution of the United States. It means that Congress should provide laws that are in keeping with the principles of the self governed. It means that Congress may provide legislation that acts in a general best interest of a nation.

----
Actually, the General Welfare clause, as it became known, was a limitation of federal power written into the Preamble. Benjamin Franklin, during the Constitutional Convention, proposed a tax for canals. Canals were important for businesses to receive and ship merchandise.

Gouverneur Morris of New York argued that it wasn't right to tax the whole people while only those towns that had canals would benefit. This started a discussion about the powers of the federal government to tax.

They finally came up with the General Welfare clause which the Founders meant that unless the whole people of the United States would benefit from the tax, you should not promote it. Only the general, or the whole, welfare of the people should benefit from the tax.

In those days they did not call what we now call welfare, welfare. They called it "poor relief". The concept of the term "welfare" for poor relief was unknown and is a false modern interpretation.
 

You and Gunner take your right wing Republican likes and half truths the hell out of here!!!


source: Media Matters

Palin clings to false claim that Obama received the most BP PAC money

On Facebook, Sarah Palin falsely claimed it is an "undisputed fact that Barack Obama was BP's top recipient of both PAC and individual money for the last 20 years." In fact, President Obama received no PAC money from BP during his presidential campaign, and only $1,000 during his 2004 Senate campaign



<object width='320' height='260'><param name='movie' value='http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/flash/player.swf'></param><param name='flashvars' value='config=http://mediamatters.org/embed/cfg2?id=201005240069'></param><param name='allowscriptaccess' value='always'></param><param name='allownetworking' value='all'></param><embed src='http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/flash/player.swf' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' flashvars='config=http://mediamatters.org/embed/cfg2?id=201005240069' allowscriptaccess='always' allowfullscreen='true' width='320' height='260'></embed></object>

Palin falsely claimed "Obama was BP's top recipient of both PAC and individual money for the last 20 years"
Palin: It is an "undisputed fact that Barack Obama was BP's top recipient of both PAC and individual money for the last 20 years." In a responding to White House press secretary Robert Gibbs' criticism of her suggestion on the May 23 edition of Fox News Sunday that there is a connection between "contributions made to President Obama" by oil companies and administration's response to oil spill, Palin wrote on her Facebook page that it is an "undisputed fact that Barack Obama was BP's top recipient of both PAC and individual money":
I pointed out that the media was rather silent on asking if there was a connection between the White House's hands-off response to the spill and the undisputed fact that Barack Obama was BP's top recipient of both PAC and individual money for the last 20 years. Please note that I never claimed there was a conspiratorial connection; rather, I was saying that it's odd that so few in the media have asked that question. In fact, I believe Major Garrett is one of the few reporters to pursue the issue. You can be sure that if this were a Republican administration, at the very least the media would be asking that question nonstop.
Obama received no PAC money from BP during his presidential campaign. As Media Matters noted, while Obama received $71,051 in BP-linked contributions during his presidential campaign -- more BP money than any other candidate received -- all of that money came from BP employees, not from BP's PAC or from the company itself. A spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics confirmed that "the $71,051 that Obama received during the 2008 election cycle was entirely from BP employees." The CRP spokesman also stated that "Obama did not accept contributions from political action committees, so none of this money is from BP's PAC. And corporations themselves are prohibited from donating directly to candidates from their corporate treasuries."
Obama took only $1,000 of PAC money from BP during his Senate campaign, less than 21 other Senate candidates that year. Obama received $1,000 from BP's PAC during his 2004 Senate campaign. Twenty-one Senate candidates received more from BP's PAC during that election cycle alone.
Donations from BP or its employees represents just .01 percent of Obama's total fundraising. As Media Matters senior fellow Jamison Foser has noted, Obama has raised more than $799 million for his campaigns. The $77,051 he has received from BP's PAC and employees accounts for less than 0.01 percent of Obama's total campaign contributions.
Scherer: "People who run for President raise much more money, and received much more money from BP interests -- and just about every other interest." In a May 5 Swampland post, Time's Michael Scherer cited CRP's data and noted that "t is true that ... Obama received slightly more money from BP's PAC and employees since 1990 than anyone else." Scherer went on to explain:
But there is a major a reason for that, which the story fails to mention: People who run for President raise much more money, and received much more money from BP interests -- and just about every other interest. The fourth highest recipient of BP money in the same time period is George W. Bush. The fifth highest recipient is John McCain. In the 2000 and 2004 cycles, Bush got the most money, albeit less than Obama received in 2008. But then one could adjust these numbers for campaign inflation: campaigns overall raised much less money in the 2000 and 2004 cycles than the record-smashing 2008 cycle.
Palin says Garrett is "one of the few reporters to pursue" her claims, doesn't note he knocked them down
Palin: Fox's Garrett "one of the few reporters to pursue the issue." In her Facebook posting, Palin stated: "Please note that I never claimed there was a conspiratorial connection; rather, I was saying that it's odd that so few in the media have asked that question. In fact, I believe Major Garrett is one of the few reporters to pursue the issue."
Garrett noted the oil industry gives far more to Republicans than Democrats. On the May 24 edition of Fox News' America Live, Garrett reported that while Obama received more BP-linked money then any other candidate in 2008, the oil industry has historically contributed far more to Rebublicans than Democrats:
GARRETT: Quickly, Megyn, just wrapping up that point that Sarah Palin made: Yes, indeed, candidate Obama received the most BP money, but as far as industry contributions, Republicans historically have received far more from the oil and gas industry than Democrats, about 75-25 percent. That's going back many, many years.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:
 
All jokes aside, the president's most acute priority is to uphold the constitution and protect our borders.



The constitution doesn't say congress should provide everyone with food stamps, cash for clunkers, a house or free healthcare.



All jokes aside, the president's most acute priority is to uphold the constitution and protect our borders.

The constitution doesn't say congress should provide everyone with food stamps, cash for clunkers, a house or free healthcare.

PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE DOES NOT MEAN PROVIDE!!!

First off, Mr. Constitutional scholar, since you want to site the constitution, originally the Constitution did not provide for a standing army. Just a militia to be raised during a declared war act voted on by the congress. This is the true meaning of the second amendment. Read it, it mentions a militia. And the Constitution did not say we should have a perpetual military budget which if you add all of the security agencies, black budgets and expenses that constitute over 50% of the national budget. Wars were supposed to be financed by temporary debts (bonds, raise in taxes). This current war is the first war not to be paid for as well as the trillions spent from 1952 until 1992 on the cold war, which we were suppose to have a so called peace dividend. We now know that the greedy capitalistic military industrial complex became addicted to that cash cow. Thus our current mess!


Second who says being on the government doll is a good thing. You may want to discuss that with Lockheed Martin, GM and any number of corporations that would not exist if it weren’t for the Government. All of which support thousands of employees that claim they are not dependent on the government.

I say we should close most of the government military installations in the US and around the world whose very existence causes our foreign policy to favor war.

Finally if you want to site historical figures onions on various issues, Dr. Benjamin Rush who represented Pennsylvania and sign the Declaration of Independence advocated for national health care. I guess his opinion is just a valid has Gouverneur Morris’s opinion eh!

Now take your Glenn Beck nonsense away from here!

Get the government’s hands out of my Medicaid!

BTW, you’re not an American are you? Just like a right wing foreigner commenting on another sovereigns’ issues. Typical conservative, always telling others how to conduct their affairs!
 
You asked a simple question dude! I gave you my opinion. Your boy is on the hot seat for his incompetence. It took Bush into his second term to get to where you boy is now in the polls.
Well at least he get to travel, eat, live and get free health care at our expense. Isn't that what you want?
 
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
First off, Mr. Constitutional scholar, since you want to site the constitution, originally the Constitution did not provide for a standing army. Just a militia to be raised during a declared war act voted on by the congress. This is the true meaning of the second amendment. Read it, it mentions a militia. And the Constitution did not say we should have a perpetual military budget which if you add all of the security agencies, black budgets and expenses that constitute over 50% of the national budget. Wars were supposed to be financed by temporary debts (bonds, raise in taxes). This current war is the first war not to be paid for as well as the trillions spent from 1952 until 1992 on the cold war, which we were suppose to have a so called peace dividend. We now know that the greedy capitalistic military industrial complex became addicted to that cash cow. Thus our current mess!<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Second who says being on the government doll is a good thing. You may want to discuss that with Lockheed Martin, GM and any number of corporations that would not exist if it weren’t for the Government. All of which support thousands of employees that claim they are not dependent on the government. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I say we should close most of the government military installations in the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region> and around the world whose very existence causes our foreign policy to favor war. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Finally if you want to site historical figures onions on various issues, Dr. Benjamin Rush who represented <st1:State w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Pennsylvania</st1:place></st1:State> and sign the Declaration of Independence advocated for national health care. I guess his opinion is just a valid has Gouverneur Morris’s opinion eh!<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Now take your Glenn Beck nonsense away from here!<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Get the government’s hands out of my Medicaid!<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
BTW, you’re not an American are you? Just like a right wing foreigner commenting on another sovereigns’ issues. Typical conservative, always telling others how to conduct their affairs!<o:p></o:p>

The Constitution doesn't state that We have to Pay Taxes either.... BUT WE DO!
 
You asked a simple question dude! I gave you my opinion. Your boy is on the hot seat for his incompetence. It took Bush into his second term to get to where you boy is now in the polls.
Well at least he get to travel, eat, live and get free health care at our expense. Isn't that what you want?

It took Bush into his second term to get to where you boy is now in the polls.

An just think, if GW didn't lie about WMDs he wouldn't have won one election! Nobody wants to vote for republicans. Obama is good till 2016.
 
An just think, if GW didn't lie about WMDs he wouldn't have won one election! Nobody wants to vote for republicans. Obama is good till 2016.

The emperor has no clothes. Jimmy Carter at best. The blame Bush will not get him elected again.

So you're telling me with his current policies that he is trying to implement with 9.9 unemployment, double digit employment in the black community alone. The joker is going to stand before the repubic and ask of them to let him finish what he started!!!!!!!

Come now my friend! Forgot to take you're meds today.

So I'm john q public and I lost my my job, house and my little girl can't take ballet anymore under your administration. You want four freaking more years.

I'm going to say this because nobody else will. Those who employ people are afraid to hire because they don't know what is coming out of Washington from day to day. Cap and trade healthcare. These are large blows to any company's bottom line. A business number one priority is to make a profit. Without that profit they can't pay salaries dammit.



If funny how those who never ran a damn business expect so much.
 
The emperor has no clothes. Jimmy Carter at best. The blame Bush will not get him elected again.

So you're telling me with his current policies that he is trying to implement with 9.9 unemployment, double digit employment in the black community alone. The joker is going to stand before the repubic and ask of them to let him finish what he started!!!!!!!

Come now my friend! Forgot to take you're meds today.

So I'm john q public and I lost my my job, house and my little girl can't take ballet anymore under your administration. You want four freaking more years.

I'm going to say this because nobody else will. Those who employ people are afraid to hire because they don't know what is coming out of Washington from day to day. Cap and trade healthcare. These are large blows to any company's bottom line. A business number one priority is to make a profit. Without that profit they can't pay salaries dammit.



If funny how those who never ran a damn business expect so much.

Jimmy Carter at best

Just think if the right had listen to Carter, we wouldn't be in this Reagan/Bush created mess.


<OBJECT width=480 height=385>


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-tPePpMxJaA&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></OBJECT>
</P>
 
Goverment Assistance helps People who has lost Their Job also, just not Women with Kids.... Just so You know

Do you know government assistance has to come from somewhere?

Do you know the Federal government spends every dime it gets. It spends all of the FICA, Medicare/Medicaid, IRS, customs, fees, gas taxes, EVERYTHING it gets, TODAY!

So, when you ask the Federal government for more, it borrows it! It takes a chunk for itself and gives you the rest.

And, who has to pay this debt? If not you, then your children.

So, it is a zero-sum game. The dollar you get from the government today creates much more than a dollar of debt. And, it has to be repaid, either from you or your children... with INTEREST!

You pay for the government bureaucracy, then the interest, and finally the debt.

The only way to end this merry-go-round is to stop with all the welfare programs and reduce the size and scope of the government, NOW!
 
Do you know government assistance has to come from somewhere?

Do you know the Federal government spends every dime it gets. It spends all of the FICA, Medicare/Medicaid, IRS, customs, fees, gas taxes, EVERYTHING it gets, TODAY!

So, when you ask the Federal government for more, it borrows it! It takes a chunk for itself and gives you the rest.

And, who has to pay this debt? If not you, then your children.

So, it is a zero-sum game. The dollar you get from the government today creates much more than a dollar of debt. And, it has to be repaid, either from you or your children... with INTEREST!

You pay for the government bureaucracy, then the interest, and finally the debt.

The only way to end this merry-go-round is to stop with all the welfare programs and reduce the size and scope of the government, NOW!


The only way to end this merry-go-round is to stop with all the welfare programs and reduce the size and scope of the government, NOW!

Welfare is not breaking the government. You need to become more informed.

BTW, Clinton ended Welfare for the most part.
 
Welfare is not breaking the government. You need to become more informed.

BTW, Clinton ended Welfare for the most part.

You are right. Welfare is not breaking the government. It is breaking the people!

I think it is crazy to say Clinton ended welfare. If anything, he added to it with the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000 and the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999.

Clinton loved him some corporate welfare!
 
Steve Wynn

<object id="cnbcplayer" height="380" width="400" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=9,0,0,0" >
<param name="type" value="application/x-shockwave-flash"/>
<param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"/>
<param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"/>
<param name="quality" value="best"/>
<param name="scale" value="noscale" />
<param name="wmode" value="transparent"/>
<param name="bgcolor" value="#000000"/>
<param name="salign" value="lt"/>
<param name="movie" value="http://plus.cnbc.com/rssvideosearch/action/player/id/1506508223/code/cnbcplayershare"/>
<embed name="cnbcplayer" PLUGINSPAGE="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" bgcolor="#000000" height="380" width="400" quality="best" wmode="transparent" scale="noscale" salign="lt" src="http://plus.cnbc.com/rssvideosearch/action/player/id/1506508223/code/cnbcplayershare" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" />
</object>
 
http://www.newsweek.com/index.html






The Real Greek Tragedy
Why this is just the opening act.
It would be possible in other circumstances to disregard the ongoing story of Greece and its debts as a tedious tale of financial markets. But there's much more to it than that. What's happening in Greece speaks to two larger issues that affect hundreds of millions of people everywhere: the future of the welfare state and the fate of Europe's single currency, the euro. The meaning of Greece transcends high finance.
Every advanced society, including the United States, has a welfare state. Though details differ, their purposes are similar: to support the unemployed, poor, and aged. All face similar problems: burgeoning costs as populations age, an overreliance on debt financing, and pressures to reduce borrowing that create parallel pressures to cut welfare spending. High debt and the welfare state are at odds. It's an open question whether the collision will cause social and economic turmoil.
Greece seems the opening act in this drama; already, its budget problems have spawned street protests. By the numbers, Greece's plight is acute. In 2009, its government debt—basically, the sum of past annual deficits—was 113 percent of its economy (gross domestic product, or GDP). The budget deficit for 2009 was 12.7 percent of GDP. Two thirds of the debt is owed to foreigners, reports the Institute of International Finance.

The crisis originated in fears that Greece wouldn't be able to refinance almost €17 billion of bonds (about $23 billion) maturing in April and May, says the IIF's Jeffrey Anderson. If lenders balked, Greece would default on its bonds. A default would inflict losses on banks and other investors. By itself, this wouldn't be calamitous, because Greece is small (population: 11 million). But a Greek default could undermine market confidence in other euro countries' ability to service their debts. Serial defaults would threaten the global economic recovery. Most often mentioned are Spain, Portugal, and Ireland.
Preventing that is what the 16 euro countries, led by France and Germany, are now debating. Greece's adoption of the euro contributed to the crisis. For years, it enabled Greece to borrow at low interest rates, because the prevailing assumption was that the euro bloc wouldn't allow one of its members to default. It would be rescued by the others.
But in practice, a bailout is proving hugely controversial. If Greece is aided, won't other countries demand—or require—rescues? Is this possible, considering that even France and Germany have high debts and that a Greek bailout is unpopular, especially in Germany? One way to mute the problems is for Greece to embrace a harsh austerity that reduces its borrowing. Greece has already pledged to cut government workers and to raise taxes on alcohol, tobacco, and fuel. The other euro countries want more. Their dilemma is that either rescuing or abandoning Greece is a gamble.
To some economists, the dire situation makes default inevitable, though it may be a few years away. The required austerity would be too punishing, says Desmond Lachman of the American Enterprise Institute. Greece would need spending cuts and tax increases equal to 10 percent of GDP, he says. The resulting savage recession would worsen the existing unemployment rate of about 10 percent. "No sane country is going to accept that," says Lachman. Greece may get a temporary rescue, he thinks, but will someday miss debt payments and might revert to its old currency (the drachma).
Conceived as a way to unite Europe, the euro increasingly fosters conflict. No one wants Greece to default, but no one wants to pay the price of prevention. With its own currency, Lachman thinks, Greece will pursue depreciation to spur exports and economic revival. If other countries dump the euro, currency wars could ensue. But the threat to the euro bloc ultimately stems from an overcommitted welfare state. Greece's situation is so difficult because a low birthrate and a rapidly graying population automatically increase old-age assistance even as the government tries to cut total spending. At issue is the viability of its present welfare state.
Almost every advanced country—the United States, Britain, Germany, Italy, France, Japan, Belgium, and others—faces some combination of huge budget deficits, high debts, aging populations, and political paralysis. It's an unstable mix. The unpleasant choices now confronting Greece await most wealthy nations, even if they pretend otherwise.
 
They should also raise the retirement age for Social Security and means-test for it and Medicare. You can't do anything if you're not willing to attack entitlement spending.
End many, if not most, subsidies to big business.
 
They should also raise the retirement age for Social Security and means-test for it and Medicare. You can't do anything if you're not willing to attack entitlement spending.
End many, if not most, subsidies to big business.


They raised the age during the Clinton administration. Social Security is paid separate from the budget. Money is taken out of your pay check. It is not borrowed
 
This is in no particular order.

1. Separate Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare from the general budget.
A. Raise the SS cap and retirement age.
B. Do away with EIC. Too many people are getting SS and didn't put
into it.

C. Begin to privatize SS to get if out of direct Govt control. I know
a lot of people don't like the Galveston, TX plan but it works and
people will get more out of it.

D. Raise Medicaid, Medicare Taxes..... :angry: and make some very
hard, unpopular decisions about it.

2. Pass a law require congress to fully fund (Taxes, bonds whatever) the
next military operation outside of normal defense budget.
More over-site on military contracts.

3. More over-site on government contracts. IE The feds spent over $50
million on uninteruptible power systems with a company but then found
out they couldn't bid the maintenance contracts out because of
proprietary software that only the manufacturer has. The
maintenance contracts were 4 times higher because of this. Plus there
was 1 manufacturer that had a 2 year warranty instead of the 1 year.
That also could have save millions for 2 years.

4. I was in the section 8 office and there was a hoodrat there with twins.
She was pregnant with twins and had another set of twins that were
not with her. That just isn't right. More over=site. BTW I was
there getting paperwork for a friend's rental home.

5. Not enough people are paying taxes. Too many people are paid under
the table and not reporting it. We need to find away to get everyone
pay taxes. I don't care if you make $2 year... you need to pay at
least 1 cent. Repeal EIC. People getting back thousands and
haven't paid a dime all year.

6. I used to mess with this girl that is a GS13 and she complained how
the feds are going to a new system where their raises would be based
upon their performance appraisal. I was like so.. I do that every
year. Gov employees should get raises based upon their performance
everyone else.

ok that is a good start..
 
Get rid of everything that isn't the military and the court system, and the states can get rid of everything that isn't the police and the court system.
 
source: The Daily Bell
Republicans to Cut Everything but Military


Moving aggressively to make good on election promises to slash the federal budget, the House GOP today unveiled an eye-popping plan to eliminate $2.5 trillion in spending over the next 10 years. Gone would be Amtrak subsidies, fat checks to the Legal Services Corporation and National Endowment for the Arts, and some $900 million to run President Obama's healthcare reform program. What's more, the "Spending Reduction Act of 2011" proposed by members of the conservative Republican Study Committee, chaired by Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, would reduce current spending for non-defense, non-homeland security and non-veterans programs to 2008 levels, eliminate federal control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, cut the federal workforce by 15 percent through attrition, and cut some $80 billion by blocking implementation of Obamacare. – US News and World Report

Dominant Social Theme: It is important to defend the realm.

Free-Market Analysis: House Republicans have issued a list of cuts to be made to federal spending. We quote from the article excerpted above: The proposals "would reduce current spending for non-defense, non-homeland security and non-veterans programs to 2008 levels." Homeland Security is apparently exempt from most cuts as is the Pentagon.

It is a kind of weary dominant social theme. America must protect herself abroad and this demands enormous military outlays. The war in Afghanistan may be unwinnable, but US hawks maintain that it is a war the US cannot lose. In fact, as we have pointed out in numerous articles, the war is not being waged so much for the sake of buttressing US security as it is to Westernize one of the world's last major military/tribal powers, the Pashtuns – to better facilitate global governance in that region of the world. It is a war of the power elite for the furtherance of the new world order, not American security.

At some point even elite wars cannot be maintained. Pocketbook issues will surmount elite promotional gambits. The war is increasingly unpopular and sooner or later, the United States is set for a bruising debate over its endless expense and the larger costs of the military-industrial complex itself (along with the military-intelligence complex), which must easily amount to US$1 trillion a year. Apparently House Republicans don't realize it yet.

We recall that just before 9/11, Donald Rumsfeld announced that the Pentagon had mislaid some US$2 trillion, which could not be accounted for. In the chaos after 9/11, the issue faded from public perception (even though the money is still missing). Such a cavalier approach to defense spending will not be tolerated in the current environment.

If the Republicans do not seize on the issue, it will be thrust upon them. By apparently refusing to consider significant defense-spending and Homeland Security cuts, Republicans are headed for a bruising fight with Democrats who will not want to chop social programs solely.

And what about Homeland Security? Is it better run than the Pentagon? There is a larger moral issue to consider in this regard. The brain trust at Homeland Security in particular has come in for a good deal of criticism; and House Republicans seem to be ignoring serious issues when they exempt the agency unilaterally from cuts. The way the Republicans have gone about this exercise would seem guaranteed to provoke a maximum amount discord within Congress.

But the sums are not supportable. And despite House reluctance, some Republicans may already have entered the fray. North Carolina Republican Congressman Walter Jones – a strong supporter of America's serial wars in the past – recently took the House floor to call on the Obama administration to make a significant drawdown of troops in Afghanistan as promised in 2011. He also praised Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist, who recently demanded a national debate on the war. Both men now say they would like more conservatives to make private anti-war views public. Here's an excerpt of his statement:

It is time for them to speak out publicly, Mr. Speaker. We need to become more engaged in the issue and make our feelings known. Mr. Speaker, I have mentioned before that a retired military general has been my adviser on Afghanistan for the past year. I'd like to share two points he made in a recent email. The first point he made is, and I quote, "What is the end state we are looking to achieve, measures of effectiveness? What is our exit strategy?"... The second point the general made in his email to me: "What do we say to the mother and father, to the wife of the last soldier or Marine killed to support a corrupt government and corrupt leader in a war that cannot be won?" [...] It is time that Congress and the American people really look at what is going on and what war really means.

Jones' statement comes in the midst of an escalating – though little reported – political crisis in Afghanistan. President Hamid Karzai has delayed the inauguration of the country's new parliament to investigate electoral fraud. Karzai's opponents maintain he is on a fishing expedition to weaken the results of the September election, which brought to power opponents of Karzai, and they reject the delay. A constitutional emergency is brewing; it may complicate the American "surge" even further.

Rand Paul, the new Republican Senator from Kentucky and son of the famous libertarian conservative Congressman Rand Paul (R-Tex) has begun suggesting radical cuts in the federal budget. But unlike House Republicans, Rand Paul's suggestions apparently include military reductions. We have been critical of Rand Paul's positions in the past as too-often they seem to suggest US nationalism more than free-market libertarianism. However, if it is Rand Paul's position that significant military cuts are necessary to accompany non-military ones, this would seem to be a step forward when it comes to the national debate over how to pare back what is now estimated to be US$200 trillion in American obligations.

There are those who would say that such vast obligations are not amenable to political solutions at this point in time (it is too late) and that a default is inevitable. But whether there is a default or not, US political figures – especially those on the Right – must engage in a debate over military spending. If they do not do so voluntarily, it will be thrust upon them. The Afghan war is also destined for significant debate, especially If Obama does not make a significant draw-down in 2011.

Conclusion: One can make the point that by refusing to broach significant military budget cuts, the House Republican brain trust is merely being clever and readying itself for a prolonged negotiation with Democrats. But this treats military cuts as a reluctant necessity rather than an inevitable one. Perhaps despite the Tea Party furor, they do not fully understand how the political landscape has shifted.
 
Back
Top