What Should Prez Obama Cut To Bring Down Gov. Spending

[tecumseh7]

1. Social Security for the so-called "rich". They would probably prefer placing their money in a 'mutual fund', or as The Prez says....."an investment"( a real investment).

2. Raise the Social Security age for retirement: Age 70 years, starting in 2015.

3. Eliminate "early retirement", begining 2015.

4. Scale back U.S. government employement, immediately.

5. Reduce or freeze the military budget.

6. Eliminate U.S. government campaign 'matching funds'.

7. 'Freeze' U.S.congressional salaries.

8. Eliminate U.S. Congressional Junkets/vacations

9. Seriously consider adding a U.S.Constitution amendment establishing a 3-term limit for U.S.Senators, and a 4-term limit for U.S. Representatives. The present system simply encourages unqualified, poorly educated (a few), career politicians. They live for the ever increasing salary w/accompying perks, especially the junkets/vacations....all at Tax Payers expense.

These are a view suggestions, some of which, I hope are instituted. Not likely.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

1. Social Security for the so-called "rich". They would probably prefer placing their money in a 'mutual fund', or as The Prez says....."an investment"( a real investment).

2. Raise the Social Security age for retirement: Age 70 years, starting in 2015.
3. Eliminate "early retirement", begining 2015.

4. Scale back U.S. government employement, immediately.

5. Reduce or freeze the military budget.

6. Eliminate U.S. government campaign 'matching funds'.

7. 'Freeze' U.S.congressional salaries.

8. Eliminate U.S. Congressional Junkets/vacations

9. Seriously consider adding a U.S.Constitution amendment establishing a 3-term limit for U.S.Senators, and a 4-term limit for U.S. Representatives. The present system simply encourages unqualified, poorly educated (a few), career politicians. They live for the ever increasing salary w/accompying perks, especially the junkets/vacations....all at Tax Payers expense.

These are a view suggestions, some of which, I hope are instituted. Not likely.

2. The retirment age has already been raised once. Why are we making people have to work into their 70s to get their SS? Life expectancy for middle class people hasn't gone up, just the wealthy, so most workers will have to work even longer.

4. That doesn't save much money, if any and it only overburdens the remaining employees and makes the system, which we need to work, cumbersome. Think a long day at the DMV except worse.

6. That would only make the candidates even more beholden to corporate interests. Candidates are going to need that money and they're going to get it from somewhere.

7. Doesn't save any money and makes working for Congress less attractive compared to the private sector. You get what you pay for.

8. Term limits are for the lazy. We already have term limits and they're called elections. When a district gets tired of their representation, they vote them out.

 

[G0nBad Real B@d]

Defense Spending
Nasa (18.7 Billion budget)

 

[Flawless]

dude there are so many bullshit spending in our government, this one politician where I live had a $10k a year budget just to send out post cards and Im sure congress members have a higher one.

 

[Lamarr]

stop giving billions away, in foreign aid, to countries that don't really like us!

 

[thoughtone]

stop giving billions away, in foreign aid, to countries that don't really like us!

Thats why they give money away to countries to get them to like us!

However, giving money to support despotic regimes and repressive dictators is a foreign policy rational that has been flawed since it's inception.

This rational has it's roots in the Monroe Doctrine, then to the Spanish American War, then to the construction of the Panama Canal, then to the support of right wing capitalistic land owners of Latin America and the Caribbean that resulted in events like the Banana Massacre of United Fruit Company, then to the Cold War, then to the support of oil despots like the Shah of Iran, etcetera. This didn't start with President Obama, but he has been presented with a historic opportunity to change the direction we have followed for over 100 years!

 

[Lamarr]

Thats why they give money away to countries to get them to like us!

okay, now we know that shit don't work! Why would someone spend money, they don't have, to get someone to "like you"?

All I'm sayin is that Pres. Obama don't have to continue the failed policies of Bush, Clinton, Reagan & Carter in supporting dictators around the world

To illustrate how ridiculous that rationale is: Would you pay someone to like you?

This didn't start with President Obama, but he has been presented with a historic opportunity to change the direction we have followed for over 100 years!

I never said it did! Like I said, just cause Bush did it, he don't have to follow in his footsteps

 

[Lamarr]

Rand Paul: End 'Welfare' To Israel

Tea party-backed Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) isn’t sure that congressional Republicans have the guts to make the big budget cuts they’ve promised and, he said, members of the movement are becoming frustrated.

“There’s a disconnect between Republicans who want a balanced budget but aren’t maybe yet brave enough to talk about the cuts to come,” the freshman senator said in an interview with ABC News, responding to the spending plan released Thursday by the House Budget Committee chair, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.), which would cut non-defense discretionary spending by $58 billion for the rest of fiscal 2011.

“I go to a tea party and you know what they say to me? ‘It’s not enough. It’s not enough. Where’s the other trillion you need?’” Paul said. He’s offered his own budget plan that would cut spending by $500 billion this year, including an end to all foreign aid and a dramatic reduction to the U.S. Department of Education’s budget.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/48848.html#ixzz1D01q7Dj3

 

[Fuckallyall]

This didn't start with President Obama, but he has been presented with a historic opportunity to change the direction we have followed for over 100 years!

Don't worry, he won't. It will most likely increase (if it has not already).

 

[thoughtone]

okay, now we know that shit don't work! Why would someone spend money, they don't have, to get someone to "like you"?

All I'm sayin is that Pres. Obama don't have to continue the failed policies of Bush, Clinton, Reagan & Carter in supporting dictators around the world

To illustrate how ridiculous that rationale is: Would you pay someone to like you?

I was being facetious, to an extent in response to your simplistic phrase/characterization of the events in Egypt. I don't agree with it, but when we give money to a foreign entity, it is not to get them to "like" us, it is to influence their politics. Get it! Before I get deep in to your simplistic rationale, do you know anything about the relationship between Israel and Egypt?

I never said it did! Like I said, just cause Bush did it, he don't have to follow in his footsteps

I didn't agree with it, but it was a policy beginning with the Carter administration at the Camp David Accords in 1978 until now. Actually, it did work as designed. It did keep the peace for over 30 years, between Israel and Egypt, rightly or wrongly, but at a cost more than money. Once again, in your reality, just because it happened before your consciousness, doesn't mean it didn't exist.

And from what I understand, President Obama is currently reviewing our Egyptian foreign policy.

 

[thoughtone]

Don't worry, he won't. It will most likely increase (if it has not already).

Sounds like Faux Snooze journalism to me.

 

[Fuckallyall]

Sounds like Faux Snooze journalism to me.

Sorry to interrupt you CNBCAiramericaifitdoesn'tworkdoitsomemore mindset with an actual independent thought. I still have not seen anything but more of the same. How is it different ?

 

[thoughtone]

Sorry to interrupt you CNBCAiramericaifitdoesn'tworkdoitsomemore mindset with an actual independent thought. I still have not seen anything but more of the same. How is it different ?

What, has it been, 1 week? You gave GW 8 years to fuck things up, give President Obama at least the end to his first term.

Didn't your expose your propensity to right wing propaganda in the health care thread?

 

[QueEx]

stop giving billions away, in foreign aid, to countries that don't really like us!

Now I know that you must know that just because you try to make a matter sound simplistic, that doesn't make it so. right?

QueEx

 

[fourth_retired]

why dont they cut the same percentage everywhere. that sounds very simple if you ask me. Cut everything say 10% over the next 5-10years ....

 

[QueEx]

<font size="6"><center>
A Recipe For Over-reach?</font size><font size="4">

Are Republicans pursuing brutal, job-killing cuts?</font size></center>

Washington Monthly
February 11, 2011



Nearly every poll on government spending shows roughly the same results -- folks love the idea of cuts, right up until they're confronted with specifics. The import takeaway from this, however, is how it relates to the congressional Republicans' budget plans.

A new poll from the Pew Research Center tells us what we already knew, but with data that should give the GOP pause. Respondents want spending cuts in general, but when asked about individual area of public spending, the results were a Republican nightmare -- Americans effectively didn't want to cut anything except foreign aid. In many areas, a plurality, if not an outright majority, wants to see spending go up, not down, in areas such as education, veterans' benefits, and health care.

The political salience of this can't be overstated. House Republicans are convinced that they'll be rewarded by voters for taking a chainsaw to the budget. Some in the GOP fear they're already going too far -- because they are.

As House Republicans plow ahead with ever deeper spending cuts this weekend, there is growing concern in the party that it's overreaching and missing a chance to drive a wedge through nervous Senate Democrats.

New survey data Thursday suggests that while Americans are losing their appetite for increased federal spending, voters still shy away from the severe, immediate reductions envisioned by the tea party conservatives now driving the House Republican plan.​

Had the House GOP gone with a less-ridiculous spending cut package, they might have very well persuaded antsy Senate Dems to go along. Instead, Republicans are pursuing brutal, job-killing cuts that (a) will make them look like monsters to the American mainstream; (b) aren't at all popular with the electorate; and (c) stand no chance of garnering Democratic approval.

<SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">A few days ago, the Republican plan called for drastic cuts to law enforcement, transportation, aid to families, clean-energy programs, medical research, environmental protections, education, and job training. As of last night, the House GOP decided these severe cuts weren't severe enough -- and would have to be three times as deep. And best of all, if Dems balk, Republicans will shut down the government.

If the GOP seriously believes it has the upper hand on this, and that the public will back them up when push comes to shove, they're in for a surprise.</span>

 

[thoughtone]

Over 1 month in to the 112th congress and the republicans have yet to send up any creditably job creating legislation. The party of no!

 

[QueEx]

Poll: Best way to fight deficits: Raise taxes on the rich

Click for larger Image


`

 

[QueEx]

Poll shows Americans oppose entitlement cuts to deal with debt problemhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...h-debt-problem/2011/04/19/AFoiAH9D_story.html

• 72 percent of respondents favored raising taxes on the wealthy, far and away the most popular option to bring down debt. Nothing else even came close.

 

[QueEx]

​

 

[Upgrade Dave]

Good bump like Erykah Badu's booty

 

[QueEx]

Good bump like Erykah Badu's booty

I just couldn't help it


​

 

[QueEx]

^^^^

Sen. Rand Paul says entitlements
should be cut, no raising taxes

LEXINGTON, Ky. — Congress needs "to cut domestic welfare and entitlement spending" to balance the budget rather than tax the rich more, U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., told a Commerce Lexington luncheon on Friday.

Instead of raising taxes to avoid the approaching "fiscal cliff," the debate should focus on what federal spending to cut and how much, Paul said.

"We should try to minimize how bad our government is and how much it gets in the way," he said.

​

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/12/...ments.html?storylink=MI_emailed#storylink=cpy

 

[SMD69]

stop giving billions away, in foreign aid, to countries that don't really like us!

B
I
N
G
O




Haiti comes to mind