United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: House GOP Lists $2.5 Trillion in Spending Cuts
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.usnews.com/news/washingt ... s-25-trillion-in-spending-cuts
Published: Jan 20, 2011
Author: Paul Bedard
Post Date: 2011-01-20 14:51:59 by Capitalist Eric
Keywords: None
Views: 44237
Comments: 72
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. [See a gallery of political caricatures.] 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. Some of the proposed reductions will surely draw Democratic attack, such as cutting the Ready to Learn TV Program, repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act, the elimination of the Energy Star Program, and cutting subsidies to the Woodrow Wilson Center. [See editorial cartoons about the GOP.] Here is the overview provided by the Republican Study Committee: Discretionary Spending Limit, FY 2012-2021: Eliminate automatic increases for inflation from CBO baseline projections for future discretionary appropriations. Further, impose discretionary spending limits through 2021 at 2006 levels on the non-defense portion of the discretionary budget. $2.29 trillion savings over ten years. Federal Workforce Reforms: Eliminate automatic pay increases for civilian federal workers for five years. Additionally, cut the civilian workforce by a total of 15 percent through attrition. Allow the hiring of only one new worker for every two workers who leave federal employment until the reduction target has been met. (Savings included in above discretionary savings figure). "Stimulus" Repeal: Eliminate all remaining "stimulus" funding. $45 billion total savings. Eliminate federal control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. $30 billion total savings. Repeal the Medicaid FMAP increase in the "State Bailout" (Senate amendments to S. 1586). $16.1 billion total savings. More than 100 specific program eliminations and spending reductions listed below: $330 billion savings over ten years (included in above discretionary savings figure). Here is the full list of cuts: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy. $445 million annual savings. Save America's Treasures Program. $25 million annual savings. International Fund for Ireland. $17 million annual savings. Legal Services Corporation. $420 million annual savings. National Endowment for the Arts. $167.5 million annual savings. National Endowment for the Humanities. $167.5 million annual savings. Hope VI Program. $250 million annual savings. Amtrak Subsidies. $1.565 billion annual savings. Eliminate duplicative education programs. H.R. 2274 (in last Congress), authored by Rep. McKeon, eliminates 68 at a savings of $1.3 billion annually. U.S. Trade Development Agency. $55 million annual savings. Woodrow Wilson Center Subsidy. $20 million annual savings. Cut in half funding for congressional printing and binding. $47 million annual savings. John C. Stennis Center Subsidy. $430,000 annual savings. Community Development Fund. $4.5 billion annual savings. Heritage Area Grants and Statutory Aid. $24 million annual savings. Cut Federal Travel Budget in Half. $7.5 billion annual savings. Trim Federal Vehicle Budget by 20%. $600 million annual savings. Essential Air Service. $150 million annual savings. Technology Innovation Program. $70 million annual savings. Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program. $125 million annual savings. Department of Energy Grants to States for Weatherization. $530 million annual savings. Beach Replenishment. $95 million annual savings. New Starts Transit. $2 billion annual savings. Exchange Programs for Alaska, Natives Native Hawaiians, and Their Historical Trading Partners in Massachusetts. $9 million annual savings. Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants. $2.5 billion annual savings. Title X Family Planning. $318 million annual savings. Appalachian Regional Commission. $76 million annual savings. Economic Development Administration. $293 million annual savings. Programs under the National and Community Services Act. $1.15 billion annual savings. Applied Research at Department of Energy. $1.27 billion annual savings. FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership. $200 million annual savings. Energy Star Program. $52 million annual savings. Economic Assistance to Egypt. $250 million annually. U.S. Agency for International Development. $1.39 billion annual savings. General Assistance to District of Columbia. $210 million annual savings. Subsidy for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. $150 million annual savings. Presidential Campaign Fund. $775 million savings over ten years. No funding for federal office space acquisition. $864 million annual savings. End prohibitions on competitive sourcing of government services. Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act. More than $1 billion annually. IRS Direct Deposit: Require the IRS to deposit fees for some services it offers (such as processing payment plans for taxpayers) to the Treasury, instead of allowing it to remain as part of its budget. $1.8 billion savings over ten years. Require collection of unpaid taxes by federal employees. $1 billion total savings. Prohibit taxpayer funded union activities by federal employees. $1.2 billion savings over ten years. Sell excess federal properties the government does not make use of. $15 billion total savings. Eliminate death gratuity for Members of Congress. Eliminate Mohair Subsidies. $1 million annual savings. Eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. $12.5 million annual savings. Eliminate Market Access Program. $200 million annual savings. USDA Sugar Program. $14 million annual savings. Subsidy to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). $93 million annual savings. Eliminate the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program. $56.2 million annual savings. Eliminate fund for Obamacare administrative costs. $900 million savings. Ready to Learn TV Program. $27 million savings. HUD Ph.D. Program. Deficit Reduction Check-Off Act. TOTAL SAVINGS: $2.5 Trillion over Ten Years
FY 2011 CR Amendment: Replace the spending levels in the FY 2011 continuing resolution (CR) with non-defense, non-homeland security, non-veterans spending at FY 2008 levels. The legislation will further prohibit any FY 2011 funding from being used to carry out any provision of the Democrat government takeover of health care, or to defend the health care law against any lawsuit challenging any provision of the act. $80 billion savings.
Additional Program Eliminations/Spending Reforms
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Capitalist Eric (#0)
Unsurprisingly, no cut of foreign aid to the bastard state, some call israel.
Never swear "allegiance" to anything other than the 'right to change your mind'!
I can't believe it... we actually agree on something! I would go so far as to eliminate ALL "foreign aid," which IMO is simply bribery to foreign politicians.
ME: Thanks for admitting that you ARE trying to spin this (AZ shooting, and terrorism) onto Palin, and conservatives in general. "There will be no more money when the U.S. dollar has no value, until that time we can keep printing more." -- go65, resident "economist" --
I would go so far as to eliminate ALL "foreign aid," which IMO is simply bribery to foreign politicians. I'm good with that. I have no problem throwing out some humanitarian aid in the case of a 'natural diaster' but other than that...not a dime.
Never swear "allegiance" to anything other than the 'right to change your mind'!
So at most they would cut $250 billion a year in a budget that runs at about $3.3 trillion annually with a $1.2 trillion deficit. Meaning that 10 years out we would still run massive deficits. This sounds as useful as Paul Ryan's plan to balance the budget by 2080. And I'm guessing that many of these cuts aren't even doable given they can't repeal Obamacare.
Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
Like the old lady that pissed in the sea said, "every little bit helps"...
Never swear "allegiance" to anything other than the 'right to change your mind'!
go56 ain't the brightest, when it comes to economics... LOL.
ME: Thanks for admitting that you ARE trying to spin this (AZ shooting, and terrorism) onto Palin, and conservatives in general. "There will be no more money when the U.S. dollar has no value, until that time we can keep printing more." -- go65, resident "economist" --
In reality, they specified $330 billion in cuts over 10 years, or about $33 billion a year in a $3.3 trillion budget. ----- Today, Rep. John Campbell (R-CA), an RSC member, appeared on Fox News with Neil Cavuto, and Cavuto also evidently noticed that the vast bulk of the RSC’s savings come from unspecified cuts. When he asked Campbell explain how the RSC magically turned $330 billion into $2.5 trillion, Campbell dropped the ball: CAVUTO: I don’t want to pick it apart too much, because you always appreciate the efforts at spending cuts, but a lot of these eliminations and reductions, Congressman, realistically come to $330 billion of the $2.5 trillion of proposed cuts. So, in other words, the real meat, up-front cuts, while still substantial, about $330 billion, ain’t the $2.5 trillion. So what is the more realistic figure? CAMPBELL: The more realistic figure than the two, oh, you mean other than what’s listed on here? Campbell then proceeded to incorrectly claim that the $2.5 trillion in savings is a result of multiplying the $330 billion in specific cuts out over a ten year budget window, which would actually amount to more than $2.5 trillion in savings. It’s not surprising, of course, that the RSC would be hesitant to place on paper the practical implications of its plan. Returning non-defense discretionary spending to the 2006 level — and then keeping it there — would result in billions of dollars in cuts to vital and popular programs and agencies like Pell Grants, the FBI, the Coast Guard, the National Institutes of Health and the federal prison system. As Steve Benen pointed out, the RSC’s plan would also be “devastating” for the labor market. “Indeed, if lawmakers were to get together to plot how Congress could deliberately increase unemployment, their plan would look an awful lot like this one,” he wrote. “The RSC proposal would deliberately fire thousands of civilian workers, force states to make sweeping job cuts, and lay off thousands more who work in transportation and infrastructure.” If you’re interested in a legitimate deficit reduction plan, go here. http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2011/01/20/campbell-cant-explain/
Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
The federal government will spend more than $40 trillion on the next 10 years, so this "eye popping" plan only amounts to 6% of that they'll spend. The British government just cut spending by 29%. Sure, it's better than nothing, but it's not good enough. Ronald Reagan wanted to eliminate the Department of Eduction. Bush doubled it. Why aren't they talking about that? Jimmy Carter's Department of Energy failed to solve our dependence on foreign oil. Why aren't they talking about that? What does the Department of Commerce do anyway? How about the Department of Labor? Why are we paying for this? Why are we forking over billions of dollars to wealthy corporate agribusinesses with things like sugar price supports and mohair subsidies? The government started subsiding mohair because it was used in military uniforms. That hasn't been true in several decades. Why is the subsidy still there? WHY??? Let's not forget the critically needed subsidy for raising Alpackas. The world would certainly come to an end without this. In addition, the structural deficits cannot be eliminated, the budget cannot be balanced, and the national debt cannot be paid down unless they also reform Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and their numerous military adventures abroad. Again, better than nothing, but it won't fix our problems.
it's less than that, if you dig into the specifics they only proposed $330 billion in cuts over 10 years. And if they manage to repeal the ACA, they'll add $230 billion to the deficit in that same time, meaning at the end of 10 years, they will have reduced a $1.2 trillion deficit by $10 billion a year. Wake me when the GOP takes deficit reduction seriously.
Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
Utter nonsense. The only way anyone could come to that conclusion is by ignoring all of the accounting tricks: The program starts with 10 years of taxes paying for only 6 years of benefits. The program double counts the alleged $500 billion in savings from Medicare, none of which will actually be realized because of political pressure. The program leaves out the $250 billion "doc fix" which has to happen to keep Medicaid from completely collapsing.
The program double counts the alleged $500 billion in savings from Medicare, none of which will actually be realized because of political pressure. The program leaves out the $250 billion "doc fix" which has to happen to keep Medicaid from completely collapsing. You should know better than to simply repeat Eric Cantor's baseless claims. The 10/6 claim is bunk:http://politifact.com/virginia/statements/2011/jan/15/eric-cantor/cantor-says-health-care- reform-collects-1o-years-t/ The CBO noted: The Doc fix has nothing to do with the ACA, it has been approved every year long before the ACA was enacted. Again, I expect more from you then to simply parrot GOP talking points.
Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
go56 is not exactly the brightest star in the sky, when it comes to money and economics. Don't believe me? Look at his quote, on my signature line... LOL.
ME: Thanks for admitting that you ARE trying to spin this (AZ shooting, and terrorism) onto Palin, and conservatives in general. "There will be no more money when the U.S. dollar has no value, until that time we can keep printing more." -- go65, resident "economist" --
How long are you going to try and peddle this utter bullshit of Of Kenyancare reducing the deficit: -- One of the Democrats’ major talking points has been that Obamacare reduces the deficit – and therefore repeal raises it – by $230 billion. Why, the Congressional Budget Office says exactly that. Very true. And very convincing. Until you realize where that number comes from. Explains CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf in his “preliminary analysis of H.R. 283; (the Republican health-care repeal): “CBO anticipates that enacting H.R. 2 would probably yield, for the 2012-2021 period, a reduction in revenues in the neighborhood of $770 billion and a reduction in outlays in the vicinity of $540 billion.” As National Affairs editor Yuval Levin pointed out when mining this remarkable nugget, this is a hell of a way to do deficit reduction: a radical increase in spending, topped by an even more radical increase in taxes. Of course, the very numbers that yield this $230 billion “deficit reduction” are phony to begin with. The CBO is required to accept every assumption, promise (of future spending cuts, for example) and chronological gimmick that Congress gives it. All the CBO then does is perform the calculation and spit out the result. In fact, the whole Obamacare bill was gamed to produce a favorable CBO number. Most glaringly, the entitlement it creates – government-subsidized health insurance for 32 million Americans – doesn’t kick in until 2014. That was deliberately designed so any projection for this decade would cover only six years of expenditures – while that same 10-year projection would capture 10 years of revenue. With 10 years of money inflow vs. six years of outflow, the result is a positive – i.e., deficit-reducing – number. Surprise. If you think that’s audacious, consider this: Obamacare does not create just one new entitlement (health insurance for everyone); it actually creates a second – long-term care insurance. With an aging population, and with long-term care becoming extraordinarily expensive, this promises to be the biggest budget buster in the history of the welfare state. And yet, in the CBO calculation, this new entitlement to long-term care reduces the deficit over the next 10 years. By $70 billion, no less. How is this possible? By collecting premiums now, and paying out no benefits for the first 10 years. Presto: a (temporary) surplus. As former CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin and scholars Joseph Antos and James Capretta note, “Only in Washington could the creation of a reckless entitlement program be used as ‘offset’ to grease the way for another entitlement.” I would note additionally that only in Washington could such a neat little swindle be titled the “CLASS Act” (for the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Act).
Sure, it's better than nothing, but it's not good enough. I agree completely, with your assessment. I think the ramifications of what's coming, will make the whole argument moot, though. This country has been torpedoed for decades, and the Bush presidencies, clintong and now obama have been steadily working to finish the job. Bernanke and Greenspan have pulled their weight in the attack on our country as well... And the results will be a catastrophic economic collapse. Their spending will be cut, no matter what. It's only a matter of time.
ME: Thanks for admitting that you ARE trying to spin this (AZ shooting, and terrorism) onto Palin, and conservatives in general. "There will be no more money when the U.S. dollar has no value, until that time we can keep printing more." -- go65, resident "economist" --
Still peddling GOP talking points? http://factcheck.org/2011/01/a-budget-busting-law/ Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
Pot, meet Kettle.
ME: Thanks for admitting that you ARE trying to spin this (AZ shooting, and terrorism) onto Palin, and conservatives in general. "There will be no more money when the U.S. dollar has no value, until that time we can keep printing more." -- go65, resident "economist" --
If you think that’s audacious, consider this: Obamacare does not create just one new entitlement (health insurance for everyone); it actually creates a second – long-term care insurance. With an aging population, and with long-term care becoming extraordinarily expensive, this promises to be the biggest budget buster in the history of the welfare state. And yet, in the CBO calculation, this new entitlement to long-term care reduces the deficit over the next 10 years. By $70 billion, no less. How is this possible? By collecting premiums now, and paying out no benefits for the first 10 years. Presto: a (temporary) surplus. As former CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin and scholars Joseph Antos and James Capretta note, “Only in Washington could the creation of a reckless entitlement program be used as ‘offset’ to grease the way for another entitlement.” I would note additionally that only in Washington could such a neat little swindle be titled the “CLASS Act” (for the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Act). Those are the facts.
So repeal Obamacare, and then you are left with: What's the GOP's solution?
Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
"Deficits don't matter" - VP Dick Cheney (R)
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
Interesting how your graph is rewritten from the government data, so that the static costs are made to look like the variable, when the REAL variable is the "entitlements." LOL. AND, it's from a socialist blogger (BIG friggin' surprise!). Don't forget to consider the INTEREST on existing debt (and that assumes that interest rates don't increase, as our dollar goes down the toilet): Now, where do the increasing spending REALLY come from? How about "entitlements" ...? FUNNY how you failed to include these facts in the discussion.... (((rolling eyes)))
ME: Thanks for admitting that you ARE trying to spin this (AZ shooting, and terrorism) onto Palin, and conservatives in general. "There will be no more money when the U.S. dollar has no value, until that time we can keep printing more." -- go65, resident mental giant --
Remember the Paul Ryan roadmap that would bring the budget into balance by 2080 by raising taxes on most Americans? The GOP hasn't mentioned a word about it since they took over the house.
Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
We can push the timeline up by pressuring the GOP hard to NOT raise the debt ceiling. What will happen if they don't? The government will have to prioritize spending to fit within tax revenues. #1 - pay the current interest on the debt so that the U.S. government doesn't default #2 - pay for enough military to keep the country safe #3 - make sure that senior citizens who actually need the money continue to get social security and medicare Their won't be any money left for anything else. That's a good thing. Of course, this is not going to happen, but I am surprised at how many GOP politicians -- from Pat Toomie to Tim Pawlenty -- are pretty much saying the same thing.
So you'd like to see an end to the border patrol, FBI, federal prisons, road construction, the coast guard, embassies, and the national park system? Seriously? I really never thought I'd hear Republicans argue for opening the borders and emptying the prisons. I guess you'll celebrate when Ramsi Yousef is once again a free man?
Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
These things cost almost nothing compared to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Pentagon. Yes, our infrastructure is crumbling. Why? Because we spend too much money on government handouts and foreign adventures. China doesn't have much in the way of a welfare system. They don't station troops around the world. But they do spend a ton of money of infrastructure. We should learn something from them. The border patrol, FBI and coast guard have a national security component, so they were lumped in with my #2. Embassies are an obsolete and wasteful concept. They could be largely replaced with video conferencing. The U.S. government owns very little property east of the Mississippi. It owns 85% of Nevada, and very large percentages of most western states. They have no business doing this. Most federal lands should be turned over to the states.
50% of people sentenced to federal prison in 2009 were sentenced on drug offences. 50%. Think about that. Over $1 trillion has been spent on the "War on Drugs" since Nixon first used that term in 1971. It hasn't worked. So yes, I do favor emptying the federal prisons of drug offenders.
Good luck selling the idea of emptying the federal prison system onto the street, shutting down the DEA, and opening the borders to your fellow Republicans.
Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
Agreed, and yet the GOP has taken Medicare, SS, and defense off the table as far as budget cuts, which means in order to close a $1.2 trillion deficit, you need to end all funding for border patrol, the FAA, the FBI, the DEA, road construction, and so on, and even if you zeroed out all discretionary spending, you are left with a $800 billion annual deficit. OK, so now you are even taking some discretionary spending off the table. I guess we'll just ignore the fact that there's only $440 billion in total discretionary spending to cut (which includes things like the FBI, border patrol, etc.).
Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
The War on Drugs is a bi-partisan delusion. Over the last couple of decades, libertarians and many conservatives including George Shultz (Reagan's Secretary of State), Milton Friedman (conservative Nobel Laurette), and William Buckley (founder of the modern conservative movement) have called for legalizing drugs. The failed drug war cannot solely be blamed on Republicans. Democrats are culpable as well.
No I'm not. I merely stated that I wouldn't eliminate the Coastguard, FBI, and Border Patrol. There is certainly some reform that could take place in these agencies to save money. In fact, the Border Patrol is a complete failure. The FBI is a lethargic bureaucracy that allowed 9/11 to happen. A lot of reform has to take place. That reform will save money.
I remember when the budget was in balance and there was a budget surplus. Republicans whined that government was collecting too much tax from the people - never mind the debt.
Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson
Most of it should be eliminated. By bye Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, and Labor... with a few exceptions like OSHA and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. We should IPO the Post Office and let it compete fairly with FedEx and UPS. This would be the biggest IPO in history. It would raise a ton of money. We could cut domestic discretionary spending by $200 billion a year and almost no one would notice. We could cut the military budget by $200 billion a year and not harm our national security. That's still leaves us with a $700 billion deficit this year. We need to reform entitlements that then grow the economy to make up the rest.
I've stated the facts before, and I will state them again. #1.) In the post WWII period, federal tax revenues averaged 18% of GDP and federal spending averaged 20% of GDP. (This is why we've run up a debt.) #2.) During the last year of the Clinton administration, federal tax revenues were about 19% of GDP and federal spending was about 19% of GDP. The budget was in balance. #3.) Today, federal tax revenues are 17.6% of GDP and federal spending is a whopping 24% of GDP (heading to 28%). Federal spending is 34% higher than usual and federal tax revenues are 2% lower than usual. WE HAVE A SPENDING PROBLEM. PERIOD.
I have more than 20 years business experience dealing with UPS, FEDEX, and the post office, I now rely entirely on the post office. They are efficient and cost effective from the consumer perspective.
Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson
Not when Bush took office and knocked the budget out of balance.
Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson
I'm laughing so hard I can't hardly breath. The Post Office loses $20 billion a year. The only reasons they still exists are: A.) the the government has laws which gives the post office a monopoly on delivery of first class mail and B.) taxpayers are forced to make up their loses. They need to spun off and stand on their own two feet.
Bush was an idiot. Obama is worse.
Only in your propaganda driven imagination.
Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson
I am a total numbers guy. I look at the numbers and draw my conclusions based on the evidence. You on the other hand, are the dumbest person I've ever encountered in my life. I will bet that you have a ton of friends who are just like you. This is the problem.
The only reasons they still exists are: A.) the the government has laws which gives the post office a monopoly on delivery of first class mail and B.) taxpayers are forced to make up their loses. Not exactly, or even remotely, true. The United States Postal Service suffers from an onerous and unfair requirement that it pre-fund retiree health benefits at a time when it needs more flexibility to plan for a viable future, a new report by the Economic Policy Institute finds. The report also finds that restoration of the $75 billion in overpayments the Postal Service has made to the Civil Service Retirement System would enable the agency to fully fund its future retiree health obligations and to retire the debt it has accrued since 2006. The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA), enacted in 2006, required the USPS to pay an average of $55.8 billion into the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefit Fund over a 10-year period. This requirement, a 75-year obligation, has produced the worst financial crisis in the agency’s history and is the primary cause of the Postal Service’s short-term deficit. Furthermore, the USPS is the only government agency required to pre-fund retiree health benefits, let alone at an accelerated rate. www.epi.org/publications/...rimary_cause_of_usps_shor The Constitution gave Congress the job of creating a postal service.
Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson
LOL. Simply copying text from Wikipedia or some other website without any independent thought or analysis is not impressive. But of course, the entire notion of independent thought and analysis is completely alien to you. I've always said it: there are two types of leftists -- idiots and tyrants. The idiots actually believe that bureaucrats can run their lives better than they can themselves. The tyrants take advantage of the idiot's belief to secure power and control for themselves. You are leftist. And you are definitely not a tyrant.
Actually that statement makes you look careless at best (that means I'm being kind).
Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson
Comments (42 - 72) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: Brian S (#1)
Unsurprisingly, no cut of foreign aid to the bastard state, some call israel.
Brian S(ocialist): I have never hidden that fact...
#3. To: Capitalist Eric (#2)
I can't believe it... we actually agree on something!
#4. To: Brian S (#1)
(Edited)
#5. To: go65 (#4)
So at most they would cut $250 billion a year in a budget that runs at about $3.3 trillion annually with a $1.2 trillion deficit. Meaning that 10 years out we would still run massive deficits.
#6. To: Brian S (#5)
Brian S(ocialist): I have never hidden that fact...
#7. To: Capitalist Eric, Brian S (#0)
#8. To: Capitalist Eric (#0)
(Edited)
he House GOP today unveiled an eye-popping plan to eliminate $2.5 trillion in spending over the next 10 years
"It's very important to remember the law is not simply what powerful people would want others to believe it is." -- Julian Assange
#9. To: jwpegler (#8)
The federal government will spend more than $40 trillion on the next 10 years, so this "eye popping" plan only amounts to 6% of that they'll spend.
#10. To: go65 (#9)
ACA
"It's very important to remember the law is not simply what powerful people would want others to believe it is." -- Julian Assange
#11. To: jwpegler (#10)
The program starts with 10 years of taxes paying for only 6 years of benefits.
Despite the fact that it’s true that some of the taxes kick in on average a bit earlier, by the end of the 10-year period the health reform bill still produces a modest reduction of the deficit, according to the CBO estimate," he said, "and in the subsequent 10-year period the reduction of the deficit gets even larger."
#12. To: jwpegler (#10)
ACA: Utter nonsense.
Brian S(ocialist): I have never hidden that fact...
#13. To: go65 (#11)
#14. To: jwpegler (#8)
The federal government will spend more than $40 trillion on the next 10 years, so this "eye popping" plan only amounts to 6% of that they'll spend. The British government just cut spending by 29%.
Brian S(ocialist): I have never hidden that fact...
#15. To: no gnu taxes (#13)
As for the GOP’s claim that "the bill would add over $700 billion in red ink over the next decade," we judge it to be mostly bogus.
It rests largely on a claim that hundreds of billions of dollars in projected Medicare savings are being "double-counted." But CBO is simply not doing that.
The GOP’s $700 billion figure also includes more than $200 billion for a permanent "doctor fix" to prevent a cut in Medicare payments to doctors. But that is not even a part of the new law, and many Republicans endorse the "doctor fix" anyway.
The GOP claims the law will cost $115 billion to administer, but that isn’t true. CBO actually puts those costs at roughly $10 billion to $20 billion over the next 10 years.
#16. To: go65 (#15)
Still peddling GOP talking points?
Brian S(ocialist): I have never hidden that fact...
#17. To: go65 (#15)
In fact, the whole Obamacare bill was gamed to produce a favorable CBO number. Most glaringly, the entitlement it creates – government-subsidized health insurance for 32 million Americans – doesn’t kick in until 2014. That was deliberately designed so any projection for this decade would cover only six years of expenditures – while that same 10-year projection would capture 10 years of revenue. With 10 years of money inflow vs. six years of outflow, the result is a positive – i.e., deficit-reducing – number. Surprise.
#18. To: no gnu taxes (#17)
Those are the facts.
#19. To: go65 (#18)
What's the GOP's solution?
#20. To: go65 (#18)
Brian S(ocialist): I have never hidden that fact...
#21. To: Godwinson (#19)
"Deficits don't matter" - VP Dick Cheney (R)
#22. To: Capitalist Eric (#14)
Their spending will be cut, no matter what.
"It's very important to remember the law is not simply what powerful people would want others to believe it is." -- Julian Assange
#23. To: jwpegler (#22)
Their won't be any money left for anything else. That's a good thing.
#24. To: go65 (#23)
So you'd like to see an end to the border patrol, FBI, federal prisons, road construction, the coast guard, embassies, and the national park system?
"It's very important to remember the law is not simply what powerful people would want others to believe it is." -- Julian Assange
#25. To: go65 (#23)
emptying the prisons
"It's very important to remember the law is not simply what powerful people would want others to believe it is." -- Julian Assange
#26. To: jwpegler (#25)
50% of people sentenced to federal prison in 2009 were sentenced on drug offences. 50%. Think about that.
#27. To: jwpegler (#24)
(Edited)
These things cost almost nothing compared to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Pentagon.
The border patrol, FBI and coast guard have a national security component, so they were lumped in with my #2.
#28. To: go65 (#26)
Good luck selling the idea of emptying the federal prison system onto the street, shutting down the DEA, and opening the borders to your fellow Republicans.
"It's very important to remember the law is not simply what powerful people would want others to believe it is." -- Julian Assange
#29. To: go65 (#27)
OK, so now you are even taking some discretionary spending off the table.
"It's very important to remember the law is not simply what powerful people would want others to believe it is." -- Julian Assange
#30. To: go65 (#21)
Remember the Paul Ryan roadmap that would bring the budget into balance by 2080 by raising taxes on most Americans?
#31. To: go65 (#27)
that there's only $440 billion in total discretionary spending to cut
"It's very important to remember the law is not simply what powerful people would want others to believe it is." -- Julian Assange
#32. To: lucysmom, go65, capitalist eric (#30)
(Edited)
I remember when the budget was in balance and there was a budget surplus. Republicans whined that government was collecting too much tax from the people - never mind the debt.
"It's very important to remember the law is not simply what powerful people would want others to believe it is." -- Julian Assange
#33. To: jwpegler (#31)
We should IPO the Post Office and let it compete fairly with FedEx and UPS. This would be the biggest IPO in history. It would raise a ton of money.
#34. To: jwpegler (#32)
WE HAVE A SPENDING PROBLEM. PERIOD.
#35. To: lucysmom, go65, capitalist eric (#33)
They are efficient and cost effective
"It's very important to remember the law is not simply what powerful people would want others to believe it is." -- Julian Assange
#36. To: lucysmom (#34)
Not when Bush took office and knocked the budget out of balance.
"It's very important to remember the law is not simply what powerful people would want others to believe it is." -- Julian Assange
#37. To: jwpegler (#36)
Bush was an idiot. Obama is worse.
#38. To: lucysmom (#37)
(Edited)
Only in your propaganda driven imagination.
"It's very important to remember the law is not simply what powerful people would want others to believe it is." -- Julian Assange
#39. To: jwpegler (#35)
The Post Office loses $20 billion a year.
#40. To: lucysmom (#39)
(Edited)
Not exactly, or even remotely, true.
"It's very important to remember the law is not simply what powerful people would want others to believe it is." -- Julian Assange
#41. To: jwpegler (#40)
LOL. Simply copying text from Wikipedia without any independent thought or analysis is not impressive.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]