COL Gene COL Gene

CUT SPENDING!

▼

CUT SPENDING!

from JoeUser Forums


Every politician that says we must CUT SPENDING to solve the fiscal problems of the U.S. should be required to list their top 10 spending cuts with the amounts they would propose to cut.


I am very tired of listening to the meaningless statement that we hear from most GOP candidates and some Democrats that we are spending TOO MUCH. Fine then tell us just WHAT and HOW MUCH you propose to CUT to solve our fiscal problems!!!
politics
40,023 views 160 replies
Reply #76 from JoeUser Forums Top

You can mechanically balance the budget by saying CUT anything. I could have said let's STOP paying the $500 billion in interest on the debt. We could disband our military and balance the budget. I have said you can not balance the budget with CUTS that are ACCEPTABLE to the majority of Americans. Your cuts will never achieve the objective because only some very wealthy people would support the cuts in programs that most people consider essential.

You have said you balanced the budget without touching SS and Medicare. At this time NO General Fund tax revenue is being spent on these two programs. In fact in 2006 SS and Medicare had a SURPLUS of $224 Billion. When the Boomers retire in large numbers, the first problem will be for the Treasury to redeem the over $3 trillion worth of IOU's that have issued SS and Medicare trust funds. Then when the Trust Funds have been exhausted the General Fund will need to make up the difference between the SS and Medicare taxes and the benefits to the Boomers.

Your suggestion is as much of a solution as saying let's have China give us the money to balance our budget. We can cut the pork and we can beef up collections, but to complete the job we MUST increase taxes. We must first end tax cuts that were justified to return a SURPLUS that never existed. The reason Bush made for the tax cuts DID NOT EXIST. Just like the WMD in Iraq. The $ 5.7 Trillion of Surplus that Bush used to justify his tax cuts was another LIE!

This is the last time I'm going to respond since you don't seem capable of carrying out an honest debate on this subject.

You challenged people to balance the budget by cutting spending.

I did so by eliminating primarily two programs  - Medicaid (not Medicare) and the federal aid to poor families programs. Doing just those two things freed up nearly $500 billion.

Just because you favor the government stealing money from tax payers to hand out to "the poor" doesn't mean those programs are uncuttable.

You don't want to cut those programs. That is fine. I don't want my taxes raised. Result, we have deficit spending.

You really aren't against deficit spending. If getting rid of the debt was your highest priority, you would be willing to cut the socialist programs out of the budget.

Reply #77 from JoeUser Forums Top
Dragional

I will respond One more time as well. The majority do not agree with what you want to cut. Your suggestions cut help to those that have very little and are in need of the help so people like you can pile up more millions. It is a simple choice-- help people who need help or allow people that have more then they can ever use or need to accumulate MORE.

I support helping our people that NEED help and make people like you claim you are pay a little more. I still say let the people choose by who they elect to Congress. You still do not dare answer my question of. WHY A TAX CUT TO RETURN THE SURPLUS THAT DOES NOT EXIST!
Elemental: Reforged
Reply #78 from JoeUser Forums Top
You still do not dare answer my question of. WHY A TAX CUT TO RETURN THE SURPLUS THAT DOES NOT EXIST!


That's because your question itself is idiotic.
Reply #79 from JoeUser Forums Top
I see the Col can't seem to answer the question. I'll ask it again, with reference this time.

"Aid is central to Washington's relationship with Cairo. The US has provided Egypt with $1.3 billion a year in military aid since 1979, and an average of $815 million a year in economic assistance. All told, Egypt has received over $50 billion in US largesse since 1975."


That's just one nation we buy off. For decades we've been sending billions to the other nations, like the Palestinians, Jordan, Columbia, Israel, etc. We send BILLIONS to Russia, who now sits and calls us a threat, and who is now most likely assassinating its critics in other nations.

Now, Col, if you are an expert on this, where DOES THAT MONEY COME FROM? Show me on your pie chart. You take your broad slices of the economy, and turn a blind eye so you don't have to see the misuse and graft. That way you can pretend there is no money to cut.

Reply #80 from JoeUser Forums Top
Drmiler

You still do not dare answer my question of. WHY A TAX CUT TO RETURN THE SURPLUS THAT DOES NOT EXIST!


That's because your question itself is idiotic.


The question was because of what GWB said was the reason for his tax cuts. How can that be idiotic? Are you saying Bush is an Idiot?
Bakerstreet

I believe we give Israel about $4 billion each year. WHY?

The Foreign Aid is less then $20Billion - Let’s cut it!. Let’s end the Iraq war and save over $100 Billion per year!All these cuts plus the Pork will not come close to the $600 Billion we need to balance the budget and then another $100-150 Billion to begin repaying the debt we have amassed! We will need to increased taxes to balance the budget and NOTHING you have said will alter that fact. It is time for the wealthy to give up a tax cut that was not justified because there was no surplus as Bush claimed. When Bush does lie he tells some VERY TALL Tales-- WMD, DANGER FROM SADDAM AND A $5.7 TRILLION DOLLAR SURPLUS. None of these were true in ANY WAY!
Reply #81 from JoeUser Forums Top

Drmiler

You still do not dare answer my question of. WHY A TAX CUT TO RETURN THE SURPLUS THAT DOES NOT EXIST!


That's because your question itself is idiotic.


The question was because of what GWB said was the reason for his tax cuts. How can that be idiotic? Are you saying Bush is an Idiot?



No, I'm saying "you" are.
Reply #82 from JoeUser Forums Top
You didn't answer the question, Col. Where in your pie chart of government expense is that aid listed? You keep saying for us to look at those broad definitions, Defense, Social Services, Transportation, etc., as if there isn't anything in them that can be done away with.

According to you, if we cut social services, people starve or go without healthcare. If we cut defense the huns will come over the wall. It's idiotically simplistic and facetious, and you aren't changing anyone's mind by using such a tactic. For every dollar we spend on necessary services we waste two and lose another to thieves.

So... I'll ask again. Where does the "aid" for nations like Egypt, Israel, etc., fit into your untouchable budget? Your pie seems to be leaking money all over the world, and you don't even know where the hole is. You are making the assertion that there aren't cuts to make, and yet you don't even know what spending is there to cut.
Reply #83 from JoeUser Forums Top
I am not sure what department contains the Foreign Aid (it could be spread in several departments) I but I did find it represents about 25 Billion. Iraq receives the largest amount followed by Israel. However, even if we eliminate ALL the Foreign Aid we only have a drop in the bucket of what is needed to balance the budget. I do not think we should be giving money to many countries but cutting ALL Foreign aid will not solve the problem. You continue to avoid the issue. We should STOP tax Cuts to the wealthy for two reasons. First there is NO Surplus to return to the wealthy (They were not over taxed as Bush Claimed) second we need the money to balance the budget!
Also they can pay a little more without causing them any hardship or impact on spending!
Reply #84 from JoeUser Forums Top
I am not sure what department contains the Foreign Aid (it could be spread in several departments) I but I did find it represents about 25 Billion. Iraq receives the largest amount followed by Israel. However, even if we eliminate ALL the Foreign Aid we only have a drop in the bucket of what is needed to balance the budget. I do not think we should be giving money to many countries but cutting ALL Foreign aid will not solve the problem. You continue to avoid the issue. We should STOP tax Cuts to the wealthy for two reasons. First there is NO Surplus to return to the wealthy (They were not over taxed as Bush Claimed) second we need the money to balance the budget!
Also they can pay a little more without causing them any hardship or impact on spending!


Oh, good holly horseshit, Col! You totally missed the point. The point is that EVERY federal agency has similar budgetary items that can be cut!

Man, get off the paint!
Reply #85 from JoeUser Forums Top
And the sub-point is why sit around claiming that there isn't enough stuff to cut from budgets when you don't even know what those budgets are made up of...
Reply #86 from JoeUser Forums Top
Gideon

No you missed the point-- ALL those cuts do not come CLOSE to the $600 Billion needed to Balance the budget much less the added money to repay the debt. I have supported making cuts like Pork or programs that are not effective. What I oppose is cutting hundreds of Billions from the HELP that the Poor, Old, Young and Disabled need so we can protect the tax cuts for the wealthy! Increasing the tax rates on the top 10% will not harm them or their families. It may reduce their SURPLUS a little so that we can balance the budget and continue to help those with a real need just to LIVE!

I have a son with Type I diabetes and it has progressed over the past 30 years to the point where ha can not work, lost a leg, caused the amputation of 3 toes on his other leg and caused a need to replace his corneas. Without the help from the programs Dragional would cut, he could not live. I also know the amount of help is VERY small compared with what it takes to live. We provide his financial help but his medical needs go far beyond anything we could provide. I have first hand knowledge of the Medicaid, Section 8, food stamps and Social Security Disability. Anyone that would cut those programs so those with millions can pile up more and more should read what happened to the Rich man when he called to Lazarus for help from HELL!
Reply #87 from JoeUser Forums Top
Gideon

No you missed the point-- ALL those cuts do not come CLOSE to the $600 Billion needed to Balance the budget much less the added money to repay the debt. I have supported making cuts like Pork or programs that are not effective. What I oppose is cutting hundreds of Billions from the HELP that the Poor, Old, Young and Disabled need so we can protect the tax cuts for the wealthy! Increasing the tax rates on the top 10% will not harm them or their families. It may reduce their SURPLUS a little so that we can balance the budget and continue to help those with a real need just to LIVE!


Lately has anyone told you what a moron, you are?
Reply #88 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler

Stop using words your limited intellect can not understand! If you could comprehend the term MORON, you would look in a mirror and see one!
Reply #89 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler

Stop using words your limited intellect can not understand! If you could comprehend the term MORON, you would look in a mirror and see one!


"My" limited intellect? I'd match wits with you, but that would be like me fighting a man with no arms at all.
Reply #90 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler

You sound like that Idiot Rush
Reply #91 from JoeUser Forums Top
"No you missed the point-- ALL those cuts do not come CLOSE to the $600 Billion needed to Balance the budget much less the added money to repay the debt."


If you don't know what is spent, where it is spent, and what it is spent on... well... it sounds like you are just talking out of your ass, frankly.
Reply #92 from JoeUser Forums Top
No matter what you mental migots say


What's a migot?

Stop using words your limited intellect can not understand!


You should talk.
Reply #93 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bakerstrteet


I posted the Web site that shows the FEDERAL BUDGET. Just because I can not point to the subset where foreign Aid, which is less then 1% of the federal budget, is contained does not mean I do not understand where the money is being spent. If you have looked at the budget you know there is no place to cut $600 Billion without cutting things like Dragional has suggested. Most of the General Fund (not including Social Security or Medicare) is spent on Health and Human services ( the things Dragional wants to cut that Helps the POOR), Defense/ Homeland security and Interest on the debt. Thus unless you want to turn you back on the poor, eliminate our national defense or default on the $9 Trillion of debt, there is no $600 Billion to cut. To balance the budget will require a tax increase!
Reply #94 from JoeUser Forums Top
Thus unless you want to turn you back on the poor, eliminate our national defense or default on the $9 Trillion of debt, there is no $600 Billion to cut. To balance the budget will require a tax increase!


Ok, He wins, I will not debate this topic with col idiot type, because he has no concept of what the budget is or how it is used. Debating col political hack on this topic is like fighting a mindless child. Just one budget item not disputed on my list was over 500 billion dollars but back then he said the magic number was 700 billion. His figures move with the wind and his logic is missing. I usually wait until he has backed himself into a corner and drops the subject for another version of the same topic.
Reply #95 from JoeUser Forums Top
"I posted the Web site that shows the FEDERAL BUDGET. Just because I can not point to the subset where foreign Aid, which is less then 1% of the federal budget, is contained does not mean I do not understand where the money is being spent."


Actually, if you think about it... that is EXACTLY what that means. I'd be willing to bet that is just a drop in the bucket of things you don't know about the federal budget. Waste is something they DON'T want you to know about. That's why your big pie charts are so convenient for you.
Reply #96 from JoeUser Forums Top
If you have looked at the budget you know there is no place to cut $600 Billion without cutting things like Dragional has suggested.


Right there, Col, you just conceded the debate. Your initial challenge was for us to show where the budget could be cut, NOT where the budget could be cut to meet your narrow set of criteria.

SO why not acknowledge the good guys won this round, and go back and rephrase the question:

"How can you cut the budget without giving a lot of people's money to other people who did not earn it and do not deserve it?"

Our answers might be different.
Reply #97 from JoeUser Forums Top
1% seems like a negligable amount until you realize it is compounded and copied over and over throughout different branches of the government. Add them all up and I'd be willing to bet you could cut a LOT more than 600 billion.
Reply #98 from JoeUser Forums Top
P.S. Does anyone find it a tad dishonest that when the Col talks about raising taxes, it is to fix 600 billion, but when someone proposes a cut he compares it to the ENTIRE budget, not the 600 million?

I proposed cutting billions in aid and payoffs to other nations, but that is "less than 1% of the budget". Odd, were we trying to cut the whole budget, or 600 billion?. Maybe the percent it constitutes of the 600 billion is a bit more than he's comfortable to admit.

Like, when you look at the State Department, 5.1 billion is allocated to "other". Billion... with a 'b'. Anyone that looks at something, like, an almost 5 billion dollar budget for the "Agency for International Development" and still pretends we couldn't cut out 600 billion is either stupid or dishonest.


Reply #99 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bakerstreet, Gideon, Paladin77 et al

What you have demonstrated is a total distain for the poor, disabled and those that can not help themselves so the wealthy can pile up a little more in their accounts. WHAT YOU SHOW IS YOUR GREED! If as Gideon says you believe you are the “GOOD GUYS” you need to read Luke 16:19-31. There is NOTHING GOOD about what you would do to balance the budget. I have always said we should first cut things that are not needed to help either those that need help (Medicaid, Housing help, Food stamps for example) or to insure the continuation of our country defense, transportation, Law enforcement etc.). I believe we could cut 75 Billion if we cut ALL the pork and special interest spending. We might be able to collect another 100 Billion by better enforcement of existing tax laws. However we are about $600 Billion out of balance and that will not provide the surplus to begin repaying the debt. Thus to BOTH balance the budget and begin repaying the $9 Trillion in debt we need about $700 Billion per year. If we end the Iraq war we could save another $100 billion. HOWEVER NO MATTER HOW YOU CUT THE MUSTARD, TO COME UP WITH A BALANCED BUDGET AND TO BEGIN TO REPAY THE DEBT, WE WILL NEED MORE TAX REVENUE! Time to giver back the Bush tax cuts that was to be paid from the BIG SURPLUS that Bush said existed. The problem is there was NO SURPLUS. IT must be at the same place as the WMD! YOUR BOY LIES!
Reply #100 from JoeUser Forums Top
I believe we could cut 75 Billion if we cut ALL the pork and special interest spending


And "you" live in a dream world!