Do Republicans really want to trim the deficit by cutting entitlements?

[HomerJS]

Then why did they run against Obama cutting Medicare by $716 billion? Romney and the Republicans said they would put that money back?

[nehalem256]

Because Obama cutting medicare wasn't about closing the deficit.

It was about moving money from one government spending program to another.

[Atreus21]

Didn't Paul Ryan promote the same thing in his budget? And wasn't this derided as throwing granny over a cliff?

[HomerJS]

Originally Posted by nehalem256

Because Obama cutting medicare wasn't about closing the deficit.

It was about moving money from one government spending program to another.

There was not an increase of 716B in spending.

So they did it because they didn't like Obama's motive not because the result would have been the same?

[Incorruptible]

Nice partisan hackery OP. obama didn't want to cut that spending he just wanted to transfer it to another program

Your bias is amazing, you will attack republicans but you never attack the democrats who supported more spending

[SMOGZINN]

Doesn't matter, no politician wants to cut any entitlements. You don't get popular by taking the candy away from the children.

[Bowfinger]

Originally Posted by HomerJS

Then why did they run against Obama cutting Medicare by $716 billion? Romney and the Republicans said they would put that money back?

Politics. Ryan was widely despised and feared by the elderly because of his plan to essentially gut Medicare. Attacking Obama for his Medicare cuts was their way of distracting those elderly by insinuating Obama was at least as bad, if not worse.

Of course in the spirit of shameless dishonesty, the Romney campaign ignored the fact that the Obama cuts weren't cuts to the services provided to seniors. Instead, the Obama plan sought to increase efficiency by reducing reimbursement to providers. There were legitimate questions about how providers will respond to that and the indirect impact it might have on seniors. Romney/Ryan ignored those legitimate questions, of course, in favor of sensationalistic -- and wholly deceptive -- attacks.

So again, politics.

[cubby1223]

Originally Posted by HomerJS

Then why did they run against Obama cutting Medicare by $716 billion? Romney and the Republicans said they would put that money back?

Do you really believe Obama cut spending?

But get down to the root issue, it's just simple math - there is not enough money coming into the government to support the money flowing out. Higher taxes on "the rich" do not cover the expenses. The only alternate solution than cutting entitlements is inflation.

Instead of the pointless bickering of what party wants to do what, we need to be discussing what needs to be done for the good of the country.

So, the only actual question is, do you personally believe entitlements should be cut? Or not?

If the current Republicans in congress are not serious about cutting entitlements, then I personally would prefer we vote in replacements who are serious about cutting entitlements.

[Matt1970]

Originally Posted by SMOGZINN

Doesn't matter, no politician wants to cut any entitlements. You don't get popular by taking the candy away from the children.

Right. We either need to cut entitlements or raise taxes across the board. Neither will happen so in the next election we will be glaring at an even larger debt and just watch both sides blame eachother. It's a nice little corner we have backed ourselves into.

[soundforbjt]

Originally Posted by Matt1970

Right. We either need to cut entitlements or raise taxes across the board. Neither will happen so in the next election we will be glaring at an even larger debt and just watch both sides blame eachother. It's a nice little corner we have backed ourselves into.

We actually need to do both, raise taxes and cut spending & waste. Hell if we could cut the waste, overcharging, and abuse in programs we'd probably be ok.

[Incorruptible]

OP do you believe that entitlement spending needs to be cut and do you really believe obama wants to cut spending

You took a few tokens from limbaugh, Rush Limbaugh jr

[Matt1970]

Originally Posted by soundforbjt

We actually need to do both, raise taxes and cut spending & waste. Hell if we could cut the waste, overcharging, and abuse in programs we'd probably be ok.

Or both, yes. And don't get me started on Gov Waste. I know a few people that work for the State Gov and even after the recent personal cutbacks there is still nothing for most of them to do.

[nanette1985]

Will someone please list the specific "entitlement" programs that could be cut? I have no objection to cutting welfare and most of the farm subsidies that I'm familiar with - Social security should have been reformed decades ago - and federal employees shouldn't be be getting federally provided retirement benefits unless every non-federal employee is getting an equal private retirement benefit. JMHO. Unemployment is good but should be limited.

Thanks.

[Matt1970]

Originally Posted by nanette1985

Will someone please list the specific "entitlement" programs that could be cut? I have no objection to cutting welfare and most of the farm subsidies that I'm familiar with - Social security should have been reformed decades ago - and federal employees shouldn't be be getting federally provided retirement benefits unless every non-federal employee is getting an equal private retirement benefit. JMHO. Unemployment is good but should be limited.

Thanks.

99 Weeks of Unemployment is good by you?

That's almost 2 years for those a little slow with math.

[Engineer]

Originally Posted by Matt1970

99 Weeks of Unemployment is good by you?

That's almost 2 years for those a little slow with math.

Originally Posted by nanette1985

Unemployment is good but should be limited.

Thanks.

It was posted as "should be limited" for those a little slow at reading.

and general unemployement (i.e. 26 weeks) is paid for, just like the other real entitlements (ss and medicare), by the people. May not be enough money and that's something that will need to be addressed, one way or another, very soon.

[Matt1970]

Originally Posted by Engineer

It was posted as "should be limited" for those a little slow at reading.

and general unemployement (i.e. 26 weeks) is paid for, just like the other real entitlements (ss and medicare), by the people. May not be enough money and that's something that will need to be addressed, one way or another, very soon.

He also said it was good, for those that only read what they want

[Darwin333]

No Republicans really do not. They pay it lip service to entice their base but even a vast majority of their base doesn't really want entitlements seriously cut (well, not the ones they use anyway just everyone elses).

[Darwin333]

Originally Posted by HomerJS

There was not an increase of 716B in spending.

He didn't say there was an increase in spending he said money being spent was moved from being spent on one program to another (how true this is I don't know) for a net zero change in actual spending. I haven't read much into the issue because I know for damn sure it wasn't an actual honest to goodness spending cut.

[Darwin333]

Originally Posted by nanette1985

Will someone please list the specific "entitlement" programs that could be cut? I have no objection to cutting welfare and most of the farm subsidies that I'm familiar with - Social security should have been reformed decades ago - and federal employees shouldn't be be getting federally provided retirement benefits unless every non-federal employee is getting an equal private retirement benefit. JMHO. Unemployment is good but should be limited.

Thanks.

Not that I disagree with the above because they all sound reasonable but its just a drop in the bucket. For the time being lets take Social Security off the table because it is self funding and with a few tweaks will continue to be self funding for quite a while.

That leaves us with Medicare/Medicaid and the military to get any significant spending cuts, period. Don't get me wrong, I am all for picking up a few nickels out of other programs where we can but the truth is those 3 programs above are where the bulk of our spending goes (unless anyone wants to put interest on our debt on the table).

[Engineer]

Originally Posted by Matt1970

He also said it was good, for those that only read what they want

Meaning that "limited unemployment is good"...and it is.

[zephyrprime]

Not really. Bush greatly expanded medicare after all even when there was no political pressure to do so.

[Engineer]

Originally Posted by zephyrprime

Not really. Bush greatly expanded medicare after all even when there was no political pressure to do so.

and some of the biggest deficit hawks on this very forum applauded and cheered because Bush and the GOP shoved the bill down the Dems throats, knowing that it went against their very core principles. Neither side wants to cut anything when it comes right down to it.

[CycloWizard]

The executive branch does not dictate spending on anything. That you ascribe such powers to executives is one of the major problems in our nation today.

[Ausm]

Originally Posted by HomerJS

Then why did they run against Obama cutting Medicare by $716 billion? Romney and the Republicans said they would put that money back?

But with the caveat that it would only affect people under 55, so basically they were banking on their constituents not having a conscience and fucking over their own Families.

[Triumph]

What this country needs to do, just to get started, is to force every member of the Senate, House, and the President, to answer the simple question: "Do you want a balanced budget?" No discussion about specific programs, no argument about cutting this versus cutting that, just force them to go on record stating whether or not they support this goal. If they do not support it, they must justify why not. Start out knowing what they're motivations are. And if they lie about it, then they'll eventually be exposed as liars.