A real discussion about spending cuts

[Tom]

Let's have a real discussion about spending cuts.

First of all, the real problem isn't big spending Democrats. Its also not Social Security, Medicare, or food stamps.

Problem 1. To really cut spending you have to cut defense spending. But no one in Congress wan'ts to cut funding for the military base or airplane factory or tank factory that's in their state or district. So we keep paying for things the DOD says they don't even need.

Problem 2. Stop blaming poor people when the big money waste is subsidies to large corporations.

 

[monovillage]

You really mean "let me tell you what the left thinks is wrong with you Republicans and with capitalism and if you disagree you're a fascist"

 

[Lithium381]

Okay, I'll play. I agree, with caveats, to both of your identified problems.

We do need to cut "Defense" spending. Contrived wars all over the world for the 'protection of our interests' is not for the defense of our country. The military we have now is way too large for the simple protection of our borders. I can't say I'd be opposed to a 50% cut in the Military/Defense budget.

Subsidies to large corporations is indeed a huge problem and should be stopped. Rewarding them directly for campaign contributions corrupts our system. That's not to say we should continue individual welfare without reducing it substantially, though.

 

[Dman8777]

I would say social security and medicaid are actually a part of it. Large cuts in any one program aren't enough.

You are correct that cutting budget items, whether they're in defense or otherwise, is very difficult. Every budget item has its backers and typically a real need or a moneyed interest with lobbyists behind it.

When you really think about it, almost the entire budget is a subsidy of one from another. Defense spending susidizes corporations (but also their employees) while medicaid, medicare, and social security susidize large sections of the population directly. Tucked into the discretionary and mandatory spending iems are also plenty of subsidies for various pet projects.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Social Security is largely self-funded specifically through SS tax though.

 

[Tom]

You really mean "let me tell you what the left thinks is wrong with you Republicans and with capitalism and if you disagree you're a fascist"

No. I mean here are my thoughts now tell me yours.

I don't think either of my points is particularly partisan.

 

[Tom]

I would say social security and medicaid are actually a part of it. Large cuts in any one program aren't enough.

You are correct that cutting budget items, whether they're in defense or otherwise, is very difficult. Every budget item has its backers and typically a real need or a moneyed interest with lobbyists behind it.

When you really think about it, almost the entire budget is a subsidy of one from another. Defense spending susidizes corporations (but also their employees) while medicaid, medicare, and social security susidize large sections of the population directly. Tucked into the discretionary and mandatory spending iems are also plenty of subsidies for various pet projects.

The spending for Social Security in your chart, where does the revenue come from ?

I'm willing to bet it comes from taxes collected to pay for SS as well as payments from the SS trust fund.

In other words, it has nothing to do with the budget.

 

[Matt1970]

You really mean "let me tell you what the left thinks is wrong with you Republicans and with capitalism and if you disagree you're a fascist"

This. Maybe try again Tom without the blinders.

 

[Tom]

Okay, I'll play. I agree, with caveats, to both of your identified problems.

We do need to cut "Defense" spending. Contrived wars all over the world for the 'protection of our interests' is not for the defense of our country. The military we have now is way too large for the simple protection of our borders. I can't say I'd be opposed to a 50% cut in the Military/Defense budget.

Subsidies to large corporations is indeed a huge problem and should be stopped. Rewarding them directly for campaign contributions corrupts our system. That's not to say we should continue individual welfare without reducing it substantially, though.

What I meant by my reference to poor people is that I think too many people think we could balance the budget by cutting spending that helps poor people survive.

Which I don't think is true but I guess a couple of people who have called me out must believe that's the case.

To them our only problem is we should make poor people take care of themselves and stop giving them food.

 

[Tom]

This. Maybe try again Tom without the blinders.

Instead of attacking my thoughts why don't you tell us what you want to cut ?

 

[HumblePie]

I had taken a bit of time to write up a huge thing about taxes, their history, and spending reasons. But I had to delete the whole thing as it gets way to depressive thinking about.

 

[PokerGuy]

OP, your idea of a "real discussion" is "let me throw out some dumb left wing talking points!".

Defense spending is 19% of the federal budget. Even significant cuts there (and I think there need to be some), would not fix anything. Entitlement programs like medicare, medicaid and SS have to be addressed as well, or there will be no fixing anything. SS isn't a big budget drain yet, but that's only temporary. If we don't address it, it will be a massive drain as the population continues to age and the baby boomers retire in large numbers.

 

[BoberFett]

No. I mean here are my thoughts now tell me yours.

I don't think either of my points is particularly partisan.

Monovillage was right. Your OP isn't the start of a discussion, it's blaming Republicans.

This thread was started to be a typical AT P&N Democrat circle jerk.

 

[Lithium381]

What I meant by my reference to poor people is that I think too many people think we could balance the budget by cutting spending that helps poor people survive.

Which I don't think is true but I guess a couple of people who have called me out must believe that's the case.

To them our only problem is we should make poor people take care of themselves and stop giving them food.

If we were to reduce taxes spent on housing and feeding the poor and allowed people to fund charities voluntarily, I think we would see a change in attitude about the entire issue on both the giving side and the receiving side. If there was no guaranteed government safety net, I would venture a guess that people might make more sound choices. There are times where things ARE out of your control. That's where charity comes in. It's supposed to be temporary help, not perpetuate a lifestyle.

Personally, i give to my church as I think they do good things with my funds to help those in need. There is a perception among many when it comes to feeding the poor and helping those in need now, since the introduction of governmental social programs that "the government is already taking care of these people by stealing x% from me every month so i don't need to help them; it's now the governments job". Take away the mandatory tax to ease up on someones paycheck and they might be willing to donate to a private charity. I believe private charities can do more good that the government.

 

[BoberFett]

What I meant by my reference to poor people is that I think too many people think we could balance the budget by cutting spending that helps poor people survive.

Which I don't think is true but I guess a couple of people who have called me out must believe that's the case.

To them our only problem is we should make poor people take care of themselves and stop giving them food.

Really? So you think poor people that don't work should be supported by the government, but people who actually work should not be? Because that's what defense spending is. A jobs program.

 

[monovillage]

No. I mean here are my thoughts now tell me yours.

I don't think either of my points is particularly partisan.

No, you started with the "real problem isn't big spending Democrats" Which is a highly partisan position which you removed for your "discussion".
Then you claimed that 50% of the budget ("also not Social Security, Medicare, or food stamps") is not the problem, also key Democrat positions.
Then you point to defense spending and corporations as being the problem which are also partisan Democrat talking points.
Doesn't really sound like a "real discussion" to me.

 

[rudder]

The spending for Social Security in your chart, where does the revenue come from ?

I'm willing to bet it comes from taxes collected to pay for SS as well as payments from the SS trust fund.

In other words, it has nothing to do with the budget.

It comes from a tax and very much a part of the overall government expenditures. Blah blah does not add the the deficit blah blah. SS is in trouble. As the ratio of payees to recipients dwindle and people live longer... that math with SS just won't work.

The U.S. receives tax revenues from other sources beyond income tax... so the whole spending picture needs to be presented. Every penny that comes in and every penny that goes out are all a part of the big picture.

 

[Lithium381]

If we were to reduce taxes spent on housing and feeding the poor and allowed people to fund charities voluntarily, I think we would see a change in attitude about the entire issue on both the giving side and the receiving side. If there was no guaranteed government safety net, I would venture a guess that people might make more sound choices. There are times where things ARE out of your control. That's where charity comes in. It's supposed to be temporary help, not perpetuate a lifestyle.

Personally, i give to my church as I think they do good things with my funds to help those in need. There is a perception among many when it comes to feeding the poor and helping those in need now, since the introduction of governmental social programs that "the government is already taking care of these people by stealing x% from me every month so i don't need to help them; it's now the governments job". Take away the mandatory tax to ease up on someones paycheck and they might be willing to donate to a private charity. I believe private charities can do more good that the government.

In other words, it's not about MAKING THE POOR PEOPLE STARVE!!! it's about voluntary contribution to charities and taking the federal government out of it.

 

[Tom]

Monovillage was right. Your OP isn't the start of a discussion, it's blaming Republicans.

This thread was started to be a typical AT P&N Democrat circle jerk.

How does my first point have anything to do with blaming Republicans ?

Or the part of my second point about corporate subsidies ?

Do you know who Senator Tom Coburn is ? John McCain ?

What I said in both my points is something either or both have said.

In any case, whatever you think about what I posted, there's nothing stopping anyone from posting about what or how they think spending cuts should happen.

 

[Matt1970]

Instead of attacking my thoughts why don't you tell us what you want to cut ?

I am with you in cutting the Military. Anyone who has seen my posts can attest to that. But that is just the tip of the iceberg. All departments need to get cut. I know a lot of people who work for the Government on many different levels and with the exception of emergency services they spend the majority of their day with nothing to do. Our Government is a bloated mess.

Next, repeal all the Bush tax cuts. All of them and leave the politics out. That includes those that said Bush was evil for initiating them but then magically jumped on board when it was Obama’s idea to make most of them permanent. That also includes the Repubs saying the ones that were repealed were going to damage the economy. They were all full of shit and they know it. Same goes for both sides about the sequester cuts. They need to be made permanent. Both sides were full of it regarding their effects. According to them we should be knee deep in shit right now because of them and we are not.

 

[Anarchist420]

Problem 1. To really cut spending you have to cut defense spending. But no one in Congress wan'ts to cut funding for the military base or airplane factory or tank factory that's in their state or district. So we keep paying for things the DOD says they don't even need.

All Empires eventually run out of money.

Problem 2. Stop blaming poor people when the big money waste is subsidies to large corporations.

some people are always going to be poor which doesn't mean that they're going to be unhappy. The State cannot satisfy one person without being aggressive like throwing people into jails or even torturing them when they didn't hurt anyone.

There are many large corporations that are not as productive and helpful as they should be and a lot of that has to do with constant regulations which some lobby for and others don't.

I would say social security and medicaid are actually a part of it. Large cuts in any one program aren't enough.

I would say social security and medicaid are actually a part of it. Large cuts in any one program aren't enough.

Medicaid spending is going to get even higher unfortunately.

Defense spending susidizes corporations (but also their employees) while medicaid, medicare, and social security susidize large sections of the population directly.

I have to say that the most productive medical practices are ones who don't accept insurance, medicaid, or medicare but now the ACA (in addition to the regs and taxes already legislated) is getting tough on those efficient and very helpful practices.

Pharmaceutical companies would be a lot more efficient if not for the FDA and if not for patents.

It's sad, it really is. The Empire is going to collapse over most of the world soon... America is in its last 20 years and it's sad that Jefferson's vision has not been fulfilled. But the minority of Americans the empire doesn't fall on will adapt, will be happier than they are under the empire, and that makes me happy. I just hope that no one ever does anything to me like what the pirate did to Clark the Giant because I do not want to ever be used as a tool for violence.

 

[Juddog]

No. I mean here are my thoughts now tell me yours.

I don't think either of my points is particularly partisan.

Don't expect reasonable responses from the partisan hacks. To them, being moderate, in other words square in the middle, makes you a "left wing socialist".

 

[Tom]

It comes from a tax and very much a part of the overall government expenditures. Blah blah does not add the the deficit blah blah. SS is in trouble. As the ratio of payees to recipients dwindle and people live longer... that math with SS just won't work.

The U.S. receives tax revenues from other sources beyond income tax... so the whole spending picture needs to be presented. Every penny that comes in and every penny that goes out are all a part of the big picture.

It's just not true that its all one big thing. SS may need to be fixed, but it has nothing to do with the budget.

The way the law stands, not a dime of general revenue will be spent on Social Security. Ever.

So it has nothing to do with the budget. And I would like to discuss spending cuts, not revenue. Because given its not going to happen that revenue is going to be raised to get the deficit to a good level, there will have to be cuts.

I would like to know what it is people think should be cut ? Or not cut ?

 

[BoberFett]

Don't expect reasonable responses from the partisan hacks. To them, being moderate, in other words square in the middle, makes you a "left wing socialist".

Really? What was moderate about the OP?

"Waaaah, don't blame Democrats, we need to cut the military and nothing else."

I'm all for cutting the military. Significantly. But there's a lot more to it than that. And as I said, the OP was just meant to start a Democrat circle jerk, not a real discussion.

 

[Tom]

Really? What was moderate about the OP?

"Waaaah, don't blame Democrats, we need to cut the military and nothing else."

I'm all for cutting the military. Significantly. But there's a lot more to it than that. And as I said, the OP was just meant to start a Democrat circle jerk, not a real discussion.

I talked about the reason why its difficult to close bases or programs the DOD doesn't think are important.

Which as nothing to do with liberal vs conservative.

Anyway, its clear you want to attack me, not discuss spending cuts. Which is exactly why nothing gets done in DC either.