House GOP Lists $2.5 Trillion in Spending Cuts

[her209]

Agree...but we've got to leave Afghanistan and Iraq first...the cuts should then follow.

Absolutely. Once we get out of there, we need to start cutting back.

Sounds like a stall tactic. We can start cutting back on the stuff not related directly to the two wars.

 

[matt0611]

More bluster - and no cuts in Republican's pet pigs - defense, agricultural subs, etc. Cutting government spending during a delicate recovery from a massive meltdown is extremely dangerous. I'm all in favor of responsible spending, but the republicans should have done all of this when they controlled both houses and the presidency while presiding over a somewhat healthy economy, not now.

Yeah right, when things are going well you think people wanna put the bottle down? Not a chance.

 

[Elias824]

Does it take into account the defense related costs to keep bases in Middle Eastern oil producing countries?

Im pretty sure that most trains now use oil anyways.

 

[CPA]

I am still mystified why Republicans hate trains so much but love cars and airplanes.

America is NOT Europe and you can't treat it as such. Amtrak has bleed money since inception. If you're too young to know, Amtrak has had to have several bailouts in it's history. It needs to be scrapped or sold to a private company.

 

[Engineer]

Good to see cuts (if they make it through). Wonder how well the economy will handle the "deficit bubble" breaking?

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Sounds like a stall tactic. We can start cutting back on the stuff not related directly to the two wars.

Sure, such as certain research projects and some bases.

 

[Engineer]

Sure, such as certain research projects and some bases.

Hell, you have Senators requesting money for new bases in Afghanistan right now...permanent bases.

 

[Zebo]

This is like Curing alcoholism by switching from Wild Turkey 101 to Jim Beam. Complete fail and end up in same place. Guys we are in a death spiral and there is no will to get serious. One day dollar will be completely worthless so I'd prepare for that. Fix your debt at current rates because interest goes sky high under hyperinflation. Try and have assets like a home paid for. Learn about gardening. A mere 100 sq ft can generate 2000 lbs of food a year in most places.

There is nothing to fear if you are prepared and preparation is cheap and harmless even if I am wrong.

 

[Throckmorton]

America is NOT Europe and you can't treat it as such. Amtrak has bleed money since inception. If you're too young to know, Amtrak has had to have several bailouts in it's history. It needs to be scrapped or sold to a private company.

Since when do government services have to make a profit? How can you bail out a government institution?

What next, you'll complain that Medicare isn't profitable?

The east coast is very similar to Europe in density.

 

[K1052]

America is NOT Europe and you can't treat it as such. Amtrak has bleed money since inception. If you're too young to know, Amtrak has had to have several bailouts in it's history. It needs to be scrapped or sold to a private company.

If you're too old to read the whole thread allow me to paste one of my later posts on that particular topic:

Huge government funded road and airport projects obliterated the competitiveness of private passenger rail in the 30s through the 60s. Eventually this forced the creation of Amtrak lest all the railroads who were made to continue revenue draining passenger services go belly up.

Amtrak, while mismanaged internally and externally, has faced the basically impossible job of being competitive in the same environment. Declaring a system inefficient when it has literally been forced to be so isn't that damming of a complaint.

 

[Mani]

Yeah right, when things are going well you think people wanna put the bottle down? Not a chance.

If the republicans were half as fiscally responsible as they claim to be, they would have done it. Hell, Clinton used his economic surplus to pay down the national debt instead of passing out free candy. Republicans haven't been fiscally responsible in decades, and this is something their voters will realize yet again very soon.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

If the republicans were half as fiscally responsible as they claim to be, they would have done it. Hell, Clinton used his economic surplus to pay down the national debt instead of passing out free candy. Republicans haven't been fiscally responsible in decades, and this is something their voters will realize yet again very soon.

The national debt increased every year under Clinton. Despite running surpluses (and the surpluses could also be vewed as an accounting trick if you really want to nit-pick), the debt never went down.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66

Lets also not forget he had a Republican congress that drastically curtailed his spending plans and forced a lot of reform in regards to the deficit.

And as for being fiscally responsible, I don't think either side can lay claim to that title considering the last 40 years or so.

 

[CycloWizard]

If the republicans were half as fiscally responsible as they claim to be, they would have done it. Hell, Clinton used his economic surplus to pay down the national debt instead of passing out free candy. Republicans haven't been fiscally responsible in decades, and this is something their voters will realize yet again very soon.

You do realize that Congress is in charge of spending, right? The problem is that when congress and the president are all from the same party, they spend money. Sanity is only considered when there is a split.

 

[TheBDB]

If only they would combine this with tax increases so people would have to actually pay for this wonderful country we live in.

 

[Zebo]

Agree...but we've got to leave Afghanistan and Iraq first...the cuts should then follow.

Problem is any cuts is a disaster too. A lot of jobs defense contractors provide, cities and business that props up around that and local taxes taken in from that. We are in a catch 22. Cut anything the some 200 million American govt dependents or 2/3 of us depend on to eat and we go into depression. We live effectively off debt to mask/hide the hollowing out of American industry. Print/borrow more and make dollar worthless or treasury sucks up all excess private capital used for productive things. Cut anything significantly and we go into deep depression.

The Republicans in power are not stupid and understand this too. This is why there is no cutting of anything despite their rhetoric time and time again.

 

[Zebo]

If only they would combine this with tax increases so people would have to actually pay for this wonderful country we live in.

We don't need new taxes we need more tax payers. Well Capital needs same taxes as working people instead of $1 CEO's who then take their real money out at 15% with no employment taxes but otherwise no new taxes. Solves two problems. Gets people off govt payroll and they become payers. This can only be done if we produce what we consume.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Hell, you have Senators requesting money for new bases in Afghanistan right now...permanent bases.

Those requests need to be shot down. If Afghanistan continues to be an issue, just hit it with cruise missiles.

 

[Engineer]

Those requests need to be shot down. If Afghanistan continues to be an issue, just hit it with cruise missiles.

Let's cut spending.....but wait....let's build a few airbases first. LOL

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Let's cut spending.....but wait....let's build a few airbases first. LOL

This is why we all need to support Mitch Daniels in 2012. Shit like this won't fly. He is a bigger cheapass than I am.

 

[Darwin333]

I don't think people realize the magnitude of the hole that has been dug. $250 billion per year out of a $1.40 trillion annual deficit still leaves a $1.15 trillion annual deficit.

Even worse is that currently we spend every dime (save a few billion) on mandatory spending. That means that all of the Feds revenue is spent on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest on the debt. Thats it. Everything else, including defense, was paid for with borrowed money. To make matters worse the interest payments are going to drastically rise due to the way our debt is structured offsetting any revenue gains they can reasonably expect under current policy.

We can't get out of this hole without pissing off both camps by cutting into entitlements and raising taxes on everyone. Neither will happen.

 

[Jhhnn]

Republicans are desperate to avoid the one thing that'll make the biggest difference, which would be to raise taxes at the top.

Rich people weren't having trouble getting by pre-Reagan- they were still rich, just not getting richer as fast as they have been in the meanwhile. In 1980, the top 1&#37; received <9% of taxable income. In 2007, they received >23%, and the top .1% received ~12%, nearly as much as the bottom 50% combined.

I say let 'em cut- it's the only way the public will wake up, when they're totally screwed. Maybe a great place to cut would be from blue state transfers to red states, let 'em see how their ideas of govt actually play out.

Anybody think they'll cut ethanol subsidies, which is the driving force behind corn prices and indirectly other food prices?

Not even in your dreams...

 

[Darwin333]

Problem is any cuts is a disaster too. A lot of jobs defense contractors provide, cities and business that props up around that and local taxes taken in from that. We are in a catch 22. Cut anything the some 200 million American govt dependents or 2/3 of us depend on to eat and we go into depression. We live effectively off debt to mask/hide the hollowing out of American industry. Print/borrow more and make dollar worthless or treasury sucks up all excess private capital used for productive things. Cut anything significantly and we go into deep depression.

The Republicans in power are not stupid and understand this too. This is why there is no cutting of anything despite their rhetoric time and time again.

Pretty much this.

I still think we should just say fuck it and see how much we can get the suckers to loan us before we eventually tell them to get bent. We are going to do it sooner or later anyway so we might as well get what we can while the getting is good. At this point I have a hard time feeling sorry for anyone that gets screwed when we tell them we aren't paying it back.

 

[Darwin333]

Republicans are desperate to avoid the one thing that'll make the biggest difference, which would be to raise taxes at the top.

Rich people weren't having trouble getting by pre-Reagan- they were still rich, just not getting richer as fast as they have been in the meanwhile. In 1980, the top 1% received <9% of taxable income. In 2007, they received >23%, and the top .1% received ~12%, nearly as much as the bottom 50% combined.

I say let 'em cut- it's the only way the public will wake up, when they're totally screwed. Maybe a great place to cut would be from blue state transfers to red states, let 'em see how their ideas of govt actually play out.

Anybody think they'll cut ethanol subsidies, which is the driving force behind corn prices and indirectly other food prices?

Not even in your dreams...

How much you looking to increase taxes? Are you talking about the $70B a year "Bush tax cuts for the rich" or the entire $400B a year Bush tax cuts? Sounds like it is only the $70B, so lets give you that. That puts us at a 1.3ish trillion dollar deficit. Hell, lets double what they project the tax cuts for the rich would net, that puts us at 1.25 or so (rounding in your favor).

Now what?

 

[Darwin333]

If the republicans were half as fiscally responsible as they claim to be, they would have done it. Hell, Clinton used his economic surplus to pay down the national debt instead of passing out free candy. Republicans haven't been fiscally responsible in decades, and this is something their voters will realize yet again very soon.

I wonder why the Treasury Department doesn't show a decrease in debt during the Clinton years?

 

[Jhhnn]

How much you looking to increase taxes? Are you talking about the $70B a year "Bush tax cuts for the rich" or the entire $400B a year Bush tax cuts? Sounds like it is only the $70B, so lets give you that. That puts us at a 1.3ish trillion dollar deficit. Hell, lets double what they project the tax cuts for the rich would net, that puts us at 1.25 or so (rounding in your favor).

Now what?

More- back to pre-Reagan levels of federal taxation relative to % ranking in terms of income. Maybe leave the bottom 40% as is.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

Yeh, I know- the rich won't be getting richer at their current incredible rate. I'll have tears in my eyes as big as horseturds, I'm tellin' ya.

Anybody not willing to pay big taxes on big money, millions per year, is a truly greedy bastard and needs to be seen as such.