Everyone says we need to cut spending but no one really talks about what they would specifically cut. What would you cut?

And if you're for tax cuts how do you propose we make up for the lost revenue/what should we cut to replace that revenue?

Discretionary spending doesn't really need to be said because it's vague and isn't a large part of the budget.

What would I cut?
I would eliminate all pork, earmarks, etc.
I would raise the SS age gradually to 70 and cap the current benefits to the current $ amount.
I would start to really tear into to contracts for the defense budget, elongating some of the timelines for big ticket projects as well as cap personal pay and freeze promotions. Encourage the DoD to really look at lowering the cost of their healthcare plans.
I would tackle agricultural subsidies as they are way too large and have too much influence in the Congress.
I would put a freeze on all federal pay at all levels.

I'd cut the Defense budget in half. That's a pretty good start. I'd also end the wars we're in, and end them for reals.

42% of all military spend $s for the entire world in 2009 (per wiki...) was spent by the US. That is fucking retarded. We spend over 6 times what China spends, which is the 2nd biggest military spender...I'd say there's plenty to cut, and still be numero uno in terms of spending

As for entitlements - sorry boomers, it's going to 70.

Also, you need to raise revenue - you can't just cut your way out of this. The "T.E.A." party keeps bitching about being taxed enough, but they're being taxed less now than they were under Bush and Clinton - and it needs to go back to Clinton levels.

derek bomar;544721 wrote:I'd cut the Defense budget in half. That's a pretty good start. I'd also end the wars we're in, and end them for reals.

If you could explain how to do that and not compromise U.S. security, our allies and the economy, SECDEF Gates would love to hear it.

ptown_trojans_1;544684 wrote:...
I would eliminate all pork, earmarks, etc.
...

What a great start this would be. We can only dream.

ptown_trojans_1;544725 wrote:If you could explain how to do that and not compromise U.S. security, our allies and the economy, SECDEF Gates would love to hear it.

Like I said before in other threads which you don't agree with - get the fuck out of bases in countries that are sovereign and can defend themselves. Stop fighting wars that are meaningless - i.e. get the hell out of Afghanistan, or set the place on fire. Either go in there to take names and skull fuck the enemy and everyone else who gets in our way, or leave. Being in between the two costs $ and lives. Stop developing weapons that are useless for the wars we're currently in. Basically, let other people defend themselves for a change.

We're putting ourselves at risk by financing our military by borrowing from those people who we want to influence/deter.

ptown_trojans_1;544684 wrote:What would I cut?
I would eliminate all pork, earmarks, etc.
I would raise the SS age gradually to 70 and cap the current benefits to the current $ amount.
I would start to really tear into to contracts for the defense budget, elongating some of the timelines for big ticket projects as well as cap personal pay and freeze promotions. Encourage the DoD to really look at lowering the cost of their healthcare plans.
I would tackle agricultural subsidies as they are way too large and have too much influence in the Congress.
I would put a freeze on all federal pay at all levels.

Medicare/medicaid?

I'd have a fireside chat with Americans and explain that we need to freeze Medicare and Medicaid benefits for the short term, and work on some long term solutions that won't break the budget.

I also like many of the other suggestions on here.

Oh...and I would completely eliminate the Department of Education and its funding (with strings) to states. Let the states and local governments put together their own education requirements for their areas. I don't want the feds anywhere near this; it isn't a role they were EVER supposed to be in, anyway.

I'd also take a long, hard look at the billions we send overseas as part of foreign aid packages. We need to start trimming everything in the budget and there's no reason this area shouldn't be cut as well.

Way less than 1% of the the budget is foreign aid.

Con_Alma;544750 wrote:What a great start this would be. We can only dream.

Yeah, well if the R's campaigned on it, they better deliver.

derek bomar;544762 wrote:Like I said before in other threads which you don't agree with - get the fuck out of bases in countries that are sovereign and can defend themselves. Stop fighting wars that are meaningless - i.e. get the hell out of Afghanistan, or set the place on fire. Either go in there to take names and skull fuck the enemy and everyone else who gets in our way, or leave. Being in between the two costs $ and lives. Stop developing weapons that are useless for the wars we're currently in. Basically, let other people defend themselves for a change.

We're putting ourselves at risk by financing our military by borrowing from those people who we want to influence/deter.

Ehh, I disagree but that's wasn;t my point. My point was if you could explain in-depth how you would do that and exactly what programs would be cut, that would be very interesting to see.

I Wear Pants;544763 wrote:Medicare/medicaid?

Frozen at current levels, with a commission appointed look at cost cutting and saving measures that work in coordination with the passed healthcare bill.

Writerbuckeye;544768 wrote:I'd have a fireside chat with Americans and explain that we need to freeze Medicare and Medicaid benefits for the short term, and work on some long term solutions that won't break the budget.

I also like many of the other suggestions on here.

Oh...and I would completely eliminate the Department of Education and its funding (with strings) to states. Let the states and local governments put together their own education requirements for their areas. I don't want the feds anywhere near this; it isn't a role they were EVER supposed to be in, anyway.

I'd also take a long, hard look at the billions we send overseas as part of foreign aid packages. We need to start trimming everything in the budget and there's no reason this area shouldn't be cut as well.

Largely agree, but wouldn't eliminate the Education Department, just put it on notice that it needs to radically restructure and thus I would propose to cut its budget dramatically until it restructures.

Foreign aid is small, but important in some areas, Haiti for instance. However, it does need serious reform.

How about this: we charge people who wants us in their country for protection/deterrence

If these people want us to help them so bad, they should be able to pay for it.

I Wear Pants;544573 wrote:And if you're for tax cuts how do you propose we make up for the lost revenue/what should we cut to replace that revenue?

Fallacy. There are 3 documented times in our recent history wherein tax cuts raised federal revenues. You know them, but for the unknowing, it occurred under JFK (shocking, I know), Ronald Reagan, and George Bush. The idea that tax cuts decrease revenue comes from the same economic team that believes borrowing money from the future to spend today will create an economic orgasm along with stealing money from those that have it and redistributing it to those that don't will light our economic engine into prosperity.

derek bomar;544825 wrote:How about this: we charge people who wants us in their country for protection/deterrence

If these people want us to help them so bad, they should be able to pay for it.

In theory, I agree. We would have to have some base level that would be "free", but if they want x more troops or x more airplanes, then there is a cost for that protection. Let's start with Canada...pay up Canuckers.

BGFalcons82;544829 wrote:Fallacy. There are 3 documented times in our recent history wherein tax cuts raised federal revenues. You know them, but for the unknowing, it occurred under JFK (shocking, I know), Ronald Reagan, and George Bush. The idea that tax cuts decrease revenue comes from the same economic team that believes borrowing money from the future to spend today will create an economic orgasm along with stealing money from those that have it and redistributing it to those that don't will light our economic engine into prosperity.

the graphs have been posted on this forum numerous times so it is worthless for me to post them again because in the words of isadore, "it's sad when you refuse to learn." Tax cuts can increase tax receipts eventually, yes. After the Bush tax cuts, it took 6 years for tax receipts to reach the level they were in clinton's last budget. When you start two wars, expand the welfare state by 700 billion dollars and create the largest federal intervention in education in history, any increase in tax receipts after six years is utterly meaningless because of the increase in outlays over that time.

BoatShoes;544843 wrote:t... When you start two wars, expand the welfare state by 700 billion dollars and create the largest federal intervention in education in history, any increase in tax receipts after six years is utterly meaningless because of the increase in outlays over that time.

In that case the increase isn't meaningless at all for if there wasn't an increase in receipts that over spending would be even more impacting on the total deficit.

ptown, I like your proposals, but I would go one step further on federal pay. I would propose an across-the-board 20% pay cut for all Senators and Congressmen and drastically reduce the allowances they have for their staffing and associated costs. I would also make serious cuts and/or require substantial employee contributions to the health care program for all federal employees. It happens all the time in the private sector, there's no reason why they should get a free ride.

BoatShoes;544843 wrote:the graphs have been posted on this forum numerous times so it is worthless for me to post them again because in the words of isadore, "it's sad when you refuse to learn." Tax cuts can increase tax receipts eventually, yes. After the Bush tax cuts, it took 6 years for tax receipts to reach the level they were in clinton's last budget. When you start two wars, expand the welfare state by 700 billion dollars and create the largest federal intervention in education in history, any increase in tax receipts after six years is utterly meaningless because of the increase in outlays over that time.

Hmmm....I'll have to go to Ohio Chatter school then. :rolleyes: Reagan started 2 wars? Huh? JFK expanded the welfare state by $700 billion? Not sure I can find that link. You have recency issues it would appear. The subject is revenue, not spending, so outlays have nothing to do with the point. But you have to redirect and pivot when you are wrong. I understand the tactic.

But then, I forgot, Bush is responsible for every ill known to mankind....pretty soon, he'll be right up there with Hitler.

No. But he did start two wars, increase our spending on social programs, create a terrible education bill, and craft one of the most direct attacts on our privacy with the Patriot Act. But he cut taxes so all that's okay.

Bush wasn't Hitler or close to Hitler and neither is Obama. Hitler was Hitler.

Con_Alma;544845 wrote:In that case the increase isn't meaningless at all for if there wasn't an increase in receipts that over spending would be even more impacting on the total deficit.

No because there wouldn't have been as dramatic increases to the debt if tax receipts had remained the same throughout the period of outlay increases.

I disagree. The increase in receipts makes for a total lower deficit no matter how great the level of spending is.

What?

If I spend $100 via a tax cut to make a $10 increase in my receipts the deficit is not lower.

BGFalcons82;544847 wrote:Hmmm....I'll have to go to Ohio Chatter school then. :rolleyes: Reagan started 2 wars? Huh? JFK expanded the welfare state by $700 billion? Not sure I can find that link. You have recency issues it would appear. The subject is revenue, not spending, so outlays have nothing to do with the point. But you have to redirect and pivot when you are wrong. I understand the tactic.

But then, I forgot, Bush is responsible for every ill known to mankind....pretty soon, he'll be right up there with Hitler.

Suppose that you make $50,000 a year and you tell your boss, cut my income down to $10,000 next year and gradually increase it up to $50,000 over the next six years and then to $60,000 the year after that. Then, when you get your salary reduced, you break out your credit card and start spending like crazy during that time period.

frustrating...

I Wear Pants;544875 wrote:What?

If I spend $100 via a tax cut to make a $10 increase in my receipts the deficit is not lower.

Very true but that 's not what was referenced above.

A lower tax rate which injects disposable income into the economy and *increases the velocity of money,...or the rate that it exchanges hands and thus generates tax revenue, can create a total revenue higher than had the tax rate remained the same.

The more times money changes hands the more total tax revenue created.

I am not asking anyone to agree with that. I am stating that larger total revenue is not meaningless to the total deficit. That was my above comment.

BoatShoes;544878 wrote:Suppose that you make $50,000 a year and you tell your boss, cut my income down to $10,000 next year and gradually increase it up to $50,000 over the next six years and then to $60,000 the year after that. Then, when you get your salary reduced, you break out your credit card and start spending like crazy during that time period.

frustrating...

Suppose I net $50,000 per year and I receive a lower rate of tax levied on my income giving me a net of $52,000. If I spend that additional $2000 of income won't the multiplier effect of that same $2,000 generate tax revenue several times as it is injected into the chain of production and service delivery?

I say it will. The question is how much more tax revenue will it generate. That wasn't even the original point, however.

The point was that increased total revenue isn't meaningless on the total debt carried. For if there wasn't and increase but rather if revenues were the same or less on an aggregate basis the total debt would be even higher.

derek bomar;544721 wrote:I'd cut the Defense budget in half. That's a pretty good start. I'd also end the wars we're in, and end them for reals.

42% of all military spend $s for the entire world in 2009 (per wiki...) was spent by the US. That is fucking retarded. We spend over 6 times what China spends, which is the 2nd biggest military spender...I'd say there's plenty to cut, and still be numero uno in terms of spending

As for entitlements - sorry boomers, it's going to 70.

Also, you need to raise revenue - you can't just cut your way out of this. The "T.E.A." party keeps bitching about being taxed enough, but they're being taxed less now than they were under Bush and Clinton - and it needs to go back to Clinton levels.

Taxed less than under Clinton, yes. Taxed less than under Bush, no.

Just because people are making less money now than under Bush and therefore they have possibly dropped to lower tax brackets, that does NOT mean that the tax liabilities per income level have dropped since Bush.

Don't twist the facts, especially once ObamaKare starts to take affect, those "penalties" and "fees" which are really taxes, will make us taxed MORE than under Bush.