Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Cruz and Trump promises to gut government revenue by roughly $9 trillion over 10 years or almost a trillion per year. They also say they dont want higher debt so it will be almost $1 trillion in budget cuts per year from a $3.7 trillion budget. More than 25% of the budget.
This is the equivalent of all spending on medicare per year for the seniors. Its also 50% more than the entire military budget.
So where will we see these cuts? Since corporate media doesnt want this discussion, we must direct our attention to this discussion here instead.
well, in term of balancing the budget, you really have to choose the lesser of two evils because there is no one single perfect candidate.
Trump
One way would be for the U.S. to stop being the world’s policeman and have other countries pick up more of the cost of providing security. Another is to maximize government revenue collections.
Cruz
says the long-term debt must be brought down through economic growth and reining in spending. He favors entitlement reform, including gradually raising the retirement age and altering adjustments in benefits to more accurately reflect inflation. He also thinks that younger workers should be allowed to keep a portion of their
But he is a tea party hawk.
Remember that
The U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will cost taxpayers $4 trillion to $6 trillion
selecting a less hawkish candidate is essential for year 2016. So my vote will be between bernie sanders and donald trump
I don't think we know enough. There is so much chatter about wives and hand sizes that there is no time left for taxes and budgets.
Looks more and more like the Rubio campaign had their "hand" in both of those, so maybe now it will start to blow over unless the women in Cruz's case start talking. Lots of money to be had for an interview I am sure.
We all know there is a ton of pork in the budgets. We have all heard about charges the government pays even for common household items like toilet seats and hammers. I worked in Federal Civil Service, budget, and you just have no idea.
Looks more and more like the Rubio campaign had their "hand" in both of those, so maybe now it will start to blow over unless the women in Cruz's case start talking. Lots of money to be had for an interview I am sure.
We all know there is a ton of pork in the budgets. We have all heard about charges the government pays even for common household items like toilet seats and hammers. I worked in Federal Civil Service, budget, and you just have no idea.
I also saw it first hand while in the military. You could cut the military budget by 25% and not decrease it's effectiveness one bit. Current and retired military members hate me because I tell the truth. All of you civilians that have no prior military service and then feel obligated to worship them are stupid. That's your money being wasted and what do you get in exchange for it? Nothing. Stop lying. The greatest threat to American freedom is the American government, and the government's most effective weapon against us is taxation.
I also saw it first hand while in the military. You could cut the military budget by 25% and not decrease it's effectiveness one bit. Current and retired military members hate me because I tell the truth. .
They perhaps hate you because you only tell the Partial truth.
The most of the reductions could come from more efficient uses of manpower -- including cutting the number of military officers doing civilian work, implementing new pay practices, and improving weapons contracting. More cuts would include trims in the size of the Army, fewer air squadrons, and a smaller missile defense effort. Things we could cut and be just fine, like weapon testing that fails and doesn't net anything except the status quo. The joint strike fighter program, that is perhaps 5% and above right there (this is just from a single branch of the military)
You can cut the budget dramatically without touching the military benefits.
They all have contracts and the vast majority of service members have lived up to their end of the deal. Yes or no?
Our government should be honor bound to live up to theirs. All they ask for is what was promised them. Is the retirement pay those who served over twenty really going to make this country go broke? Tell me again how much the Obamacare website cost. How much is it going to cost to send all those who want to go to college for free? And few of them have done anything for their country.
You can save $$$$$$ by NOT going to the wars in the first place.
How about reinstate the Draft for both males and females (to be politically correct). Give each a starting salary of $1000 per month. That is better than the 1950s and early 60s $78/month. That should solve the budget issue especially since few of them will go on to retirement.
If that doesn't work, how about sending letters to each military person who was forced out over the past 7 years asking for them to return. That would save hundreds of millions of training dollars and put experience back into the ranks.
Last edited by lilyflower3191981; 03-27-2016 at 05:39 PM..
What has Ted Cruz done about spending while he was US Senator?
He has generally opposed to the bloated appropriations bills coming out of The House. He has been pretty firm in standing up to the leadership of the GOP.
They perhaps hate you because you only tell the Partial truth.
Well ALL truth is "partial" and they hate me because I don't fall flat on my face and worship the ground they walk on like many civilians do. I agree with most of what you say, and you know more about some things than me, such as weapons testing, which as I think about it could be a huge area of graft and corruption.
And it's cheaper to not go to war. It's cheaper to have the amount of military that you need for self-defense and not some overwhelming force intended to overthrow governments on the other side of the planet.
I don't mind people that advocate in favor of having an overly-large military. I respect that political belief. Just don't call it "conservative" because it is not. Conservatives have no interest in empire-building, nor of using the US military to shore-up the profits of multinational corporations. People in favor of having, and then using Teddy Roosevelt's "Big Stick" should be described accurately as "militarists", people who basically think that might makes right, and that God favors the army that has the most number of cannon. And infantry.
Just don't be a Militarist, or Military Authoritarian, and go around calling yourself a conservative. Also don't go around claiming that killing people on the other side of the planet 100% always guarantees an increase in the level of safety of americans, because the fact is if you **** enough people off, eventually they are going to come over to your house and kill YOUR family, just like what you did to theirs. Strategically it's a stupid think to think, and so now we have Militarists that advocate killing people and creating an increase in threat to the security of the american people.
Why would we spend money on a military that makes our world more dangerous? And why do we allow these idiots to call themselves "conservatives". Conservatives are just that. The deliberate and consider. They do not act in a rushed or haphazard manner. They make wise decisions and when they make a decision, it's a permanent one too. For example, when they decide to invade Iraq in order to create an american-style democracy in the Middle East, the ACHIEVE the goal and do not squander american lives and treasure on a half-hearted attempt and then quit when it does not happen as fast as the idiotic american public wants it to.
I like the idea of a draft. I also like the idea of mandatory service for everyone, modeled after the Israelis. And I like the idea of giving people accused of certain crimes a way "out" via military service. I think today's military is overpaid, and soft. More like mercenaries than traditional service people. I also think stuff political correctness and make the decisions to include various minorities (or not) based on whether it increases or decreases the ability of the military to accomplish the mission. If that means all-male infantry units, and all female fighter pilots, and all gay medical units, then that's what it means. Personally I think including gay men in the military to be a colossal mistake, as it undermines the tradition and the perception among the masculine, heterosexual type "A" males, who may not want to be a part of a military that includes gay men, and we need, NEED those type "A" alpha males, as they make the difference on the battlefield between victory and defeat.
Well ALL truth is "partial" and they hate me because I don't fall flat on my face and worship the ground they walk on like many civilians do. I agree with most of what you say, and you know more about some things than me, such as weapons testing, which as I think about it could be a huge area of graft and corruption.
And it's cheaper to not go to war. It's cheaper to have the amount of military that you need for self-defense and not some overwhelming force intended to overthrow governments on the other side of the planet.
I don't mind people that advocate in favor of having an overly-large military. I respect that political belief. Just don't call it "conservative" because it is not. Conservatives have no interest in empire-building, nor of using the US military to shore-up the profits of multinational corporations. People in favor of having, and then using Teddy Roosevelt's "Big Stick" should be described accurately as "militarists", people who basically think that might makes right, and that God favors the army that has the most number of cannon. And infantry.
Just don't be a Militarist, or Military Authoritarian, and go around calling yourself a conservative. Also don't go around claiming that killing people on the other side of the planet 100% always guarantees an increase in the level of safety of americans, because the fact is if you **** enough people off, eventually they are going to come over to your house and kill YOUR family, just like what you did to theirs. Strategically it's a stupid think to think, and so now we have Militarists that advocate killing people and creating an increase in threat to the security of the american people.
Why would we spend money on a military that makes our world more dangerous? And why do we allow these idiots to call themselves "conservatives". Conservatives are just that. The deliberate and consider. They do not act in a rushed or haphazard manner. They make wise decisions and when they make a decision, it's a permanent one too. For example, when they decide to invade Iraq in order to create an american-style democracy in the Middle East, the ACHIEVE the goal and do not squander american lives and treasure on a half-hearted attempt and then quit when it does not happen as fast as the idiotic american public wants it to.
I like the idea of a draft. I also like the idea of mandatory service for everyone, modeled after the Israelis. And I like the idea of giving people accused of certain crimes a way "out" via military service. I think today's military is overpaid, and soft. More like mercenaries than traditional service people. I also think stuff political correctness and make the decisions to include various minorities (or not) based on whether it increases or decreases the ability of the military to accomplish the mission. If that means all-male infantry units, and all female fighter pilots, and all gay medical units, then that's what it means. Personally I think including gay men in the military to be a colossal mistake, as it undermines the tradition and the perception among the masculine, heterosexual type "A" males, who may not want to be a part of a military that includes gay men, and we need, NEED those type "A" alpha males, as they make the difference on the battlefield between victory and defeat.
ok fair enough
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
