Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-28-2012, 08:42 AM
 
45,400 posts, read 26,983,057 times
Reputation: 23758

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
Tell us what they are. We are all ears.

There are only five major areas in government spending: Defense, Medicare, Medicaid, interest on the debt and Social Security. If you aren't talking about those, you don't know what you are talking about.
I have threads on these already, and there is plenty more. Maybe I will put some more out there today.

$6 Billion federal funds to be spent on green energy in Asia -- cut gov't spending
$46 million federal funds were given to richest universities -- cut gov't spending
$930 million federal funds spent on unnecessary printing costs -- cut gov't spending
$400,000+ federal funds used to study sexual activity of blue monkeys -- cut gov't spending
$1.5 million federal funds used for museum honoring banjo player -- cut gov't spending
$900,000 federal funds used to settle sexual harassment suit -- cut gov't spending
Green Energy Jobs - Not happening - Needs to be cut from gov't "investment" (spending)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-28-2012, 08:50 AM
 
4,097 posts, read 4,131,011 times
Reputation: 2056
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
No, identify cuts and we will tell you whether we can live with it.

What you want is like going to a car dealer selling a $30,000 list car and saying what's the lowest I can really bargain you down to?

The dealer would say, 'you see the price, if you don't like it, make an offer.'

What the GOP wants is for the Democrats, who hold the cards here, to negotiate with themselves. If the GOP wants something specific, ask for it.

In the meantime, after the 31st, the Bush tax-cuts go away. Then, the Democrats will offer the cut for 98% of Americans and let's see if the GOP will reject that in order to protect millionaires and billionaires.
It is not Republican or Democrats, it is both.

Even if tax does go back to Clinton era, it still not able to cover the budget. If you cap earning at 250k/per family and tax every beyond that, that still not enough to cover the budget. This is only this year. What about next? The economics is gone. You no longer have jobs.

One of the reason why US is great because this country promo growth. You work hard and you may be successful, then you get rewarded. Now, success is a crime. If you are successful, they punished you. If you are lazy, you will be rewarded.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2012, 08:55 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,792 posts, read 13,917,756 times
Reputation: 5661
And all of that adds up to a rounding error on the rounding error of the federal budget. The cuts you identified do not add up to any serious deficit reduction.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2012, 08:55 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,767,183 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by cw30000 View Post
Even if tax does go back to Clinton era, it still not able to cover the budget. If you cap earning at 250k/per family and tax every beyond that, that still not enough to cover the budget.
Who has claimed it will? There has been a lot of groaning and moaning about deficits, and the way to handle it is via steps to increase revenue and cut spending. Now, if revenue were anything like Clinton years considering the size of the economy, the deficit would be much smaller (less than half), and that is before we consider the fact that health care and defense spending have skyrocketed since Clinton years (the increases in those two spending amounts to more than half the deficits).

Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC View Post
I have threads on these already, and there is plenty more. Maybe I will put some more out there today.
$6 Billion federal funds to be spent on green energy in Asia -- cut gov't spending
I picked one of your list because I recall having seen a thread on the subject. So, when you take a loan from the bank to buy a home or a car, I assume you maintain the position that the bank is spending the money for you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2012, 08:58 AM
 
13,507 posts, read 16,996,125 times
Reputation: 9688
Quote:
Originally Posted by cw30000 View Post
It is not Republican or Democrats, it is both.

Even if tax does go back to Clinton era, it still not able to cover the budget. If you cap earning at 250k/per family and tax every beyond that, that still not enough to cover the budget. This is only this year. What about next? The economics is gone. You no longer have jobs.

One of the reason why US is great because this country promo growth. You work hard and you may be successful, then you get rewarded. Now, success is a crime. If you are successful, they punished you. If you are lazy, you will be rewarded.

Would people just stop with this rhetorical excrement? There is nobody in this country making 250K a year who would trade places with a person on food stamps living in a housing project, so please, enough with the childish talk radio cliches.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2012, 08:58 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,792 posts, read 13,917,756 times
Reputation: 5661
Quote:
Originally Posted by cw30000 View Post
It is not Republican or Democrats, it is both.

Even if tax does go back to Clinton era, it still not able to cover the budget. If you cap earning at 250k/per family and tax every beyond that, that still not enough to cover the budget. This is only this year. What about next? The economics is gone. You no longer have jobs.

One of the reason why US is great because this country promo growth. You work hard and you may be successful, then you get rewarded. Now, success is a crime. If you are successful, they punished you. If you are lazy, you will be rewarded.
No, it is not BOTH. The President is the only one that has moved from his original starting point. Republicans still don't intend to compromise, don't want to present specific ideas to further their own goals, and don't intend to act until the president negotiates with himself, coming up with a plan filled with preemptive concessions, predicated on guesses as to what GOP officials might find acceptable.

That's not 'both.'
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2012, 10:12 AM
 
45,400 posts, read 26,983,057 times
Reputation: 23758
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
And all of that adds up to a rounding error on the rounding error of the federal budget. The cuts you identified do not add up to any serious deficit reduction.
Can't get anything past you.

I had stated that there is plenty of stuff like this that can be removed.

Typical thinking - 'let's just cut one or two things and we can be done.' That's not how it works. Someone needs to take the time and go through the actual waste and root this stuff out. Nobody wants to do that. It's not quick and easy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2012, 10:24 AM
 
9,855 posts, read 15,181,310 times
Reputation: 5481
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
Do you forget what you post in other threads? How do you propose, for example, cutting Medicare, Medicaid and VA spending much less "slowing" its increase? That is a $900 billion question for you.
I don't carry baggage from one thread to another. If you have something to say about a conversation in another thread, keep it there. Stop trying to bring things off topic just to derail this thread.

Cutting spending is just that: cutting spending. Spending LESS than we do now, not simply increasing spending at a slower rate

Quote:
So, you're basically saying that republicans were lying blatantly about $700 billion in cuts to Medicare spending, campaigning against Obama and Obama Care. Right?
I am saying both sides are playing a game of political chess to gain control in 2014. If you think either side is being honest in what they release to the public, you are dumber than I thought you were.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2012, 10:41 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,792 posts, read 13,917,756 times
Reputation: 5661
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq View Post
I don't carry baggage from one thread to another. If you have something to say about a conversation in another thread, keep it there. Stop trying to bring things off topic just to derail this thread.

Cutting spending is just that: cutting spending. Spending LESS than we do now, not simply increasing spending at a slower rate
Then you should be delighted that the nation will go off the fiscal cliff as it will mandate huge spending cuts.

The problem with the fiscal cliff is that it is really the austerity bomb, too much austerity too fast.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2012, 10:45 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,767,183 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq View Post
I don't carry baggage from one thread to another. If you have something to say about a conversation in another thread, keep it there. Stop trying to bring things off topic just to derail this thread.
Amusing that you consider your opinions to be "baggage". But that may also explain why you'd argue against control on executive pay in one thread and propose an idea of legislation in another. Well, I guess, we should leave that alone then.

Quote:
Cutting spending is just that: cutting spending. Spending LESS than we do now, not simply increasing spending at a slower rate
The question was: How do you propose, for example, cutting Medicare, Medicaid and VA spending much less "slowing" its increase? That is a $900 billion question for you.

Quote:
I am saying both sides are playing a game of political chess to gain control in 2014. If you think either side is being honest in what they release to the public, you are dumber than I thought you were.
Well, that speaks more of your ability to think than to comprehend the point made or question asked, and in this case: You're basically saying that republicans were lying blatantly about $700 billion in cuts to Medicare spending, campaigning against Obama and Obama Care. Right?

Let our contributions speak for our respective "dumbness".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:28 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top