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.
The other poster said an across the board 1% cut. Cutting out foreign aid would shave 1% off of the budget.
We have to cut somewhere, and you may think its cruel, but two of the biggest drivers of our debt are social security and Medicare.
Right now, people who will pay in 100000 into Medicare throughout their lives will on average get 400000 in benefits. The system is simply unsustainable. We either need to raise elegibility age, raise the tax for this, or cut benefits. You decide.
Social security is not a retirement program. Therefore, raising the eligibility age of ssi isn't a bad thing. People are living longer, so they will have to work longer, or save more of their own money.
We can't keep spending, we have to cut something. We have to cut defense, social security, and Medicare. Everything else is debatable.
According to your Politifacts source, "Those 2008 figures came from the U.S. Census 2011 Statistical Abstract. The United States spent a total $49.1 billion on foreign aid that year." I said in my post, "foreign aide is about $35 billion." Note the "about." In the context of the budget numbers we are discussing, that's not far off.
About your Medicaid claim that, "people who will pay in 100000 into Medicare throughout their lives will on average get 400000 in benefits," what you are not taking into account is the time value of money. The $100,000 that I pay in are more valuable dollars and what I am paid out is inflated dollars. If you don't think this is valid, lend me $100,000 now and I will give you back $100,000 30 years from now and call it even.
Quote:
Social security is not a retirement program. Therefore, raising the eligibility age of ssi isn't a bad thing. People are living longer, so they will have to work longer, or save more of their own money.
Except that the people who really depend on Social Security, those in the bottom half of the distribution, aren’t living much longer. So you’re going to tell janitors to work until they’re 70 because lawyers are living longer than ever.
We need to cut, but we've got to be smart about where we cut. 4 billion a year to Israel and Egypt for military aid. Close all overseas military bases, they aren't creating jobs here at home. Raise the social security retirement age for people under the age of 40. Increase the Medicare eligibility age. Enact means testing.
Those things would cut the deficit without destroying the economy. A 1% across the board cuts shiws a lack of economic understanding.
What it shows is an unwilling desire to cut anything
As for means testing, both SSA and Medicare are entitlements -- people paid into these programs and that makes them entitled.
We need to change the mindset regarding these programs. We all pay the government for things we don't directly use or don't get our fair share of value from. SS was designed as a safety net for the elderly who needed the government's assistance so they didn't starve or freeze. Today's SS is used by far too many well-off retirees as a supplement to their retirement savings.
We should each plan for our own retirement needs and leave SS for those who honestly need it.
What it shows is an unwilling desire to cut anything
The federal government's spending is essentially like a big insurance company with an army. The big five are: Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, Defense and interest on the debt. If one is talking about trying to make meaningful debt reductions by cutting spending in other areas, one doesn't know what one is talking about.
I am in favor of cutting the budget. I am in favor of both reducing spending gradually and increasing some taxes gradually.
What makes me think the GOP is full of nutcases is when I hear people like Marco Rubio constantly holler about "balancing the budget". Balancing the budget, right now, would require a combination of a trillion dollars in budget cuts and tax hikes. If that were done immediately, 99 out of 100 economists will tell you a simple truth. It will throw this country back into the recession that we are struggling to climb out of. In fact, unemployment would probably increase to 15% according to the index its currently measured on.
Cutting all that government spending would greatly reduce demand for goods and services and the private sector is in no shape to make up what government would instantly stop purchasing. The only net result that could flow from that would be record numbers of firms going out of business and a record number of unemployment claims.
I don't dispute the essential truth that--over time--spending has to be cut and that borrowing by government is a problem. But it can't be done over night and anyone who think it can be without a near catastrophic effect on the economy, doesn't know what he/she is talking about.
Rubio only shows his ignorance and utter partisanship by saying the President ought to do this. I wouldn't vote for this clown to be dogcatcher.
Balance the budget today. Time to cull the herd and find out who actually contributes to this country and who is a parasite.
The federal government's spending is essentially like a big insurance company with an army. The big five are: Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, Defense and interest on the debt. If one is talking about trying to make meaningful debt reductions by cutting spending in other areas, one doesn't know what one is talking about.
The plan i support takes a real 1% cut in each of those areas
The plan i support takes a real 1% cut in each of those areas
The plan you present doesn't hold water. Again, a 1% cut to the budget in areas of education, construction, etc would be stupid, it would destroy jobs here at home. The spending problem is
1. Defense
2. Medicare
3. Social security
Unless you're talking about real deductions in those spending programs, not 1%, you aren't serious about the budget, and don't know what the budget consists of.
You're talking about only cutting 1% from what consists of nearly 70% of the budget. And Defense is bigger then that, because many of those other small 1% programs, is part of defense spending.
Because they think they can blame the economic collapse on Obama.
Dumb?
I know it.
You know it.
So does Bobby Jindal.
But dummies never realize they're doing dumb things.
If you want to reduce the cost of both Medicare and Medicaid advocate for universal single payer health care, the type that has been successful around the world.
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.
Why All the Balanced Budget Rhetoric Constantly from the GOP?
