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.
$170 billion a year is only 5% of the 2017 budget. You really don't think 5% can be cut?
cool story , tell where and how you are going to cut it in the real world not a fantasy.
it is super easy to say "cut this or that' problem solved. but i have noticed something about that. People who say that stuff never do it when they have the power because at that point they see what happens
if you want to cut the military budget you need to spend years getting the public on board, the GOP has spent decades supporting war and war spending. the DEMs know if they even hint at it they loss. The GOP would love to beat the DEMs over the head with such a fight.
so to change it you need to change the public's view first. tell me how you are going to get 75% of the population to suddenly agree with lowering our military spending long term...?
i would love to hear it. because it would be much easier to get Americans to agreed to a single payer healthcare system or national plan than it would to get them to reduce the various military branches to a more reasonable size and budget.
What exactly drives this concern for this .1%, it seems they have made the most gains in the past 30 years. That doesn't entitle anyone for taking more away from them but with the enormous income disparity over the last several decades what exactly is the issue we are addressing.
They have a good part of that 20 Trillion in their net worth - instead of it having paid for our military, infrastructure, etc.
the way it currently is...will add 10 trillion over 10 years
the new plan streamlines taxes
yes some will pay more...an others will pay less.....the FACT is we still NEED revenue.....or are you just about cradle to grave entitlements and NOT PAYING FOR IT
face the facts, EVERONE needs skin in the game...or the game will be over real quick.....our current spending to revenue is unsustainable
Yes, that's what I said, why are you repeating it?
We absolutely need to start looking at "entitlements", I suggest to start with the military one which is 600-1 billion depending on how good your math is.
Don't know about you but I have plenty of "skin in the game"
Correction: actually, it looks like it is going to be 1.7 trillion over ten years
cool story , tell where and how you are going to cut it in the real world not a fantasy.
it is super easy to say "cut this or that' problem solved. but i have noticed something about that. People who say that stuff never do it when they have the power because at that point they see what happens
if you want to cut the military budget you need to spend years getting the public on board, the GOP has spent decades supporting war and war spending. the DEMs know if they even hint at it they loss. The GOP would love to beat the DEMs over the head with such a fight.
so to change it you need to change the public's view first. tell me how you are going to get 75% of the population to suddenly agree with lowering our military spending long term...?
i would love to hear it. because it would be much easier to get Americans to agreed to a single payer healthcare system or national plan than it would to get them to reduce the various military branches to a more reasonable size and budget.
Yes, that's what I said, why are you repeating it?
We absolutely need to start looking at "entitlements", I suggest to start with the military one which is 600-1 billion depending on how good your math is.
Don't know about you but I have plenty of "skin in the game"
Correction: actually, it looks like it is going to be 1.7 trillion over ten years
how about start with the 1.2 trillion yearly of medicare/caid
5%. So you want to take $450 a year away from the people who are born disabled and get $700 a month to survive on at the moment. Just in order to give tax breaks for the ruling donor class. How nice. Your concern for the 0.1% is poignant.
5%. So you want to take $450 a year away from the people who are born disabled and get $700 a month to survive on at the moment. Just in order to give tax breaks for the ruling donor class. How nice. Your concern for the 0.1% is poignant.
Go read my post again. I said cut each department's budget by 5%.
If you used $20 trillion in services and only paid $160k; yes, you need to pay more. About $19,999,999,840,000.
Ah, unlike you I am making the assumption that we are the UNITED States (a country) and therefore it doesn't work anything like your fantasies. As a TOTAL we are 20 Trillion Short. That money went somewhere - and I think you KNOW where a lot of it is. It's in the added net worth of the .01%...
The net worth of US citizens is about 90 Trillion. The top 1% have 40% - or 36 Trillion.
In 1998, the number was 55 Trillion, of which the 1% owned about 30% - or 16.6 Trillion
Wow - the difference is 20 Trillion dollars - our total national debt.
This does not even take in account the 2-5%, just the 1%........
So, what we have done is given them the money and the debt is now ours. Doesn't that make you feel better?
how about start with the 1.2 trillion yearly of medicare/caid
or the other trillion of entitlement programs
Hate to break it to you medicare is not an entitlement program, I pay for it every month. Do you?
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.
