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.
Back in 2006, our outlays pretty MATCHED the revenues taken in. For the last 4 years, the democrats have increased outlays by massive amounts, while revenue stayed the same or decreased slightly.
So how to explain the ~$300 billion deficit in 2006 then?
Wouldn't we have broken even if we took in as much as we spent?
So far as I can tell, the cuts seem pretty much designed to eliminate any/all services, etc. that benefit the lower and middle classes - mass transit, legal services and the like.
And, where, oh, where are the cuts to the farm subsidy program?
Why am I not surprised at the targets and lack thereof?
Back in 2006, our outlays pretty MATCHED the revenues taken in. For the last 4 years, the democrats have increased outlays by massive amounts, while revenue stayed the same or decreased slightly.
I'm calling bullcrap on this one.
The last administration took a budget surplus and turned it into a multi trillion dollar deficit, expanding it more than any other administration in history.
I don't like what the Obama administration has done, and I'd have much rather seen a contraction of government spending rather than bailing out banks and crap like that with hardly any regulations that we did, but President Obama would have to continue spending like a drunken sailor for another 3 years at the level he is now to match President Bush.
Lets not forget that about 20% of the current budget deficit comes from paying interest on the Bush administrations loans.
So far as I can tell, the cuts seem pretty much designed to eliminate any/all services, etc. that benefit the lower and middle classes - mass transit, legal services and the like.
Why am I not surprised.
The bill is designed to be rejected, so they can use the rejection for political gain and finger pointing. I am sick and tired of these partisan games, and I am ashamed I voted for these hacks in November.
It will be different this time. If obama refuses to sign the bills (let's see him try with a GOP from the election to reduce spending), the GOP can offer CR ONLY, just enough funding to keep essentials services funded.
In 95 they only shut down nonessential services and furloughed nonessential employees. What can they do differently this time?
If they wanted to really hurt the strongest lobby they'd simplify the tax code and de-regulate so people wouldn't need lawyers and accountants to function with the government. But, too many of the politicians are lawyers, themselves, and that's why they promise tax simplification and cutting red tape but never deliver. The lawyers and accountants want the tax forms and regulatory paperwork to stay complicated and voluminous.
Lobbies hate regulations? By de-regulating, who exactly are you helping or working for?
I can see the point in re-evaluating and re-working regulations, but sorry, blind de-regulation is not what I support. Government's role is to regulate, not regulate and de-regulate. Or... de-regulate something that never existed?
As a wise man once said... "things should be made simple but not simpler".
That wise man was Albert Einstein. So yes, I agree that tax code could be re-worked and simplified. But don't tell me that a one page solution to all ills is the way to go.
The last administration took a budget surplus and turned it into a multi trillion dollar deficit, expanding it more than any other administration in history.
I don't like what the Obama administration has done, and I'd have much rather seen a contraction of government spending rather than bailing out banks and crap like that with hardly any regulations that we did, but President Obama would have to continue spending like a drunken sailor for another 3 years at the level he is now to match President Bush.
Lets not forget that about 20% of the current budget deficit comes from paying interest on the Bush administrations loans.
Sure you want to do that? Notice...from the White House - OMB. First link.
Nearly matched, yes. And notice how the Bush tax cuts generated more revenue, enough to bring down the deficit from 2004 - 2007, when the democrats took over...and here's what happened after they took over and take a look at those deficits obama will generate in the future. And don't we all remember when the Left was howling to the moon about $161 BILLION?
In an addition to individual program cuts, most of the savings would come from returning non-discretionary spending back to 2006 levels.
A good start, but they need to include Defense in there.
They need to make it $2.5 T over, say, 5 years, and of all the things that need to be maintained or only minimally cut, defense is the most significant. It is, after all, the prime directive of the Federal Government. Better to completely eliminate such things as the Dept of Ed. (educates no children) Energy (generates no energy, HUD, Food Stamps and all forms of welfare than to risk the country by weakening defense. It is a simple matter of priorities, and in that, I take counself from the Founders.
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.
