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.
Nope, for months now it's been the Republicans, not the Democrats, who have insisted that we need deep spending cuts, but they refuse to spell out what cuts they want.
Instead, what we're hearing from Republicans is this: We demand spending cuts! Now, President Obama, tell us what those spending cuts that we demand are going to be.
If he was any kind of a leader, Obama would not have to be told to come up with something. Now that he's been told, he has no excuse.
Or why did he want to be president after all? It's got to be about doing something, not just the celebrity pop star status it gives him.
And of course since it is Obama who waves around the veto pen, it's up to Obama to tell Congress which spending cuts he will sign in.
Simple question to the posters here on the right--specifically what do the Republicans want to cut? They have been consistently adamant that there must be cuts--let's see details of where they want to make them. How hard is that?
Not that you even care to hear anything that they've proposed because you're simply more interested in being able to demagogue the issue of cuts but if you were truly interested in seeing what they've proposed you can go to the House Budget Committee website and see it.
Personally I think you want them to propose budget cuts to the social safety net which was proposed already by the trustees of that program so that you can make extensive videos of throwing grandma off the cliff and children in the street so that you can completely stop debate on the subject.
If you get your way that I'm ASSuming you want you'll simply kick the can down the road.
For your reading pleasure:
Quote:
The Trustees estimate that the 75-year actuarial deficit for the combined trust funds is 2.67 percent of taxable payroll—0.44 percentage point larger than the 2.22 percent deficit in last year’s report. For the combined OASI and DI Trust Funds to remain solvent throughout the 75-year projection period, lawmakers could: (1) increase the combined payroll tax rate during the period in a manner equivalent to an immediate and permanent increase of 2.61 percentage points 1 (from its current level of 12.40 percent to 15.01 percent); (2) reduce scheduled benefits during the period in a manner equivalent to an immediate and permanent reduction of 16.2 percent; (3) draw on alternative sources of revenue; or (4) adopt some combination of these approaches.
If lawmakers do not take substantial action for several years, then changes necessary to maintain Social Security solvency will be concentrated on fewer years and fewer generations. Lawmakers will have to make large and sudden changes if they defer action until the combined trust funds become exhausted in 2033. For example, either of the following two actions would eliminate the shortfall for the 75-year period as a whole by specifically eliminating annual deficits after trust fund exhaustion:
• Lawmakers could raise payroll taxes to finance scheduled benefits fully in every year starting in 2033. They could increase the payroll tax rate to about 16.7 percent at the point of trust fund exhaustion in 2033, with
the rate reaching about 17.1 percent in 2086.
• Similarly, lawmakers could reduce benefits to the level that would be payable with scheduled tax rates in each year beginning in 2033. They could reduce scheduled benefits by 25 percent at the point of trust fund
exhaustion in 2033, with reductions reaching 27 percent in 2086.
He can't negotiate all by himself. What cuts do the Republicans want? It's a simple question.
I'm not Congress but since they have to provide him a budget that he will sign, he needs to tell them what's acceptable -- but spending cuts must be made.
Obama could eliminate entire government departments and programs -- starting with the least effective ones. Or he could streamline welfare handout programs into one -- all the free meals at schools, WIC, food stamps are just duplications of each other. You could end much paperwork by just having one welfare program, cut TANF completely which is just the big cash giveaway. End EITC -- that would save a lot of money.
I think everything added after 1960 should be on the chopping block. I would be proud of Obama for proposing to cut them all out of the budget.
Those are the ones proposed. Of course Obama doesn't care what they've proposed he simply wants them to be the ones proposing cuts to the social safety net even though:
Quote:
The Social Security Act established the Board of Trustees to oversee the financial operations of the OASI and DI Trust Funds. The Board is composed of six members. Four members serve by virtue of their positions in the Federal Government: the Secretary of the Treasury, who is the Managing Trustee; the Secretary of Labor; the Secretary of Health and Human Services; and the Commissioner of Social Security. The President appoints and the Senate confirms the other two members to serve as public representatives. The Deputy Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (SSA) serves as Secretary of the Board.
A better question would be why did the president appoint people and commissions so that he could completely ignore them...
He already knows what he needs to do not to kick the can down the road but he still wants to kick the can down the road and try to make it look like republicans were the ones forcing him to do it.
It's all politics all the time no matter what the consequences of playing politics are. That's not a leader, that's a simpleton demagogue that doesn't give two craps about the United States or its solvency.
Republican leaders acknowledge the federal government needs more revenue to cut its roughly $16 trillion deficit and that party members to accomplish that goal might break from a decade’s-old pledge not to increase taxes.
Obviously the Republicans have laid out taxes on the table to show their willingness to compromise. So where is Obama's spending cuts? Or the democrats?
Or is this only some political ploy by the democrats to see the GOP hurt itself by agreeing to tax increases while they sit by not proposing a single spending cut?
No, that's called fraud in all 50 states if you use money that's in a "trust" for your own gain.
Look, I could argue with you all day, but I'm not going to chase just any old red herring just because you want to distract from the fact that yesterday you read the wrong column from a spread sheet.
Bush inherited a multi-hundred billion dollar surplus from the Clinton adminsitration. He proceeded to fritter it away with his tax cuts (which remain the single biggest contributpor to our structural deficit) two foreign wars and an unpaid for Medicare pharmacy benefit.
This is objective, noncontroversial, historical fact.
If he was any kind of a leader, Obama would not have to be told to come up with something.
He did. His is currently the only detailed proposal even on the table. The Republicans remain AWOL.
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.
