- Joined
- Jul 31, 2010
- Messages
- 5,395
- Reaction score
- 2,782
- Location
- Minneapolis
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
A 1/3rd cut to Entitlement spending would be about $150 billion more per year than your 3/4ths cut to Military spending.
You save roughly $650 billion a year making a cut that's 5/12ths of a percent less (because as we all know, liberals care about the Percentage and not the raw number ).
So cutting 1/3 from something that makes up just over 1/2 of the government saves you roughly $150 billion more a year than cutting 3/4ths out of something that makes up just under 1/4th of the government.
That's 19.5 Trillion over your same 30 year time period. That's 2.5 trillion more than your total when you combine your 3/4ths of a cut with the bush tax cut removal.
Ah my earlier proposal...the 1/3rd from both? That'd be 27 Trillion over 30 years...a full 10 trillion more than yours.
Can you be more specific? Are you talking about cutting Medicare and Social Security? Or are you including them as entitlement programs? Because if you don't include either social security or medicaid, all other mandatory spending and discretionary spending totaled 1.1 trillion (in the FY 2010) and defense spending was 700 billion. Because in that case, a 1/3 cut of entitlement spending is approximately equal to a 1/2 cut of defense spending.
It doesn't look like social security reform is going anywhere right now, so medicare reform and large cuts in discretionary spending along with a 1/3 cut in defense could probably save about 500 billion a year.
But neither your statement nor mine means much of anything because it's much easier to say "cut defense spending" or "cut entitlements" than actually determining specific funding and expenditures you are cutting.