Page 20 of 26 FirstFirst ... 101819202122 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 252

Thread: Panel Chairmen Recommend Cutting Federal Spending by $200 Billion

  1. #191
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,264

    Re: Panel Chairmen Recommend Cutting Federal Spending by $200 Billion

    Quote Originally Posted by Taboon View Post
    Ok, I get the point that we are spending a whole heck of a lot more than we are bringing in. No arguments, I don't believe I ever argued that this wasn't the case.

    I see that your expenses basically cover the departments that you believe should be kept based on the constitution as written. That's fine, but if you only spend income and corporate tax receipts on these programs and nothing else, then additional taxes (federal or state, I believe you are arguing for state) need to be raised to keep receipts in-line with expenses. Basically, this means a major tax increase to individuals to make up for the variance related to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. So, it's really just a shift in burden to the states. Beyond that, some of the programs you are cutting (i.e. education) will require additional burdens on the states as well. Maybe there are some savings related to efficiencies there but there is no way there is enough to make up for the massive disconnect we currently have.

    My main point is that we barely bring enough in for receipts to cover for Defense, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Interest on our debt. That's it. If we can't touch these programs, then we basically have to cut everything else by 100% or shift those burdens to more localized governments (i.e. the states).

    From what I can see, shifting the burden rather than cutting spending in areas you would like to keep funding off limits (primarily military) will result in the need for higher taxes overall to individuals and corporations than what is currently included in the deficit reduction proposal. Why? Because military spending is a pretty decent chunk of the spending reductions.
    What the Federal Govt. has done is take on personal responsibility issue that are better handled at the state or local levels. As you can see there are duplicate expenses for Federal and State education for example there are plenty of areas to cut. The problem we have is that there are far too many who want the Federal Govt. to bail their state out for poor choices they made and that should never happen. We don't have a revenue problem we have a spending problem.

  2. #192
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Panel Chairmen Recommend Cutting Federal Spending by $200 Billion

    Quote Originally Posted by Le Marteau View Post
    Why don't you all just cut defence spending by about $600 billion?
    Because we're not complete morons.

  3. #193
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Panel Chairmen Recommend Cutting Federal Spending by $200 Billion

    Quote Originally Posted by Le Marteau View Post
    I'm not saying de-fang the US -- just cut the spending. Britain and France are two of the five most powerful nations on Earth -- they can both enforce their military will across the globe, just as the US can
    Utter horsepoop. Combined, they dont have 10% of the US's ability to project power across the globe.

  4. #194
    Professor

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Seen
    10-18-12 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    1,268

    Re: Panel Chairmen Recommend Cutting Federal Spending by $200 Billion

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    I suggest you come down to TX and go to the border and find out. The military under the control of the CIC isn't on the border.
    yet our tax dollars are going to defense why do we have 16 million illegals here?

  5. #195
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    In your dreams...
    Last Seen
    05-29-12 @ 02:53 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,621

    Re: Panel Chairmen Recommend Cutting Federal Spending by $200 Billion

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Utter horsepoop. Combined, they dont have 10% of the US's ability to project power across the globe.
    Where is it the US can legitimately project power viably, affordably, and politically saavy nowadays?

    ummmm............................................. ...............

  6. #196
    Professor

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Seen
    10-18-12 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    1,268

    Re: Panel Chairmen Recommend Cutting Federal Spending by $200 Billion

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    I suggest you come down to TX and go to the border and find out. The military under the control of the CIC isn't on the border.
    you need to open your eyes and see defense means keeping potential threats to this country out of this country. correct?

  7. #197
    Professor

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Seen
    10-18-12 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    1,268

    Re: Panel Chairmen Recommend Cutting Federal Spending by $200 Billion

    Quote Originally Posted by majora$$hole View Post
    you need to open your eyes and see defense means keeping potential threats to this country out of this country. correct?
    imo the businesses hiring these illegals also have no problem breaking this country's laws they too are potential threats to this country.

  8. #198
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,264

    Re: Panel Chairmen Recommend Cutting Federal Spending by $200 Billion

    Quote Originally Posted by majora$$hole View Post
    you need to open your eyes and see defense means keeping potential threats to this country out of this country. correct?
    As pointed out by this Administration border security is the responsibilty of the Federal Govt. as they sued the state of Arizona over that issue. So instead of asking that question on this forum I suggest asking your elected officials why? You will find out it has something to with voters and power but they won't tell you that.

  9. #199
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,264

    Re: Panel Chairmen Recommend Cutting Federal Spending by $200 Billion

    Quote Originally Posted by majora$$hole View Post
    imo the businesses hiring these illegals also have no problem breaking this country's laws they too are potential threats to this country.
    We already have laws on the books preventing businesses from hiring illegals. Those that break the laws should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

  10. #200
    User Taboon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Minnesota
    Last Seen
    04-15-11 @ 10:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    135

    Re: Panel Chairmen Recommend Cutting Federal Spending by $200 Billion

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    What the Federal Govt. has done is take on personal responsibility issue that are better handled at the state or local levels. As you can see there are duplicate expenses for Federal and State education for example there are plenty of areas to cut. The problem we have is that there are far too many who want the Federal Govt. to bail their state out for poor choices they made and that should never happen. We don't have a revenue problem we have a spending problem.
    As I pointed out, I agree that there are some areas that can be more efficiently managed if those expenditures were localized. However, I do not expect that all the money that the federal government spends in areas such as education would be wiped out by doing so. There are some redundancies, yes, but not everything the federal government provides is redundant. Thus, a shift in burden to the states would result in additional state expenditures in those areas.
    Also, if you do believe that Medicaid is something the states should run completely on their own, then additional expenditures by the states would be required there as well. If Medicaid services are not cut, additional funding would be necessary at the state level to make up for the unfunded expenditures currently paid for by the federal government. So, I would not agree that we do not have a revenue problem. We do have both a spending problem and a revenue problem.

Page 20 of 26 FirstFirst ... 101819202122 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •