• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GOP 2012 budget to make $4 trillion-plus in cuts

Councilman

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2009
Messages
4,454
Reaction score
1,657
Location
Riverside, County, CA.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I see this as a good thing but I also know that if cuts are too deep too fast it can have a negative impact on the economy.

I also don't want to see individuals hurt by unreasonable cuts in some social programs.

Don't get me wrong I still believe as I have said before that many of these programs do their very best to make people dependent on them and they kill individual incentive for people to do better.

If the right balance can be maintained, I believe that the prospect of a balanced budget or even a serious attack on the deficit will have a positive affect and encourage people and that always has a positive affect on the Stock Market and therefore the economy and job market as a whole.

We'll now see the reaction of the Left and hear how it can never happen. I would hope to not hear any of that until after honest open discussions have taken place.


News from The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The House Republican chairman who's writing a 2012 budget says the GOP will propose cutting more than $4 trillion over the next decade.

The head of the House Budget Committee, Rep. Paul Ryan, says President Barack Obama is "punting on the budget and not doing a thing to prevent a debt crisis."

Ryan tells "Fox News Sunday" that GOP budget-writers are looking at cutting $4 trillion-plus in spending over the next decade. That's more than even what the president's deficit commission recommended.
 
This is a perfect example of how the government plays games with big numbers.

Four trillion over the next decade is 400b per year on average, most of it no doubt put off to the end of the decade. 400b amounts to less than a third of the current deficit. That leaves 2/3, or somewhere in the neighborhood of a trillion dollar deficit per year, or another ten trillion added to the debt over the next decade for a grand total of over $24 trillion, or $240,000 for every taxpayer.

Cutting four trillion sounds like a big deal, but it is a long way from a balanced budget.

And that's just a proposed cut. The actual cut is likely to be a lot less.

We need some real leadership who is willing to tell the American Voters the truth: This government is in deep doo doo, some real sacrifices are in order, and the only way out is real spending cuts along with tax increases.
 
I see this as a good thing but I also know that if cuts are too deep too fast it can have a negative impact on the economy.

I also don't want to see individuals hurt by unreasonable cuts in some social programs.

Don't get me wrong I still believe as I have said before that many of these programs do their very best to make people dependent on them and they kill individual incentive for people to do better.

If the right balance can be maintained, I believe that the prospect of a balanced budget or even a serious attack on the deficit will have a positive affect and encourage people and that always has a positive affect on the Stock Market and therefore the economy and job market as a whole.

We'll now see the reaction of the Left and hear how it can never happen. I would hope to not hear any of that until after honest open discussions have taken place.

Yea, the GOP said it was going to balance the budget in Wisconsin too. So what about the budgetary items? They are still languishing in a Republican controlled Congress. What got passed? The part that attempts to bust the unions got shoved down the throats of the citizens of Wisconsin. But the budgetary items remain unpassed. Let me say that again - Unions busted down, budgetary items remain unpassed. However, Wisconsinites don't tolerate anything being shoved down their throats, unless it's cheese or beer. This ain't cheese or beer, but a law the vast majority of them do NOT support. Cheesehead Armageddon has now begun. Sucks to be a Republican in Wisconsin.

So, in response to the OP, I will believe it when I see it. The GOP has lost all credibility with me. I just don't trust them.
 
I see this as a good thing but I also know that if cuts are too deep too fast it can have a negative impact on the economy.

Over the past couple years we have all seen that massive increases in government spending do not have a positive impact on the economy......

Unemployment Rate Since Obama's "Stimulus/Jobs bill"
UnemploymentRate.gif


....just the opposite.
.
.
.
.
 
Over the past couple years we have all seen that massive increases in government spending do not have a positive impact on the economy......

Unemployment Rate Since Obama's "Stimulus/Jobs bill"
UnemploymentRate.gif


....just the opposite.
.
.
.
.

How to lie with statistics 101.... Obama was sworn in January 20, 2009. The stimulus was signed in late February 2009. There is no way the stimulus had any effect before May 2009, and then it would only be to slow the problem. (to put it another way, its idiotic to assume immediate impact on an economy). So, using this graph only, the stimulus shows to have some affect and perhaps has brought the crisis under-control.

Of course, there is much behind the numbers, starting with the fact that unemployment is a lagging indicator of economic health. Moreover, the unemployment rate does not measure jobs not lost, because of the stimulus; nor does it measure, in all fairness, people that fall out of the calculation (underemployed and discouraged)

That all said, I am of the camp that the stimulus was not big enough nor was it appropriately directed.
 
Last edited:
This is a perfect example of how the government plays games with big numbers.

Four trillion over the next decade is 400b per year on average, most of it no doubt put off to the end of the decade. 400b amounts to less than a third of the current deficit. That leaves 2/3, or somewhere in the neighborhood of a trillion dollar deficit per year, or another ten trillion added to the debt over the next decade for a grand total of over $24 trillion, or $240,000 for every taxpayer.

Cutting four trillion sounds like a big deal, but it is a long way from a balanced budget.

And that's just a proposed cut. The actual cut is likely to be a lot less.

We need some real leadership who is willing to tell the American Voters the truth: This government is in deep doo doo, some real sacrifices are in order, and the only way out is real spending cuts along with tax increases.


Yup! I have THOUSANDS of pennies! I must be rich! Im also going to pick a 10lb booger over 65 years. :roll:
 
I see this as a good thing but I also know that if cuts are too deep too fast it can have a negative impact on the economy.

I also don't want to see individuals hurt by unreasonable cuts in some social programs.

Don't get me wrong I still believe as I have said before that many of these programs do their very best to make people dependent on them and they kill individual incentive for people to do better.

If the right balance can be maintained, I believe that the prospect of a balanced budget or even a serious attack on the deficit will have a positive affect and encourage people and that always has a positive affect on the Stock Market and therefore the economy and job market as a whole.

We'll now see the reaction of the Left and hear how it can never happen. I would hope to not hear any of that until after honest open discussions have taken place.

this is a good start; but as Dittohead points out, it remains wildly insufficient.
 
Well they had to take big cuts out of medicaid to pay for those corporate tax cuts they want.
 
Interesting.

Since when does a cut in revenue have to be paid for? Wouldn't "paying" for a cut in revenue itself be a revenuen and thus no net cut would exist?

It's silly to claim a cut in expenses is paying for a cut in revenues, especially considering that today's budget problems are universally spending problems, not tax problems.
 
looks like they may be cutting more than 4 trillion :thumbsup:


House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) previewed his much-anticipated 2012 budget proposal on Fox New Sunday, telling host Chris Wallace that his plan will “[exceed] the goals that were put out in the president’s deficit commission.” That commission, led by former Clinton chief of staff Erskine Bowles and former senator Alan Simpson (R., Wyo.) put forward recommendations — in the form of spending cuts, entitlement and tax reforms — to reduce the federal deficit by $4 trillion over the next decade...

In addition to spending cuts, Ryan said he plans to offer spending caps (as a percentage of GDP) in order to return federal spending to historic (pre-Obama, pre-stimulus) levels.

On taxes, Ryan said he will call for “fundamental tax reform” that lowers rates and broadens the base. “We don’t have a tax problem,” he said. “The problem with our deficit is not because Americans are taxed too little. So we’re not going to go down the path of raising taxes on people and raising taxes on the economy.”

The budget chairman did offer a few specifics about how he intends to deal with entitlement programs: For Medicare, premium support that would allow seniors to choose from a list of private plans that would then be subsidized ; for Medicaid, Ryan will propose a system of block grants to states to allow governors greater flexibility in managing costs...

“I find it kind of ironic that the week we’re trying to engage the president, the Democrats and the country with an honest debate about our budget, with real solutions to fix this country’s problems and prevent a debt crisis the president’s launching his reelection campaign,” he added.

Ryan said he fully expects Democrats to throw a political tantrum over his plan. “We are we are giving them a political weapon to go against us,” he said. “But they will have to lie and demagogue to make it a weapon…Shame on them if they do that.”...

 
Well they had to take big cuts out of medicaid to pay for those corporate tax cuts they want.

14 trillion in debt and counting...yep...keep pretending this same mindless class warfare bull**** you wear like a french manthong is going to fix the problem... :clap:
 
Interesting.

Since when does a cut in revenue have to be paid for? Wouldn't "paying" for a cut in revenue itself be a revenuen and thus no net cut would exist?

It's silly to claim a cut in expenses is paying for a cut in revenues, especially considering that today's budget problems are universally spending problems, not tax problems.

Semantics. The point is that they also are trying to cut corporate tax rates and extend the Bush tax cuts permanently. Both of these things keep the deficit higher, so to get the numbers to look nicer they needed deeper cuts to Medicaid et. all.

14 trillion in debt and counting...yep...keep pretending this same mindless class warfare bull**** you wear like a french manthong is going to fix the problem... :clap:

Did they or did they not simultaneously propose deep cuts to Medicaid and cuts to corporate tax rates?

Option 1: Cuts to Medicaid
Option 2: Cuts to Medicaid AND cuts to corporate tax rates and extension of income tax cuts.

Which option is going to be better for the debt?
 
Last edited:
This is a perfect example of how the government plays games with big numbers.

Four trillion over the next decade is 400b per year on average, most of it no doubt put off to the end of the decade. 400b amounts to less than a third of the current deficit. That leaves 2/3, or somewhere in the neighborhood of a trillion dollar deficit per year, or another ten trillion added to the debt over the next decade for a grand total of over $24 trillion, or $240,000 for every taxpayer.

Cutting four trillion sounds like a big deal, but it is a long way from a balanced budget.

And that's just a proposed cut. The actual cut is likely to be a lot less.

We need some real leadership who is willing to tell the American Voters the truth: This government is in deep doo doo, some real sacrifices are in order, and the only way out is real spending cuts along with tax increases.

Well its good enough for a start. If democrats have a fit for 4 trillion in the next decade, I can't imagine once we really need to make some Serious cuts...
 
Well they had to take big cuts out of medicaid to pay for those corporate tax cuts they want.

actually medicaid continues to grow every single year under the GOP's plan. it simply becomes a block grant so that the states no longer have an incentive to jack it up as high as they possibly can, year after year.

as for corporate tax rates; in case you haven't noticed, our current corporate tax rate is so high (the second highest in the industrialized world); that our businesses find that it is in their best interest to spend billions and billions of dollars to minimize their exposure to it - and the tax code is complex enough that they are able to.

the answer to that question is to simplify the tax code by eliminating loopholes and incentives while lowering the tax rate so that we don't choke off business at the beginning of what is hopefully a recovery.

America spent over $330 Billion last year just complying with the tax code. that's $330 Billion that could have gone to job creation, investment, R&D; and instead our tax rates and complex system forced us to spend it on the paperwork. that's unconscionable, and the solution is a simplified tax code marked by lower rates. that way we "pay less" while also making sure that we pay (looking at you here, GE).
 
Last edited:
Four trillion over the next decade is 400b per year on average, most of it no doubt put off to the end of the decade. 400b amounts to less than a third of the current deficit. That leaves 2/3, or somewhere in the neighborhood of a trillion dollar deficit per year, or another ten trillion added to the debt over the next decade for a grand total of over $24 trillion, or $240,000 for every taxpayer.[/QUOTE]
Doubtful.

You're basically saying the economy isn't going to rebound, and that unemployment is going to stay at present levels. In the much more likely scenario that both turn around in the next 10 years, we'll be pulling in lots more tax revenue.
 
Four trillion over the next decade is 400b per year on average, most of it no doubt put off to the end of the decade. 400b amounts to less than a third of the current deficit. That leaves 2/3, or somewhere in the neighborhood of a trillion dollar deficit per year, or another ten trillion added to the debt over the next decade for a grand total of over $24 trillion, or $240,000 for every taxpayer.[/QUOTE]
Doubtful.

You're basically saying the economy isn't going to rebound, and that unemployment is going to stay at present levels. In the much more likely scenario that both turn around in the next 10 years, we'll be pulling in lots more tax revenue.

Let's hope you're right, and that the Congress doesn't spend it faster than it comes in.
 
Did they or did they not simultaneously propose deep cuts to Medicaid and cuts to corporate tax rates?

Option 1: Cuts to Medicaid
Option 2: Cuts to Medicaid AND cuts to corporate tax rates and extension of income tax cuts.

Which option is going to be better for the debt?

Federal Tax Revenue AFTER.......The Reagan Tax Cuts
usgs_linephptitleTotalDirectRevenueyear1982_1988snameUSunitsbbar0stack1sizemcolcspending061777_60056_66644_73404_76916_85429_909.png


Federal Tax Revenue AFTER........The Bush Tax Cuts
usgs_linephptitleTotalDirectRevenueyear2003_2007snameUSunitsbbar0stack1sizemcolcspending0178231_188011_215361_240687_2567.png


The Universal Liberal Solution of Raising Taxes has yet to be proven an answer, only a bigger problem.
.
.
.
.
 
US Republican budget plan would cut $5.8 trln in 10 yrs

Reuters) - A Republican budget plan due to be unveiled on Tuesday would cut $5.8 trillion from U.S. spending over the next 10 years, a congressional aide familiar with the proposal said on Monday.

The plan, which would take effect when the next fiscal year starts on Oct. 1, is expected to propose sweeping changes to the Medicare and Medicaid health programs, as well as hard caps on government spending and tax cuts....
 
US Republican budget plan would cut $5.8 trln in 10 yrs

Link

WASHINGTON, April 4 | Mon Apr 4, 2011 9:23pm EDT
WASHINGTON, April 4 (Reuters) - A Republican budget plan due to be unveiled on Tuesday would cut $5.8 trillion from U.S. spending over the next 10 years, a congressional aide familiar with the proposal said on Monday.
The plan, which would take effect when the next fiscal year starts on Oct. 1, is expected to propose sweeping changes to the Medicare and Medicaid health programs, as well as hard caps on government spending and tax cuts. (Reporting by Andy Sullivan; editing by Eric Beech)
All I can say is, Wow!
 
Re: US Republican budget plan would cut $5.8 trln in 10 yrs

...It also calls for reforms to the nation's "outdated tax code, consolidating brackets, lowering tax rates, and assuming top individual and corporate rates of 25 percent," Ryan wrote. "It maintains a revenue-neutral approach by clearing out a burdensome tangle of deductions and loopholes that distort economic activity and leave some corporations paying no income taxes at all."...

yes yes and YES.
 
Re: US Republican budget plan would cut $5.8 trln in 10 yrs

Rep. Paul Ryan’s proposal, set to be unveiled Tuesday, will serve as the Republican’s official response to President Obama’s proposed $3.7 trillion budget for 2012. The White House claims its plan would cut deficits by $1.1 trillion over a decade.

But Ryan, R-Wis., in an interview with "Fox News Sunday," accused Obama of "punting" and said Republicans' plan would exceed the fiscal goals set by the president's fiscal commission -- which issued a report calling for $4 trillion in cuts. That report never made it out of committee.

"We can't keep kicking this can down the road," Ryan said. "The president has punted. We're not going to follow suit."

And he's absolutely right.



A video he made about it.

It's ambitious, and I'd need to see alot of the specifics, but the fact is, is that the presidents long term fiscal plan is pathetic, and this may just be the answer, but I'll warn you. Such a deep cut, really fast could have negative consequences and shock the system, but it might just be whats needed.

Again it's ambitious.

And for political expediency we may see Democrats jumping ship to support such a measure if it proves popular...

Obama be sayin... Et Tu Brute?
 
Back
Top Bottom