• 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!

Eric Cantor floats year-end trigger bargain

I believe cuts can be made that do not cut programs. We unfortunately might find where programs get cut though because someone decides to keep a program they are personally benefitting from that is completely unneeded though.

I will be keenly interested to see how they proceed towards those cuts. I am all in favor of cutting true waste, but not vital programs necessary for our future competitiveness.
 
I will be keenly interested to see how they proceed towards those cuts. I am all in favor of cutting true waste, but not vital programs necessary for our future competitiveness.

I don't really disagree with this in principle. We may disagree on vital but I would certain start with waste, overlapping programs and such and then see where we were at.

As I note though, there are a lot of people with a lot of pull that rely on this waste.
 
I am only good with cuts to defense if they in no way hurt the personel in all the branchs...and what ive read and heard from military professionals...is that it will hurt readiness...and thats that for me..Politicians opinion mean nothing to me...

I would agree not to cut personnel pay or benefits, I don't think it will be that hard. We are only talking about $600 billion over ten years. That's just $60 billion a year from a military budget that was doubled for the last decade to $700 billion a year.
 
I don't really disagree with this in principle. We may disagree on vital but I would certain start with waste, overlapping programs and such and then see where we were at.

As I note though, there are a lot of people with a lot of pull that rely on this waste.


There is a lot more in the military/industrial complex since we spend so much more there.
 
I would agree not to cut personnel pay or benefits, I don't think it will be that hard. We are only talking about $600 billion over ten years. That's just $60 billion a year from a military budget that was doubled for the last decade to $700 billion a year.

These automatic cuts are just a start. We are going to have to cut more than this to get to a sustainable level. Yes, ignoring so much waste and fraud for so many years is going to cause some pain.
 
These automatic cuts are just a start. We are going to have to cut more than this to get to a sustainable level. Yes, ignoring so much waste and fraud for so many years is going to cause some pain.

Yes, and we will also have to eliminate the tax cuts for the rich and raise the cap on FICA, and the rich having to pay their fair share again after 30 years is going to cause them some anguish.
 
Yes, and we will also have to eliminate the tax cuts for the rich and raise the cap on FICA, and the rich having to pay their fair share again after 30 years is going to cause them some anguish.

There are revenue enhancements I support and some I would accept as a compromise to more cuts.
 
There are revenue enhancements I support and some I would accept as a compromise to more cuts.

With the majority of Americans supporting eliminating the Bush tax cuts, I don't think the choice will be yours to make. If we are talking about further spending cuts after the 1.2 trillion dollars, I don't see that happening without eliminating the tax cuts for the rich.
 
With the majority of Americans supporting eliminating the Bush tax cuts, I don't think the choice will be yours to make. If we are talking about further spending cuts after the 1.2 trillion dollars, I don't see that happening without eliminating the tax cuts for the rich.

Those cuts are also automatic are they not? There are revenue enhancements I support that would affect those in the higher tax brackets by and large.
 
Those cuts are also automatic are they not? There are revenue enhancements I support that would affect those in the higher tax brackets by and large.

Only if Congress doesn't renew them like they did last year. I'm all for revenue enhancement in addition to a 5% increase on the capital gains tax rate.
 
How is congress acting going to help people get a job? Congress can't force companies to start hiring.

How is stonewalling by making a ridiculous pledge helping anyone thats out of work. We cant keep this unstoppable force, immovable rock thing going on indefinitely....were in debt..YES..we have millions of americans out of work YES...not compromising and doing something isnt doing anything
 
I hope it fails.

I don't. We've already slashed DOD. time for something else to take the hit.

Thiessen-Defense-Figure-1.jpg


Thiessen-Defense-Figure-4.jpg


Thiessen-Defense-Figure-3.jpg


source.
 
Last edited:
I don't. We've already slashed DOD. time for something else to take the hit.

Thiessen-Defense-Figure-1.jpg


Thiessen-Defense-Figure-4.jpg


Thiessen-Defense-Figure-3.jpg


source.

I absolutely agree CPwill...everyone wants to target the DOD like its swimming in billions of unnecessary bucks...I am utterly against anything that takes anything from our troops...and I want to hear from military experts that theres funds that can be taken safely...and I dont want to hear it from career politicians....
 
Honest question here...

Why are career military leaders somehow pillars of integrity that will never look out for their own self interest and their own bloated beuracracy...but non-military government leaders and politicians are always viewed in such a way?
 
Only if Congress doesn't renew them like they did last year. I'm all for revenue enhancement in addition to a 5% increase on the capital gains tax rate.

I believe CG's and income should be taxed at the same rate. I'm not to concerned with how that is done. Up with CG's. CG's up some, income down some.
 
I don't. We've already slashed DOD. time for something else to take the hit.

That position IMO is based upon the idea that we simply have to have as many soldiers all over the world that we do now. I disagree.
 
I absolutely agree CPwill...everyone wants to target the DOD like its swimming in billions of unnecessary bucks...I am utterly against anything that takes anything from our troops ...and I want to hear from military experts that theres funds that can be taken safely...and I dont want to hear it from career politicians....

Wouldn't the most important thing be their life?
 
That position IMO is based upon the idea that we simply have to have as many soldiers all over the world that we do now. I disagree.

quite as many? no. but we do have to maintain our presence world wide. global trade depends upon global security, and global security is held up by US forces. If we leave, others will not move to take up that role, but the world will rather break into mercantilist chunks as it spins into chaos. Our economy is utterly dependent on global trade, meaning that withdrawing our forward leaning defense posture (as these plans would likely require) is the financial equivalent of eating seed corn.

Wouldn't the most important thing be their life

no - the primary goal of the United States Military is mission accomplishment. sometimes that requires paying the piper. but if you are concerned about our lives, might I suggest you not support re-hollowing out the military so that we find ourselves in the future in another situation like Iraq 2004, when we had no armor for our vehicles or our bodies because of the previous decades' spending cuts. when you significantly reduce the US military, you make it more likely that they will have to be used, and you make it less likely that they will have the equipment necessary to do so with minimal loss of life. Take a look at that chart again and notice the drop in combat air support. the gap of that air support will be refilled with the bodies of the infantrymen who are now bereft.
 
Last edited:
I don't. We've already slashed DOD. time for something else to take the hit.

LOL! Here are some facts. The prestigious Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) reported in April 2011 that world military expenditure in 2010 is estimated to have been 1,630 billion dollars, an increase of 1.3 % in real terms in spite of the global financial crisis."

"The U.S., Exceptional In Military Spending

Although the rate of increase in US military spending slowed in 2010—to 2.8 per cent compared to an annual average increase of 7.4 per cent between 2001 and 2009, the global increase in 2010 is almost entirely down to the United States, which accounted for 19.6 billion dollars of the 20.6 billion dollars global increase, according to SIPRI.

The USA has increased its military spending by 81 per cent since 2001, and now accounts for 43 per cent of the global total, six times its nearest rival China. At 4.8 per cent of GDP, US military spending in 2010 represents the largest economic burden outside the Middle East”, stated Dr Sam Perlo-Freeman, Head of the SIPRI Military Expenditure Project."

http://mobile.zcommunications.org/the-world-is-over-armed-by-badriya-khan
 
I believe CG's and income should be taxed at the same rate. I'm not to concerned with how that is done. Up with CG's. CG's up some, income down some.

Both need to be raised to partially restore some of the progressiveness that has been cut from our tax system over the last 30 years, which is needed to help address the wealth disparity in this country which is negatively affecting our consumer based economy.
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
Although the rate of increase in US military spending slowed in 2010—to 2.8 per cent compared to an annual average increase of 7.4 per cent between 2001 and 2009, the global increase in 2010 is almost entirely down to the United States, which accounted for 19.6 billion dollars of the 20.6 billion dollars global increase, according to SIPRI.

:doh

1. when you fold the costs of operations into the DOD budget authority and then increase the top line number by 19 Billion, you have net cut defense spending. 19 billion minus 100 billion equals a not a positive number.
2. this is 2010. we are in 2011. DOD was cut starting this year, already by 500 Bn. Sequestration puts another $500 Bn minimum of cuts on the force.
3. President Obama's OWN Secretary of Defense says that sequestration level cuts are not only deep enough to threaten our ability to perform operations, but are frankly dangerous to the continued viability of the force. Obama's OWN Secretary of Defense who he also had run the CIA says that this will hollow out the services, and we will find ourselves once again in a situation where we are in Iraq in 2004 with no body armor and people pay with their lives for previous budget cuts.

The USA has increased its military spending by 81 per cent since 2001

LOL, well yeah. in nominal terms, measuring from the 2001 amount. we were sent to fight two wars.

and now accounts for 43 per cent of the global total, six times its nearest rival China.

:rofl and you believe that?!?


:lol: yeah. and Saddam Hussein won 99% of the vote :lamo



At 4.8 per cent of GDP, US military spending in 2010 represents the largest economic burden outside the Middle East”,

again, catawba. this is 2011. in fact, it's almost 2012 ;).
 
:doh

1. when you fold the costs of operations into the DOD budget authority and then increase the top line number by 19 Billion, you have net cut defense spending. 19 billion minus 100 billion equals a not a positive number.
2. this is 2010. we are in 2011. DOD was cut starting this year, already by 500 Bn. Sequestration puts another $500 Bn minimum of cuts on the force.
3. President Obama's OWN Secretary of Defense says that sequestration level cuts are not only deep enough to threaten our ability to perform operations, but are frankly dangerous to the continued viability of the force. Obama's OWN Secretary of Defense who he also had run the CIA says that this will hollow out the services, and we will find ourselves once again in a situation where we are in Iraq in 2004 with no body armor and people pay with their lives for previous budget cuts.

Reducing growth is not cutting.

LOL, well yeah. in nominal terms, measuring from the 2001 amount. we were sent to fight two wars.

Most of the war spending was on a war in Iraq we were lied into on behalf of big oil, and that war ends at the end this month.

And pray tell, while we would simultaneously start two wars at the same time we cut revenues??? We have never done that before in history!!!

:rofl and you believe that?!?

Since I don't happened to be skeered of my shadow, yes. Those are the facts Jack!


again, catawba. this is 2011. in fact, it's almost 2012 ;)

Yep, and our military budget is nearly twice what it was before our optional wars.

That is why it is so absurd to think that $600 billion over a decade will hurt defense. Hell, we could cut $300 billion in one year and we would still be the biggest spender on military on the planet!
 
Last edited:
Reducing growth is not cutting.

I'll remember that when they come to reduce the growth in Medicare and Social Security. Interesting. So you don't consider the Ryan Plan to have cut Medicare spending?

However, you are still incorrect - because they are indeed cutting DOD, and have already in real terms.

Most of the war spending was on a war in Iraq we were lied into on behalf of big oil, and that war ends at the end this month.

which doesn't alter the fact that they represent a cut to DOD when DOD had to cover those costs in the slightest.

And pray tell, while we would simultaneously start two wars at the same time we cut revenues??? We have never done that before in history!

we didn't 'cut' revenues - we went through a small recession which caused revenues to dip, similar to 2009-2010.

Since I don't happened to be skeered of my shadow, yes. Those are the facts Jack!

no, they aren't. specifically, they are Chinese Communist Party lies.

Yep, and our military budget is nearly twice what it was before our optional wars.

A) it's not optional for the military.
B) the fact that you tried to quote figures for 2010 to disprove the FACT that cuts have already been part of 2011 remains.
C) the fact that even the administrations OWN SECDEF says that these cuts are irresponsible and dangerous remains.

That is why it is so absurd to think that $600 billion over a decade will hurt defense. Hell, we could cut $300 billion in one year and we would still be the biggest spender on military on the planet!

yes and no - the trick when you occupy the hegemon position is that you have to outweigh all competitors in their region.

furthermore, that 300 Billion would - paradoxically - actually be much harder to collect, as our economy would have collapsed.

Mind you, the DOD's two biggest expenses are benefits, and personnel. So I have to ask - when you want to cut it in half, do you want to screw over retired veterans, or the veterans who are still active duty?
 
Back
Top Bottom