• 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!

House GOP Unveils Blueprint To Slash Medicaid, Medicare And Repeal Obamacare

Re: Full Extreme Ahead

BMCM said:
Sad but true. When I was in the Navy. We saved as much as we could during the budget year in case of an emergency, close to the end of the budget year we went out and spend every dime so we wouldn't lose any in the next budget year.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it be novel if congress and the President could announce that any federal agency that was able to save a minimum of 10% of their budget would not have their next year's budget reduced and they could keep half of those savings to use in the next fiscal year? You might actually find some that compete to be more efficient and cost effective.
 
Re: Full Extreme Ahead

Taylor said:
No, Congress only makes it legal to put money into the wallet and to take money out.
Click to expand...

That's the point. Without Congress making it legal there would be no money in the wallet.
 
Re: Full Extreme Ahead

CanadaJohn said:
Good evening to you too V1.1 - sorry to intrude on your discussion - no wonder spending continues to rise uncontrolled if federal agencies know they will lose budget next year if they don't fully spend this year's budget.
Click to expand...

Not only that, but the baselines are automatically incremented. So, when you here about a "cut", it's generally just a decrease in the rate of assumed increase. There will be a lot on gnashing of teeth over the Repub budget proposal, but what it amounts to is an increase of 3.5% per year versus 5.0%...
 
Re: Full Extreme Ahead

CanadaJohn said:
Wouldn't it be novel if congress and the President could announce that any federal agency that was able to save a minimum of 10% of their budget would not have their next year's budget reduced and they could keep half of those savings to use in the next fiscal year? You might actually find some that compete to be more efficient and cost effective.
Click to expand...

Ah, but in DC the money is the power... :shock:
 
Re: Full Extreme Ahead

AlabamaPaul said:
No the Congress acts more like your loan officer. If you want to borrow X for a particular car, he authorizes a limit, specifically for that purpose. No loan is made or money spent until the transaction takes place by you...
Click to expand...

And without the Congressional loan officer authorizing X amount to buy that new Chevy 3500 truck. The President could not buy it. Doesn't matter if the President does the final spending, he could not do it without Congress giving him the money first.
 
Re: Full Extreme Ahead

AlabamaPaul said:
Not only that, but the baselines are automatically incremented. So, when you here about a "cut", it's generally just a decrease in the rate of assumed increase. There will be a lot on gnashing of teeth over the Repub budget proposal, but what it amounts to is an increase of 3.5% per year versus 5.0%...
Click to expand...

That's what was so funny about the President running around the country like a chicken with his head cut off moaning and groaning about the sequester when all it does is reduce the increase in spending over the next 10 years.
 
Re: Full Extreme Ahead

BMCM said:
And without the Congressional loan officer authorizing X amount to buy that new Chevy 3500 truck. The President could not buy it. Doesn't matter if the President does the final spending, he could not do it without Congress giving him the money first.
Click to expand...

With all these built in checks and balances, you have to wonder how a $16 trillion, racing to $20 trillion, debt got started and continues.
 
Re: Full Extreme Ahead

CanadaJohn said:
Wouldn't it be novel if congress and the President could announce that any federal agency that was able to save a minimum of 10% of their budget would not have their next year's budget reduced and they could keep half of those savings to use in the next fiscal year? You might actually find some that compete to be more efficient and cost effective.
Click to expand...

that would be a very good idea. Just don't work that way.
 
Re: Full Extreme Ahead

CanadaJohn said:
With all these built in checks and balances, you have to wonder how a $16 trillion, racing to $20 trillion, debt got started and continues.
Click to expand...

That started 30,40 or more years ago
 
Re: Full Extreme Ahead

ttwtt78640 said:
Or, like Clinton, supply the demorat president a republicant congress led by someone with balls. ;)
Click to expand...

And a magic calculator. It has been proven time and time again that there was no actual Clinton surplus, it was a PROJECTED surplus. You know, if everything kept going well and suggested adjustments were made. But he was on the right track when he suggested that the surplus be used to fix Social Security. I admire him for putting together the Commission to Study Social Security. Unfortunately by the time they reached a conclusion they presented it to GW Bush who did a crappy job of selling it and the media killed it by suggesting it was Bush's plan. He had nothing to do with it. He didn't even understand it. Had he had the forethought to bring Clinton in to sell it we may very well have had it straightened out by now.
 
Re: Full Extreme Ahead

BMCM said:
That started 30,40 or more years ago
Click to expand...

About the time baby boomers were coming of age and expected to be given everything their little hearts demanded, damn the cost.
 
Re: Full Extreme Ahead

BMCM said:
And without the Congressional loan officer authorizing X amount to buy that new Chevy 3500 truck. The President could not buy it. Doesn't matter if the President does the final spending, he could not do it without Congress giving him the money first.
Click to expand...

We're beginning to argue semantics which will not further the discussion. The point is there are 536 individuals in DC responsible for spending and borrowing, in some way, not a political party, as many "no" votes are posturing simply to be used in the next election. Votes for or against policy have mainly been reduced to what's good for the politician...
 
Re: Full Extreme Ahead

AlabamaPaul said:
We're beginning to argue semantics which will not further the discussion. The point is there are 536 individuals in DC responsible for spending and borrowing, in some way, not a political party, as many "no" votes are posturing simply to be used in the next election. Votes for or against policy have mainly been reduced to what's good for the politician...
Click to expand...

That's very true. I think we're on the same page. IMO the whole DC bunch needs to be fired and we'll start all over.
 
Re: Full Extreme Ahead

CanadaJohn said:
About the time baby boomers were coming of age and expected to be given everything their little hearts demanded, damn the cost.
Click to expand...

How about all the money we put into Social Security and Medicare we get back?
 
Re: Full Extreme Ahead

CanadaJohn said:
Wouldn't it be novel if congress and the President could announce that any federal agency that was able to save a minimum of 10% of their budget would not have their next year's budget reduced and they could keep half of those savings to use in the next fiscal year? You might actually find some that compete to be more efficient and cost effective.
Click to expand...

Every agency has been cutting back 10% most years. And it still doesn't please the republicans.

White House Orders Deeper Federal Travel Cuts, New Meetings Policies

May 14, 2012 - 12:45 PM ET

By Jay Boehmer and Chris Davis

The White House Office of Management and Budget on Friday instructed federal agencies to cut fiscal-year 2013 travel expenses by 30 percent from 2010 levels, 10 percentage-points deeper than previously ordered cuts.

Federal agencies "must maintain this reduced level of spending each year" through fiscal-year 2016, according to a May 11 memo from Office of Management and Budget acting director Jeff Zients. The memo also establishes new federal conference spending guidelines while promoting cost discipline in other indirect spending categories, including fleet management and real estate.
Click to expand...


White House Orders Deeper Federal Travel Cuts, New Meetings Policies - Business Travel News

The President has ordered cuts to federal agencies almost every year. That's how he has managed to lower the deficit.
 
Re: Full Extreme Ahead

Muddy Creek said:
How about all the money we put into Social Security and Medicare we get back?
Click to expand...

You do realize that these programs give you more back than you actually put in? The problem is that the government doesn't protect and grow these investments you make at anywhere near a good financial advisor would.
 
Re: Full Extreme Ahead

50/50 huh? So the military, which was what - 25% of the budget got 50% of the cut and social programs that are 50/60% of the budget got 50% of the cut. Looks like
it should have been just what you ordered - to the "T" actually.


calamity said:
Hardly. The "Sequester" split 109 Billion in cuts 50/50 between military and non-military. So, $54.5B makes hardly a dent in the total military budget.
How the Across-the-Board Cuts in the Budget Control Act Will Work — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

The real question should be why we need to spend half our budget on defense when no one is even threatening us. :roll:
Click to expand...
 
Re: Full Extreme Ahead

BMCM said:
That's the point. Without Congress making it legal there would be no money in the wallet.
Click to expand...
Your original point was that "Obama hasn't borrowed or spent anything. Congress controls the money, they're the ones doing the borrow and spend thing", which isn't true - the President plays a huge role.
 
MaggieD said:
Where is the Democrats' effort to balane the budget in x-number of years? Oh, I forgot, they're too chicken-**** to put one out there. Oh, wait! I forgot again! They're putting one out there that will raise taxes by $1 trillion and never balance the budget. Oops. Senate Democrats prepare to roll out budget blueprint - The Washington Post
Click to expand...
"It’s almost as if the election never happened,” Hoyer said. “While this budget purports to balance within in 10 years, on a practical level, it could not be implemented."
Click to expand...
Now that I can believe ...
 
Re: Full Extreme Ahead

lizzie said:
"Two decades later, America is entering another round of deep defense cuts. As Washington debates "sequestration'' — automatic budget cuts that threaten to slash $600 billion from the Pentagon budget by 2023, beginning March 1 — the defense industry, and cities that depend on it, know sequestration isn't even half the problem.

Add in another $487 billion, 10-year defense cut in 2011's debt-ceiling legislation. The end of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan mean the separate budget for that, once $160 billion annually, now $88.5 billion, will wind down, too. Altogether, a budget that peaked at $716.3 billion in 2012 has dropped to a requested $701.8 billion this year and is set to hit $589 billion by 2014.

It could go much lower with sequestration, although still well above the $294 billion spent in 2000. That's about $392 billion in today's dollars."
Defense budget cuts hit businesses, localities
Click to expand...
You may as well give up presenting facts to most of the libs/progressives on this forum. As the great modern day poet Sweet Brown said "Ain't nobody got time fa dat!" That defense has been, is being, or will be cut to a little more than half of what it was isn't enough. We have already received budget plans that are projected all the way out until 2022. They project cuts all the way until then. Now, it's time to hit social programs. It's the next logical step in cuts seeing as how they are the most costly of our programs. But, as it's perceived that defense is the GOP's cash cow, social programs are perceived to be liberal's cash cow. Unfortunately for them, they hung their hat on the cash cow that will piss people off if you cut it. People could care less that we (the military) aren't getting proper training or maintenance on our equipment anymore. Not to mention things as simple as printer paper lol.
 
Re: Full Extreme Ahead

CanadaJohn said:
Wouldn't it be novel if congress and the President could announce that any federal agency that was able to save a minimum of 10% of their budget would not have their next year's budget reduced and they could keep half of those savings to use in the next fiscal year? You might actually find some that compete to be more efficient and cost effective.
Click to expand...

Good afternoon,CJ. :2wave:

Great idea, but there would have to be a good deal of trust required for any to believe that they wouldn't be penalized for not spending every cent they received, and I see very little trust in DC. I suspect they might feel that they would be told, after the fact, that since they showed that they could get by on less, that lesser amount would be the new baseline. I'm basing my comments on the whining and outrage we have heard when the one or two percent cut being discussed now means the world is coming to an end! Incentives to save don't seem to work when it's not your own personal money being discussed.

As I have posted previously, in the business world when cuts become necessary, each department head is told to make the decision as to where those cuts will be made to meet the new guidelines. NO exceptions are made. They know where the waste is, and the pain is the same for all. If they don't comply, the cuts are generally made by the Finance Division, but they ARE made! :thumbs:
 
66gardeners said:
Paul Ryan rolled out his latest budget proposal, offering an ambitious blueprint that promises to balance the budget in a decade by repealing President Barack Obama's health care reforms and slashing Medicare, Medicaid and programs to help the poor.


Paul Ryan Budget: House GOP Unveils Blueprint To Slash Medicaid, Medicare And Repeal Obamacare

Who does this fool think he is kidding? He is a lamestream impotent republican. Never had a real job his entire life. Was the recipient of Social Security Funds since his childhood. Has been sucking off th gov't, in one way or another, since that time. When will be stop being a maker and not a taker?
Click to expand...

I do not think this nation will have ten years before it falls off the cliff into the abyss. As soon as interest rates returns to normal levels, this nation is done.
 
Perotista said:
I do not think this nation will have ten years before it falls off the cliff into the abyss. As soon as interest rates returns to normal levels, this nation is done.
Click to expand...

Good evening pero. Interest rates, for the most part, are controlled by the Fed, and it has an infinite ability to expand or contract its balance sheet/reserves as necessary to do so...
 
Re: Full Extreme Ahead

CanadaJohn said:
You do realize that these programs give you more back than you actually put in? The problem is that the government doesn't protect and grow these investments you make at anywhere near a good financial advisor would.
Click to expand...
Tell that to the thousands (millions?) of people who lost their retirement investments in 2008.
 
MaggieD said:
Where is the Democrats' effort to balane the budget in x-number of years? Oh, I forgot, they're too chicken-**** to put one out there. Oh, wait! I forgot again! They're putting one out there that will raise taxes by $1 trillion and never balance the budget. Oops. Senate Democrats prepare to roll out budget blueprint - The Washington Post
Click to expand...

Actually, there was a decent bipartisan effort that was resulting in surpluses. Remember the 90's? House Republicans and Bill Clinton hated each other, but they did get that done together. Then came Bush and Obama, and it's all down the drain now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom