• 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 Lawmakers Unveil $2.5 Trillion Spending Cuts Package

Barbbtx said:
I disagree with ANY tax increases.
However, that is a very long list of spending cuts. Are you saying that most are (D) sponsored subsidies? I don't know, just asking. If so, than I agree with you on that.
Click to expand...

Low taxes for corporations have little utility right now, as due to the recession corporations have made so many reductions to their work forces that they won't be able to function if further cuts are made; the one point they won't compromise on is that they won't cut pay for executives. Since everything else is being sacrificed, I don't see a point in sparing the salaries of the people whose mismanagement culminated in the recession.

As for your other question, as an example, organic food has been on the march for the last couple years, leading to the establishment of health food sections in supermarkets even in isolated areas; that's because recent discoveries have drawn connections between the additives in most foods and prevalent health problems. The corporations founded on providing our chemical-laced diet are starting to feel the hurt, and they have more affinity with Republicans than with Democrats, so the directive to come down on organic food is probably at the behest of their lobbyists.

Truth be told, I'm not against reducing subsidies for organic food as long as subsidies are cut/taxes raised for competing industries. Prices at the supermarket will go up, unfortunately, but Americans still throw away vast portions of food, so I can only be so against it.
 
OscarB63 said:
returning $45 billion in unspent "stimulus" money in and of itself is a good thing.
Click to expand...

Bogus savings underlie these proposals.

Excerpted from “House GOP group proposes deep spending cuts over next decade” By Lori Montgomery, Washington Post Staff Writer, The Washington Post, Thursday, January 20, 2011; 10:25 PM, with my emphasis
[SIZE="+2"]A[/SIZE]ccording to Democratic estimates, cuts of that magnitude - if applied across the board - would require the Justice Department to fire 4,000 FBI agents and 1,500 agents at the Drug Enforcement Administration. The federal prison system would have to fire 5,700 correctional officers, the Agriculture Department would have to cut about 3,000 food safety inspectors, and the Head Start early-childhood education program would be forced to cut about 389,000 children from its rolls.

The study committee's proposal focuses instead on more palatable cuts, such as a plan to rescind unspent money from the 2009 economic stimulus package. The group estimates that would save $45 billion, though other congressional estimates put the figure as low as $3 billion.
Click to expand...
 
hazlnut said:
I'm all for shrinking wasteful Gov. But just eliminating jobs for the sake of looking good...
Click to expand...

Why are the jobs being eliminated?
To make the (R) look good? That doesn't make a lick of sense. That would make them look bad. There must be another reason for it. :)
 
Well I hope they do cut most of those programs listed. Heck the Davis - Bacon Act doesnt even have bacon in it! But most of ALL..... they need to cut all of their pensions!!!! And they should pay for their own health care! Thats IF they want to do the right thing.
 
Why am I not surprised? During elections all I kept hearing from people is that we needed the government to cut spending. "Cut this! Cut that! This needs to be done! We're overspending, STOP!" etc etc ad nauseum etc.

Now spending cuts are going to be done (hopefully) and what happens? People bitch and complain about the spending cut. :cuckoo:

$2.5 trillion dollar cut? By God DO IT! Could more things be cut? Sure!

Also if people seriously expected the government to cut spending then they would have to be stupid as all get out to think that peoples jobs wouldn't be on the line. I would dare anyone to name one thing that can be cut that wouldn't affect someones job somewhere along the lines.
 
Redress said:
Actually so did republicans. Or did we forget about Bush and the prescription (unfunded) bill? The republicans in this case get credit for at least making an attempt, but it's still not the right time to cut spending(when unemployment under 6 %, then it's time to do this), and it's still just cutting programs based on what they do not like, instead of making the broad, across the board cuts(including defense) that is needed.

By this logic the fact that there is job creation, but slower than needed to keep up with new workers means unemployment rates are dropping. if there are fewer jobs, then there are fewer jobs.
Click to expand...

Did you miss the affects of the Bush Prescription Drug program the last year that Bush was in office? Do results matter in your world?

Medicare drug plan spending drops $6B in 2008 - USATODAY.com
 
winston53660 said:
What does that have to do with it being unfunded?
Click to expand...

It has everything to do with costs coming down vs. projections as it is doing what Bush said it would do. The budget is there and the actual spending costs were below budget. Actual spending vs. budget? How is that underfunded? Looks like savings to me.
 
Conservative said:
It has everything to do with costs coming down vs. projections as it is doing what Bush said it would do. The budget is there and the actual spending costs were below budget. Actual spending vs. budget? How is that underfunded? Looks like savings to me.
Click to expand...

Okay but what does that have to do with it being unfunded?


BTW your article noted the cost is going to rise because of baby boomers.
 
winston53660 said:
Okay but what does that have to do with it being unfunded?


BTW your article noted the cost is going to rise because of baby boomers.
Click to expand...

The point is we have a budget and the actual spending comes in under budget that is a spending cut and savings. Has nothing to do with underfunding. Looks to me like it is working.

There you go again, projections that may or may not come true. Human behavior is ignored in those projections. A 6 billion dollar savings in 2008 tells me that market based programs work. Do you understand incentive?
 
Conservative said:
The point is we have a budget and the actual spending comes in under budget that is a spending cut and savings. Has nothing to do with underfunding. Looks to me like it is working.

There you go again, projections that may or may not come true. Human behavior is ignored in those projections. A 6 billion dollar savings in 2008 tells me that market based programs work. Do you understand incentive?
Click to expand...


Go back and re read what I was asking about.
 
winston53660 said:
Go back and re read what I was asking about.
Click to expand...

I prefer actual results to projections and the point Redress claims is that the Prescription Drug program was unfunded and as I showed the actual results show a reduction in costs.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Why am I not surprised? During elections all I kept hearing from people is that we needed the government to cut spending. "Cut this! Cut that! This needs to be done! We're overspending, STOP!" etc etc ad nauseum etc.

Now spending cuts are going to be done (hopefully) and what happens? People bitch and complain about the spending cut. :cuckoo:

$2.5 trillion dollar cut? By God DO IT! Could more things be cut? Sure!

Also if people seriously expected the government to cut spending then they would have to be stupid as all get out to think that peoples jobs wouldn't be on the line. I would dare anyone to name one thing that can be cut that wouldn't affect someones job somewhere along the lines.
Click to expand...

What gets me is those saying things like, but what about medicare and social security? They don't mention cuts there. It's like they were hoping there would have to be cuts made there for political reasons. I mean they have been yelling forever that the (R) were going to harm old people and their SS checks.
I think the lists of cuts they are proposing are good. From the way I see it, it looks a lot less damaging to the average American than I could have hoped for. It's about time. We've been tightening our belts for a long time. It's time someone else did.
 
Barbbtx said:
What gets me is those saying things like, but what about medicare and social security? They don't mention cuts there. It's like they were hoping there would have to be cuts made there for political reasons. I mean they have been yelling forever that the (R) were going to harm old people and their SS checks.
Click to expand...

Interesting how when the Dems were in charge, it was all 'The GOP hates old people and want them to die... the GOP will take away your Medicare and SS'.

Now that the Dems no longer have the leadership role they did, it's all 'what about cuts to Medicare and SS!'


****ing hypocrites.
 
Whovian said:
Interesting how when the Dems were in charge, it was all 'The GOP hates old people and want them to die... the GOP will take away your Medicare and SS'.

Now that the Dems no longer have the leadership role they did, it's all 'what about cuts to Medicare and SS!'


****ing hypocrites.
Click to expand...

Did you see the Houston "embarrassment" Sheila Jackson Lee on the floor of the House claiming that repeal of the healthcare bill will result in people dying? The bill hasn't even gone into effect yet but people are going to die if it is repeales? Aren't people dying now? She is a joke throughout the city here and showed it to the country yesterday.
 
hazlnut said:
You are aware that's because the seniors were paying more for prescriptions? -- The same drugs they aren't allowed to buy cheaper from Canada?

I guess you weren't.
Click to expand...

Really? So we budget for Prescription Drugs and the actual expenses come in UNDER the budget by 6 billion dollars and that is because seniors are paying more for drugs? Do you realize how foolish that sounds and is? Fact, in 2008 the Prescription Drug Program implemented by President Bush is reported to have cost 6 billion less than the budget. That is a savings. Liberals, you people are crazy and simply cannot admit when wrong.
 
Conservative said:
Really? So we budget for Prescription Drugs and the actual expenses come in UNDER the budget by 6 billion dollars and that is because seniors are paying more for drugs? Do you realize how foolish that sounds and is? Fact, in 2008 the Prescription Drug Program implemented by President Bush is reported to have cost 6 billion less than the budget.
Click to expand...


Oh boy, here we go... it cost less because it covers less.



BTW -- you do realize the genius Bush plan was never funded. Well done GOP! Way to tax and spend our money.

Oh, I guess they don't like to talk about that on FOX. 2 unfunded wars and 1 unfunded prescription drug plan = deficit.

Thanks W.
 
hazlnut said:
Oh boy, here we go... it cost less because it covers less.



BTW -- you do realize the genius Bush plan was never funded. Well done GOP! Way to tax and spend our money.

Oh, I guess they don't like to talk about that on FOX. 2 unfunded wars and 1 unfunded prescription drug plan = deficit.

Thanks W.
Click to expand...

That is your opinion and what you want to believe. We have a huge debt in this country and to claim that the Prescription Drug program costs less because it covers less is nothing more than what you are told. What I showed is that contrary to the claims of others the Prescription Drug program cost less than was budgeted. You don't know all seniors but that doesn't stop you from speculating or the rest of your rant. So we have an unfunded Prescription Drug program that is part of Medicare and has a budget where the expenditures come in under that budget but in your world that is a bad thing? If it has a budget it cannot be unfunded. Is that liberal economics and logic?

Those two unfunded wars cost the American Treasury over a trillion dollars in 10 YEARS or 100 billion a year. So in 10 years how much has been added to the debt? Clinton left the country a 5.7 trillion dollar debt and Bush left it at 10.6 trillion or 4.9 trillion during the Bush years. Take 1 trillion off that and our debt would be 3.9 trillion. What has Obama done to cut that war expense off the budget? Are Obama's military budgets more or less than Bush's?
 
hazlnut said:
GOP Lawmakers Unveil $2.5 Trillion Spending Cuts Package



It doesn't appear (so far) they have the balls to look at Medicare and other entitlements.

Here's where they talk about appeasing their base:



Ah, yes, the pledge...So, regardless if it has any real or meaningful effect, they did what they said and now they're off the hook? Got it.:doh

And, um, speaking of job-killing...



Here's a better idea, why not cut the offices that are overstaffed and overpaid, and expand the offices that are understaffed and therefore inefficient--like banking and industry regulators.
Click to expand...



TEA party is all about reducing the size and scope of government, the deficiet etc....


Sorry.... they are seeming to have success here.
 
Conservative said:
Did you see the Houston "embarrassment" Sheila Jackson Lee on the floor of the House claiming that repeal of the healthcare bill will result in people dying? The bill hasn't even gone into effect yet but people are going to die if it is repeales? Aren't people dying now? She is a joke throughout the city here and showed it to the country yesterday.
Click to expand...

I was glad to see her taken to task about it. However, she didn't seem to back down from her statements.
Did you help get her elected?;)
 
Barbbtx said:
I was glad to see her taken to task about it. However, she didn't seem to back down from her statements.
Did you help get her elected?;)
Click to expand...

LOL, no, sorry as I cannot take credit for her. I live 30 miles north of Houston and my Rep is Kevin Brady.
 
Conservative said:
LOL, no, sorry as I cannot take credit for her. I live 30 miles north of Houston and my Rep is Kevin Brady.
Click to expand...

I know that must break your heart.:lol:

I swear everytime I see that woman on C-Span, I think, how the hec did she get elected in TEXAS!?
Oh well, nothings ever perfect.:2wave:
 
Barbbtx said:
I know that must break your heart.:lol:

I swear everytime I see that woman on C-Span, I think, how the hec did she get elected in TEXAS!?
Oh well, nothings ever perfect.:2wave:
Click to expand...

Her District is very liberal, mostly minority and very dependent on that so called govt. "help" that liberals offer. It is predominently inner city Houston where efforts to put up a viable candidate to oppose her are destroyed by the Democrat establishment. Surpisingly Houston is still predominently a Democrat City with a Democrat Mayor for as long as I can remember. Perry only lost Houston by 20,000 votes however showing that Republicans can get support here. My county is 76% Conservative.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom