- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 51,710
- Reaction score
- 35,488
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
That is a little step in defict reduction; clearly better than nothing but not by much. You suggest a total of about $400 billion per year be taken off of a current (it will surely increase simply with rising entitlement costs) $1,200 billion dollar annual deficit, still leaving a deficit of $800 billion that includes $200 billion simply in interest on the national debt, which also increses each year, especially when (not if) interest rates rise to attract more to buy into our debt. Also federal spending cuts ALWAYS include such nonsense as "savings from ending the Afghan war = $???", which is pure accounting trickery as it is scheduled to end in 2014 anyway, and should have ended as soon as "winning" was no longer the objective. Tax increases are immediate but spending cuts "spread over a decade" always seem to be "back loaded" into years beyond the current terms of office of those advocating them; insist that that all spending cuts are FLAT (in each budget year) and real, just like the tax increases are.
I agree, it's not much. I'd be tempted to bump that to a 6:1 cuts to revenue but was having trouble quickly finding what the "projected" revenue increase would be from the tax increases.
I agree with you in terms of the "immediete tax cuts for future spending cuts" thing, it's why I mentioned my "perfect world" thought and it's also my issue in other areas of debate such as immigration. That's partially why I suggested the cuts needed to be made on the next five budgets. So a 1:1 cut to all three this year, a 1:1 cut on all three next year, and so on for the 5 year period.
And I agree with you 100% about afghanistan. I expressed in another thread my disdain for that tactic. I agree, money we are spending specifically for a war doesn't need to stay on the books after said war is over. It should come off the books. But that's the thing...IT SHOULD COME OFF THE BOOKS. It's temporary money. It shouldn't be "invested" into infastructure at home or education or other such things, it should simply be money we no longer spend. And I agree that it shouldn't be considered part of a cost cutting measure because it is something that will happen REGARDLESS of any plans people put into effect. The cuts should come from things that would still be there if not for the cuts.