• 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!

Panel Chairmen Recommend Cutting Federal Spending by $200 Billion

NIMBY will prevail....
Everybody wants the govt to cut expenses, as long as it isn't an expense that benefits themselves...
I know well off retirees who don't want their SS cut, claim to be on a "fixed" income. That is bull, they have so much that "fixed" means nothing. Those with ample income should be spending more of it to boost the economy, to help those who have "broken" income. What I don't hear at all are complaints from the rich who live in my area. They KNOW they have it good, and aren't about to complain about losing a bit of income, or paying a bit more taxes. It isn't a good idea for the rich to complain, certainly not where the new jobless can hear it.
I do hear some whining from the rich in this forum.
and before you ubercons start using words like "class envy", my wife and I are somewhere in the top 15% of income and assets.
 
NIMBY will prevail....
Everybody wants the govt to cut expenses, as long as it isn't an expense that benefits themselves...
I know well off retirees who don't want their SS cut, claim to be on a "fixed" income. That is bull, they have so much that "fixed" means nothing. Those with ample income should be spending more of it to boost the economy, to help those who have "broken" income. What I don't hear at all are complaints from the rich who live in my area. They KNOW they have it good, and aren't about to complain about losing a bit of income, or paying a bit more taxes. It isn't a good idea for the rich to complain, certainly not where the new jobless can hear it.
I do hear some whining from the rich in this forum.
and before you ubercons start using words like "class envy", my wife and I are somewhere in the top 15% of income and assets.

It seems like a fair across the board cut to our expenditures to me. Nothing is gutted completely that we should keep in my opinion.
 
Where would you make the cuts? Include numbers please. You need about $800 Billion per year (that excludes any stimulus like cash for clunkers).
Why $800 billion?

If we do nothing, the deficit should fall to the ~$500 billion range once the economy picks up... and while it would be wonderful to actually balance the budget or even pay down the debt...

I think many would be thrilled if we could keep the deficit at 1% of GDP. That would take cuts more along the lines of 300 billion - more if we increase the rate of spending, less if we decrease (of course, that doesn't pay down the national debt, but it does make it less and less significant over time).
 
Pretty darn close. We spent $663 Billion last year.
That figure probably combines the DoD budget with the cost of Iraq/Afghanistan.
 
Obama panel urges deep US spending cuts, tax reform - Yahoo! News

Some rather interesting cuts in military spending is being proposed as well. The V-22 has been an expensive program that most DOD have done their best to protect, the replacement of half the appro 2100 of the F35 with F16 and F18 is about the most suprising one

Personally? We should direct spending to complete the F35 and then consider if it's worth the costs to build one then on. To cut a program that is essentially a new research and development is going one step backward on advancing our airforce and also buying F16 and F18 is a couple steps backward as well... And also the F35 is a JSF, so it can switch between roles easily. And one other thing, it's gonna have stealth capability. The chances of having a nonstealth fighter being shot down in the battlefield will be much higher than a stealth fighter. But I guess they deemed the costs for having more f16 and f18 lost are still cheaper than less f35 lost and the research it's gonna need.

And why cut defenses, isn't the government's only spending should just be on military to defend our borders? I mean, medicare and SS got tagged along, but I believe the defense should really be the last to be cut, contrary to most people's feelings.
 
Why $800 billion?

If we do nothing, the deficit should fall to the ~$500 billion range once the economy picks up... and while it would be wonderful to actually balance the budget or even pay down the debt...

I think many would be thrilled if we could keep the deficit at 1% of GDP. That would take cuts more along the lines of 300 billion - more if we increase the rate of spending, less if we decrease (of course, that doesn't pay down the national debt, but it does make it less and less significant over time).

I'm using the projected deficit plan on page 11 of the debt commission report. If you add the projected deficit reduction with the projected deficit with the plan in place, that would be the projected deficit if we do nothing. It ranges from $672 Billion in 2014 to over $1 Trillion by 2020. I used $800 Billion as the middle of the road. I'm not completely against keeping the deficit at 1% of GDP. If GDP continues a trend into the future around 3%, our debt as a percentage of GDP would continue to fall with a 1% deficit strategy.
 
I'm not saying de-fang the US -- just cut the spending. Britain and France are two of the five most powerful nations on Earth -- they can both enforce their military will across the globe, just as the US can, but they've both been able to keep spending at reasonable levels. The US can still have a military presence on the world stage -- they just need to spend smarter.

Powerful? You're dependent on us to protect you......still. You're welcome.
 
Powerful? You're dependent on us to protect you......still. You're welcome.

My God, where do you come up with this stuff?

I hear Americans say this all the time, and for the life of me, I can't figure out how they figure that. Britain and France are two of the most powerful nations on Earth, that is a fact -- and they're not dependent on anyone for their protection. The only possible way I can figure you saying that is that you must somehow be referring to NATO, an organisation in which Britain, France and the US are equal partners.

Furthermore, I do believe it was America begging the rest of Europe to join it in Iraq, not the other way around. And yet, France and Britain have both fought wars (successfully, I might add, which can't be said about Iraq or Afghanistan) without American aide.

Long story short, you're talking out of your arse.
 
Personally? We should direct spending to complete the F35 and then consider if it's worth the costs to build one then on. To cut a program that is essentially a new research and development is going one step backward on advancing our airforce and also buying F16 and F18 is a couple steps backward as well... And also the F35 is a JSF, so it can switch between roles easily. And one other thing, it's gonna have stealth capability. The chances of having a nonstealth fighter being shot down in the battlefield will be much higher than a stealth fighter. But I guess they deemed the costs for having more f16 and f18 lost are still cheaper than less f35 lost and the research it's gonna need.

And why cut defenses, isn't the government's only spending should just be on military to defend our borders? I mean, medicare and SS got tagged along, but I believe the defense should really be the last to be cut, contrary to most people's feelings.


The plan would still to have over 1000 F35, but at a cost I expect to be 50% more then an F16 or F18, which can be used as second line fighters, while the F35 is the main line one. The F16 and F18 are multi role fighters as well, doing both air combat and ground attack.
 
My God, where do you come up with this stuff?

I hear Americans say this all the time, and for the life of me, I can't figure out how they figure that. Britain and France are two of the most powerful nations on Earth, that is a fact -- and they're not dependent on anyone for their protection. The only possible way I can figure you saying that is that you must somehow be referring to NATO, an organisation in which Britain, France and the US are equal partners.

Furthermore, I do believe it was America begging the rest of Europe to join it in Iraq, not the other way around. And yet, France and Britain have both fought wars (successfully, I might add, which can't be said about Iraq or Afghanistan) without American aide.

Long story short, you're talking out of your arse.

LOL, the only thing that kept Russia or China out of your backyard was us. In fact, you're being taken over from within. Your once great nation will be a Middle Eastern satellite country before you know it.

Of course you don't see Iraq and Afghanistan as any sort of success, as most liberal socialists tend not to. We didn't beg you; we invited you. We don't need you, but it would be nice for the world to fight terrorism, not just us.

Again, just like in the early 40s, we're winning your battles for you.

You're welcome.
 
LOL, the only thing that kept Russia or China out of your backyard was us. In fact, you're being taken over from within. Your once great nation will be a Middle Eastern satellite country before you know it.

Of course you don't see Iraq and Afghanistan as any sort of success, as most liberal socialists tend not to. We didn't beg you; we invited you. We don't need you, but it would be nice for the world to fight terrorism, not just us.

Again, just like in the early 40s, we're winning your battles for you.

You're welcome.

China? China?

China just recently might have gained the ability to invade Taiwan and win. They do not have the resources to invade Europe. They are just now developing a reasonable blue water navy
 
"This proposal is simply unacceptable," said outgoing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "Any final proposal from the Commission should do what is right for our children and grandchildren’s economic security as well as for our nation’s fiscal security, and it must do what is right for our seniors, who are counting on the bedrock promises of Social Security and Medicare. And it must strengthen America's middle class families--under siege for the last decade, and unable to withstand further encroachment on their economic security.”

AFL-CIO chairman Richard Trumka said that “the chairmen of the Deficit Commission just told working Americans to ‘Drop Dead.’ Especially in these tough economic times, it is unconscionable to be proposing cuts to the critical economic lifelines for working people, Social Security and Medicare…This deficit talk reeks of rank hypocrisy: The very people who want to slash Social Security and Medicare spent this week clamoring for more unpaid Bush tax cuts for millionaires.”

The President's Debt Commission Proposal

well, that was fast
 
Personally, I thought it was the best thing I'd seen out of DC in years. Maybe ever.
 
of course you do, and i fully appreciate what you are looking at

but what good is your or my support if the likes of the grasping speakeress and blunt boss have already beat it with a baseball bat

it is what it is, and obama's reliance on this trumped up and empty commission to settle his responsibilities for him has been just that, trumped up and empty

as you and all other realists have surely recognized for months

why did the party punt on the bush tax cuts, why the lame reliance on this duck

why did the party fail to produce a budget in 2010

solving what you want solved requires more leadership, perhaps, than this country has ever produced

either way, obama/pelosi sure aint it

the mere fact that the recommendation of this commission is associated with HIM kills it

that's the lay of the land these days

and realists are just gonna have to deal with it
 
Last edited:
That figure probably combines the DoD budget with the cost of Iraq/Afghanistan.

What far too many people ignore is that part of the defense budget goes to fund the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars thus some of the total cost of those wars is already included in the budget. The total cost of the wars from the Federal Taxpayers is around a trillion dollars over almost 10 years or 100 billion a year. Seems that there are many that do not understand that so if you cut the budget by the cost of the wars you would cut 100 billion a year so Obama deficit last year would have been 1.19 trillion instead of 1.29 trillion.

Of course then Obama supporters have another problem, Obama claimed that Afghanistan is the "good" war and Iraq the "bad" war so how do they justify cutting 100 billion dollars a year from fighting the "good" war?
 
My God, where do you come up with this stuff?

I hear Americans say this all the time, and for the life of me, I can't figure out how they figure that. Britain and France are two of the most powerful nations on Earth, that is a fact -- and they're not dependent on anyone for their protection. The only possible way I can figure you saying that is that you must somehow be referring to NATO, an organisation in which Britain, France and the US are equal partners.

Furthermore, I do believe it was America begging the rest of Europe to join it in Iraq, not the other way around. And yet, France and Britain have both fought wars (successfully, I might add, which can't be said about Iraq or Afghanistan) without American aide.

Long story short, you're talking out of your arse.


Ah, you say not true eh? Seems to me I remember countries like Germany begging us to keep our troop levels because of the economic impact we had in your countries. Not to mention the defense shield we provide as cover so that your country can keep your own military budget small. You Euro's certainly are short on grace these days.

j-mac
 
Ah, you say not true eh? Seems to me I remember countries like Germany begging us to keep our troop levels because of the economic impact we had in your countries. Not to mention the defense shield we provide as cover so that your country can keep your own military budget small. You Euro's certainly are short on grace these days.

j-mac

That is a great point, the fact that European countries don't have to spend as much on defense because of the presence of the U.S. Military. This is something that the liberal left doesn't seem to grasp nor do many of the younger Europeans that participate in this forum. The impact of the U.S. Military on the economies of those European countries is ignored. I find it interesting however that Merkel is reversing decades of European style entitlements and socialist policies and has an improving economy with decade lows in unemployment.

There seems to be a real arrogance on the part of liberals who cannot admit when wrong and want this country to be more like the old Europe that created cradle to grave coverage. This country wasn't built on that ideology thus to get there would bankrupt us and is!
 
bottom line---keynesianism is kaput

ask erskine

ask the g20
 
Erskine? You mean the committee co-chair who intentionally released the views of both himself and Simpson when they failed to come up with enough committee votes as necessary. That perspective is DOA.
 
it sure is, ask pelosi and afl-cio's trumka

and john maynard's measures---failed, all the way from greece to obama

comprehensively passe
 
of course you do, and i fully appreciate what you are looking at

but what good is your or my support if the likes of the grasping speakeress and blunt boss have already beat it with a baseball bat

it is what it is, and obama's reliance on this trumped up and empty commission to settle his responsibilities for him has been just that, trumped up and empty

as you and all other realists have surely recognized for months

why did the party punt on the bush tax cuts, why the lame reliance on this duck

why did the party fail to produce a budget in 2010

solving what you want solved requires more leadership, perhaps, than this country has ever produced

either way, obama/pelosi sure aint it

the mere fact that the recommendation of this commission is associated with HIM kills it

that's the lay of the land these days

and realists are just gonna have to deal with it

Unfortunately, I think you are correct. I see a whole lot of nothing being done over the next two years.
 
China? China?

China just recently might have gained the ability to invade Taiwan and win. They do not have the resources to invade Europe. They are just now developing a reasonable blue water navy

The point is, England doesn't even need a military since they rely on us to fight their battles for them these days. We are, in fact, the military for the entire European region, as we have been since WWII.

They can cut their defense budget to nothing if they want to because the world knows that an attack on a European country will be dealt with by the United States.

Europe has become so soft. Socialism requires so little from people in the way of fortitude or character.

And that's what liberals aspire for America to be, too.
 
The point is, England doesn't even need a military since they rely on us to fight their battles for them these days. We are, in fact, the military for the entire European region, as we have been since WWII.

They can cut their defense budget to nothing if they want to because the world knows that an attack on a European country will be dealt with by the United States.

Europe has become so soft. Socialism requires so little from people in the way of fortitude or character.

And that's what liberals aspire for America to be, too.

What the **** are you talking about?

England doesn't need a military because you fight all our battles?

Did you go into the falklands?

Excuse me but the only battles there's really been in the last 20 years for us to get involved in, was ones YOU CAUSED.

You went into Iraq I and II and Afghanistan and we sent our boys over there with you.

How dare you defile the memory of British Soldiers who went over there in support of you.

And you accuse Obama of disrespecting your allies.

Jesus Christ.

Guess this was the part where honour was restored eh?

**** ** ** ***** *** *** ****
 
Why don't you all just cut defence spending by about $600 billion? That'd do it. God knows that extra several-hundred-billion-dollars isn't making your troops unkillable in Iraq or Afghanistan. :/ Wasted money, methinks.

Is this what the Gloucester School of Logic taught you? Ask for a refund.
 
Back
Top Bottom