Ben Posted April 6, 2011 Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 So... The answer is probably obvious but... Why were all these spending cuts not pushed through when the republicans had control of the house, senate, and a sitting republican president? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted April 6, 2011 Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 Because at that time deficits didnt matter. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squirrlnutz Posted April 6, 2011 Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 [quote name='Ben' timestamp='1302116508' post='982178'] So... The answer is probably obvious but... Why were all these spending cuts not pushed through when the republicans had control of the house, senate, and a sitting republican president? [/quote] Because the spending cuts have almost nothing to do with spending and almost everything to do with rhetoric, grandstanding, extremism and our general population's ignorance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orange 'n Black Posted April 6, 2011 Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 [quote name='Squirrlnutz' timestamp='1302121399' post='982193'] Because the spending cuts have almost nothing to do with spending and almost everything to do with rhetoric, grandstanding, extremism and our general population's ignorance. [/quote] On the money. Ryan's proposal is pretty far out to the right. My hope is that the Democrats roll out a proposal that is the opposite, and these blockheads can find some way to meet in the middle about it. Only a combination of the ideologies is going to get us out of this hole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Lucid| Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 [quote name='Orange 'n Black' timestamp='1302129474' post='982212'] On the money. Ryan's proposal is pretty far out to the right. My hope is that the Democrats roll out a proposal that is the opposite, and these blockheads can find some way to meet in the middle about it. Only a combination of the ideologies is going to get us out of this hole. [/quote] I'm not sure.. The republicans used to have an honest platform. I don't think that is the case any longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orange 'n Black Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 [quote name='Lucid' timestamp='1302182408' post='982341'] I'm not sure.. The republicans used to have an honest platform. I don't think that is the case any longer. [/quote] You can see shreds of it through the rhetoric. At least Ryan was willing to take the political leap of doom. The Democrats look like they just want to keep flying their holding pattern until the country implodes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Lucid| Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 [quote name='Orange 'n Black' timestamp='1302189200' post='982370'] You can see shreds of it through the rhetoric. At least Ryan was willing to take the political leap of doom. The Democrats look like they just want to keep flying their holding pattern until the country implodes. [/quote] The Dems get on my nerves.. Both sides pander.. But it seems the don't actually stand for anything.. At least not enough that they are willing to fight for it.. As soon as they encounter any resistance they just fold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orange 'n Black Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 [quote name='Lucid' timestamp='1302189498' post='982373'] The Dems get on my nerves.. Both sides pander.. But it seems the don't actually stand for anything.. At least not enough that they are willing to fight for it.. As soon as they encounter any resistance they just fold. [/quote] Oh yeah, I'd call myself a Republican but they piss me off too. Give them credit though for actually dragging the inevitable entitlement reform to the forefront. I respect Paul Ryan for that. And no matter what side of the fence you fall on, it's indisputable that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid completely take over federal revenue in the shockingly near future. SOMEONE has to have the stones to stand up and try to fix it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Posted April 7, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 [quote name='Lucid' timestamp='1302189498' post='982373'] The Dems get on my nerves.. Both sides pander.. But it seems the don't actually stand for anything.. At least not enough that they are willing to fight for it.. As soon as they encounter any resistance they just fold. [/quote] +1 to this. The Republicans dont care who they piss off or fuck over to shit done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 Fuck Ryan [url="http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3114"]The Ryan Budget's Radical Priorities Provides Largest Tax Cuts in History for Wealthy, Raises Middle Class Taxes, Ends Guaranteed Medicare, Privatizes Social Security, Erodes Health Care[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalRep85-9 Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1302195116' post='982396'] Fuck Ryan [url="http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3114"]The Ryan Budget's Radical Priorities Provides Largest Tax Cuts in History for Wealthy, Raises Middle Class Taxes, Ends Guaranteed Medicare, Privatizes Social Security, Erodes Health Care[/url] [/quote] I just assumed all of this once I saw it was a republican proposal. How people making less than a million a year vote for these guys is disturbing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Posted April 7, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 [img]http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2011/04/07/haircut_custom.jpg?t=1302199803&s=4[/img] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orange 'n Black Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 [quote name='BengalRep85-9' timestamp='1302207003' post='982448'] I just assumed all of this once I saw it was a republican proposal. How people making less than a million a year vote for these guys is disturbing. [/quote] Scrap the Medicare/Medicaid reform and do it another way, keep the provision that closes tax loopholes, and let the Bush cuts expire, returning to the previous top tax rate. Sounds like a good start to compromise to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 [quote name='Orange 'n Black' timestamp='1302212633' post='982461'] Scrap the Medicare/Medicaid reform and do it another way, keep the provision that closes tax loopholes, and let the Bush cuts expire, returning to the previous top tax rate. Sounds like a good start to compromise to me. [/quote] Social Security does not need to be privatized, can you imagine how many would be hurt if we did that with this last collapse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Bunghole| Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 We need to develop a new long range bomber program. We could really use one to replace the aging B-52. Its also time to increase military pay, develop a new generation of nuclear weapons, engage bids for a new assault rifle for our entire ground-fighting forces, put in an order for about 1,000 more F-22's, launch some new satellites that kill other nation's satellites, come up with a new main battle tank and implement it, set up internment camps across America for dissidents and launch a full scale attack on Iran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orange 'n Black Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1302217671' post='982496'] Social Security does not need to be privatized, can you imagine how many would be hurt if we did that with this last collapse? [/quote] The notion of privatizing a public program just seems backwards to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sois Posted April 8, 2011 Report Share Posted April 8, 2011 [quote name='Orange 'n Black' timestamp='1302220031' post='982502'] The notion of privatizing a public program just seems backwards to me. [/quote] Thank you! +111111111111111111111111 The only thing wrong with SS is the wage cap. Remove that shit and lower the rate, you will wind up with more $$$ coming in. If you want to be really aggressive, don't even give it to people who don't need it. At my last job, I saw lots of folks who got SS and didn't even need it. It was just for ivory back scratchers and stuff like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted April 8, 2011 Report Share Posted April 8, 2011 [quote name='Orange 'n Black' timestamp='1302220031' post='982502'] The notion of privatizing a public program just seems backwards to me. [/quote] Me too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orange 'n Black Posted April 8, 2011 Report Share Posted April 8, 2011 [quote name='sois' timestamp='1302221143' post='982505'] Thank you! +111111111111111111111111 The only thing wrong with SS is the wage cap. Remove that shit and lower the rate, you will wind up with more $$$ coming in. If you want to be really aggressive, don't even give it to people who don't need it. At my last job, I saw lots of folks who got SS and didn't even need it. It was just for ivory back scratchers and stuff like that. [/quote] It has crossed my mind more than once to opt out of SS, since the whole ruckus is that my generation won't see a dime back from it (true on the current course). [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_%28United_States%29#Estimated_net_Social_Security_benefits_under_differing_circumstances"]This information[/url] from Wikipedia, purveyor of all that is definitely true, is what got my mental gears grinding on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Bunghole| Posted April 8, 2011 Report Share Posted April 8, 2011 I don't really care about welfare for our citizens unless its derived from "the spoils of war" due to our military conquests. Our military is painfully small for a superpower. Our defense budget is a joke. We need at least 50,000,000 trained and equipped soldiers in a standing army. Once we establish our manpower goals, we really need to focus on wars for oil, and actually mean it this time. Forget the nice platitudes...yes, we are here for your oil and we are TAKING IT! It would be more honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted April 8, 2011 Report Share Posted April 8, 2011 [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEbWepXjVtc[/media] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sois Posted April 8, 2011 Report Share Posted April 8, 2011 [quote name='Orange 'n Black' timestamp='1302226178' post='982512'] It has crossed my mind more than once to opt out of SS, since the whole ruckus is that my generation won't see a dime back from it (true on the current course). [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_%28United_States%29#Estimated_net_Social_Security_benefits_under_differing_circumstances"]This information[/url] from Wikipedia, purveyor of all that is definitely true, is what got my mental gears grinding on it. [/quote] Opting out of SS is a dumb idea. That's like saying you want to opt out of Medicare for old poor people. The problem with SS is that everyone get is, there really isn't the same rules Medicare has as far as who can get it. Also, with the infinity exponential growing population, there will always be some $$$ in SS for you to get. There will always be workers for each retiree. I think now, in the baby boomer era, might the one of the worst times to be retired (worker/retiree ratio wise). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Elflocko| Posted April 8, 2011 Report Share Posted April 8, 2011 [quote name='Orange 'n Black' timestamp='1302193737' post='982391'] Oh yeah, I'd call myself a Republican but they piss me off too. Give them credit though for actually dragging the inevitable entitlement reform to the forefront. I respect Paul Ryan for that. And no matter what side of the fence you fall on, [b]it's indisputable that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid completely take over federal revenue in the shockingly near future.[/b] SOMEONE has to have the stones to stand up and try to fix it. [/quote] Unless we completely disband our military that statement is entirely disputable. And patently false... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orange 'n Black Posted April 8, 2011 Report Share Posted April 8, 2011 [quote name='Elflocko' timestamp='1302234348' post='982539'] Unless we completely disband our military that statement is entirely disputable. And patently false... [/quote] http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/102xx/doc10297/06-25-LTBO.pdf Page 20 deals with this subject. Under current growth levels and policy as of 2010, entitlement programs (SS, Medicare, and Medicaid) take up nearly all federal revenue (only 2.6% of GDP left over) by 2080. Under the alternative scenario (policy changes that reflect changes that are historically made and are expected to be made - this includes extension of the Bush tax cuts which happened after this report, so the current scenario is on the alternative path), entitlement spending exceeds revenue by ~2.5% GDP by 2080. That, to me, is the "shockingly near future", and if any of us aren't still around to deal with it, our children and grandchildren will be. Even up to that point, revenue is skating by at single digit %GDP up to that point. That doesn't even include debt service and other necessary expenditures such as military. Military spending can be cut significantly, of course, but it is still a necessary expenditure. The entire scenario and every angle and position on it are all based on predictions, which may or may not be accurate. But it's undeniably a big problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Elflocko| Posted April 8, 2011 Report Share Posted April 8, 2011 [quote name='Orange 'n Black' timestamp='1302278955' post='982588'] http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/102xx/doc10297/06-25-LTBO.pdf Page 20 deals with this subject. Under current growth levels and policy as of 2010, entitlement programs (SS, Medicare, and Medicaid) take up nearly all federal revenue (only 2.6% of GDP left over) by 2080. Under the alternative scenario (policy changes that reflect changes that are historically made and are expected to be made), entitlement spending exceeds revenue by ~2.5% GDP by 2080. That, to me, is the "shockingly near future", and if any of us aren't still around to deal with it, our children and grandchildren will be. Even up to that point, revenue is skating by at single digit %GDP up to that point. That doesn't even include debt service and other necessary expenditures such as military. Military spending can be cut significantly, of course, but it is still a necessary expenditure. The entire scenario and every angle and position on it are all based on predictions, which may or may not be accurate. But it's undeniably a big problem. [/quote] We spend 54% of our budget on military funding (current and past) which is more than the next 20 nations combined (give or take). Iraq has cost an estimated [b]$3 trillion[/b] which would have funded Social Security for 50 years. Afghanistan has cost another [b]$3 trillion[/b] (estimated). That's a total of [b]$6 TRILLION[/b] we've wasted bombing the everliving shit out of a bunch brown people half a world away that never did a goddamn thing to any one of us. Stop and think for a minute how much [b]$6 trillion[/b] would help our social safety net, our physical infrastructure (which is crumbling at a staggering rate BTW, and is an embarrassment considering this is supposedly the richest and most powerful country on earth) and our overall debt load. [b]Six trillion dollars[/b] pissed away while at the same time we reduce the overall revenue stream by giving tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires that rape our industrial base and ship our jobs overseas for the purpose of enriching themselves even more. Someone who makes $50,000 per year will contribute much more to the tax coffers than someone who makes $7.25 per hour. I'm not saying that funding SS and our other social safety nets is not important, nor am I saying that it should not be a concern regarding future funding and percentage of the overall budget. I'm saying that your focus is on the wrong thing in regard to WHY we don't have the money to fund these things. I'm really glad I don't have children, as this shit is going to cave in on itself, probably in my lifetime and most likely within a decade... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.