How Would you Actually Cut Spending?

[phattonez]

I'm not qualified to give you a truly comprehensive answer on any of those questions and there's probably no one who has the expertise to give a truly comprehensive area on all 3.

But, that said, we don't need redundant facilities and operations in the military.

Then name those.

We could save a boatload in healthcare by negotiating for lower drug costs and switching to a single payer system, abandoning Obamacare which virtually ignores the issue of rising costs, focusing only on access.

This is more specific.

Means testing means that if you have plenty of money you don't get to collect SS just because you're an old.

How do you do this? It sounds like you're just restricting benefits; is that what you're proposing?

 

[Philly Boss]

No I didn't say that I'm just pointing out that the biggest grown in the last 8 years has not been on constitutional spending but on expanding unconstitutional programs. Also love how no adresses my cuts

You said you would take back any suggested cut if it was constitutional. In other words, as long as spending fits your reading of the constitution you don't really want to cut anything.

 

[YoungConserv]

You said you would take back any suggested cut if it was constitutional. In other words, as long as spending fits your reading of the constitution you don't really want to cut anything.

Right but where is the authority for deficit spending.

 

[Philly Boss]

Right but where is the authority for deficit spending.

In the Constitution? Article 1

 

[Lutherf]

...and in local news from Las Vegas, the sequester is forcing closure of the Forest Ranger Star Gazing program at Red Rock Canyon.

This means we will never see the stars again. They will be removed from the Heavens. Oh, woe us us, woe is us.

Who needs the sky? Y'all have the Freemont Experience...and it even comes with cocktails!

 

[YoungConserv]

In the Constitution? Article 1

Really deficit spending outside of war is adresses in article one?

 

[Philly Boss]

Really deficit spending outside of war is adresses in article one?

Section 8



The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

 

[YoungConserv]

Section 8



The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

Fair enough but again I would argue that if we get to constitutional spending we won't have deficits but if they do we can deal with that then.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Cut ED? Is Erectile Dysfunction a Federally funded program? Given the age of those old codgers, I suppose it would be a popular boondoggle, but i just never assumed it would be.

Regarding actually reducing spending, yes, combine all duplicative programs and agencies. If there are 47 agencies to do the same thing, eliminate 46 and take a close look at the one that's left.

Then, stop the automatic increases that occur every year. Right now, there is a built in growth for inflation and just for fun. Take out the part that's just for fun. For salaries, take out the COLA. If we slow the rate of Growth to that rate of inflation, that corrects the problem in about 10 years.

Reducing the cost of Government is nothing more or less than running the place like a business and the problem is that the guys who authorize the spending have discovered that they can use our money to bribe us and are using more all the time.

We need to start using a system of representation like the Ancient Greeks used and get rid of the career politicians and then return most of the power to the states thereby diffusing the concentration of cash and the ability to bribe.

If we followed the Greek model there would be a election every year, and no one would have the proper expeirance to govern

 

[Philly Boss]

Fair enough but again I would argue that if we get to constitutional spending we won't have deficits but if they do we can deal with that then.

If we get to what you define as constitutional spending based on your reading of the constitution, we won't have deficits IF we have an equal or greater amount of revenue. The topic at hand isn't what programs you do or don't consider constitutional though.

 

[ChezC3]

A 33% cut to Defense.

Elimination of the Dept. of Commerce

Elimination of the TSA

A 50% cut to Homeland Security.(The idea of streamlining the various departments CIA NSA etc. is a good thing, but no additional funds outiside those respective departments should be given and you can always trim 20% off each of them as well)

Millions upon millions are spent getting these politicians elected for 150K and a 400K paying job. They'd still spend millions for 50K and 150K jobs. So that should be Congressonal and Presidential pay.

40% cut to Justice Dept.

(time constrains me from going further, more to come.)

 

[YoungConserv]

If we get to what you define as constitutional spending based on your reading of the constitution, we won't have deficits IF we have an equal or greater amount of revenue. The topic at hand isn't what programs you do or don't consider constitutional though.

Sure it is how can you have any conversation on federal spending with out establishing what they should be spending on.

 

[Philly Boss]

Sure it is how can you have any conversation on federal spending with out establishing what they should be spending on.

As a fiscal matter it doesn't make a difference when we're talking about deficit spending. All sending counts the same and whatever amount exceeds revenue is deficit spending, end of story. A dollar of "Unconstitutional" spending doesn't add more to the deficit than a dollar of "constitutional" spending. It's all the same, and to balance a budget a dollar saved from one place is the same as a dollar saved from the other, regardless of your opinion of whether or not it is constitutional.

 

[specklebang]

The Private Sector at it's very finest!

...and to think gambling used to be illegal

Who needs the sky? Y'all have the Freemont Experience...and it even comes with cocktails!

 

[YoungConserv]

As a fiscal matter it doesn't make a difference when we're talking about deficit spending. All sending counts the same and whatever amount exceeds revenue is deficit spending, end of story. A dollar of "Unconstitutional" spending doesn't add more to the deficit than a dollar of "constitutional" spending. It's all the same, and to balance a budget a dollar saved from one place is the same as a dollar saved from the other, regardless of your opinion of whether or not it is constitutional.

Agreed but there is a minimum amount of funding that is required for what government must do everything else that's negotiable.

 

[code1211]

You really think that axing automatic spending increases fixes the problem?

Yes. It's called "Baseline Budgeting".

It's still another scam foisted upon us by our lying thieves in Washington.

Even the guys who claim that they detest overspending like this swindle and vote for it year after year.

There is no reason to assume that all spending from the previous year is justified.

Go back the ridiculous high levels of any year and call THAT the baseline and freeze it. Freeze all wages and freeze all departmental allocations. Put hard ceilings on the spending for every department and let it be known that any manager that cannot run his department on budget is out. Then fire every manager who can't make his budget work.

This is the way a business works. Intelligent projections within a plan and responsible execution of the plan.

The lying thieves in Washington have no plan, no projection, no responsibility and no good results. The only things they are there to do is steal from us and to get re-elected to continue the the theft.

 

[code1211]

Yes, actually it is. Veterans who suffer from ED get prescribed Cialis or Viagra. Look it up.

I feel that this is a wise expenditure of money on a personal level. However, this is nothing more than entertainment. Do we also pay for their TV's, premium movie packages and greens fees?

*sigh*

 

[molten_dragon]

Most of what I hear from people is that they want cuts. Can they ever specify it? Of course not, they just think that we spend too much. If we had good politicians, they say, they would cut the corruption and the system would work fine. Well, we've been waiting decades for that. It's not going to happen. So tell me, how would you cut spending? Be specific!

The major things that would have to be cut are defense spending, medicare, and social security. Those make up the majority of the budget, so if you aren't cutting those, you aren't really getting anywhere.

For social security, I'd just start raising the retirement age for benefits. Get rid of early retirement, and start raising the retirement age by a year every 5 years, starting in 5 years. So if you've got less than 5 years til retirement, nothing changes. 6-10 years, add a year on, 11-15 years, add 2 years on, etc. Keep doing this until the retirement age is just a couple years younger than the average life expectancy. People shouldn't expect to retire for more than a decade on the government's dime.

For military spending, I'd bring home the majority of troops that are operating outside the US. Keep some foreign bases open, but with skeleton crews. Just enough people to keep them from falling into disrepair. Quit playing world police, and we could save a ton of money.

Medicare, I'm not so sure what to do about. I'm not sure I would do anything, but I'm in favor of single-payer healthcare too.

Just cutting social security and military spending could save a lot of money, but it wouldn't be a fast process.

If more savings were needed, I'd say cut everything else equally. Across the board. Every year, everyone gets 1% less than the year before, until it's at a reasonable figure.

 

[code1211]

If we followed the Greek model there would be a election every year, and no one would have the proper expeirance to govern

In our system, "the proper experience to govern" is changed to read "the knowledge and ability to game the system so a congressman who worked for the government his whole life elected by Texans retired owning half the state with a space center named after him".

What's wrong with this picture?

Also, the Greeks, actually the Athenians, were not so much elected as they were rotated in on an annual basis. Through a guy's life, he could serve numerous times and that service was regarded then as we regard service in the military today. It was a needed and necessary fulfillment of a commitment taken on with gravity, seriousness and pride.

The top guys were elected, but the City Council types were just on a schedule to serve.

 

[a351]

Baseline budgeting hardly hijacks the budget process in favor of automation as claimed. It's simply used to form projections of future funding needs. Overall appropriations generally increase year over year by virtue of gains in both population and inflation. (serving the needs of the former and seeking to keep pace with both).

 

[code1211]

Baseline budgeting hardly hijacks the budget process in favor of automation as claimed. It's simply used to form projections of future funding needs. Overall, appropriations generally increase year over year by virtue of gains in both population and inflation. (serving the needs of the former and seeking to keep pace with both).

That SOUNDS so elegant fair and intelligent.

The spending since the year 2000 for the Feds has doubled.

What you said that sounds logical, and what has happened which is insane, do not match up.

 

[a351]

That SOUNDS so elegant fair and intelligent.

The spending since the year 2000 for the Feds has doubled.

What you said that sounds logical, and what has happened which is insane, do not match up.

Thanks!

Nope. In real terms, spending has increased from 2 trillion to roughly 3.1 trillion in said time period.

Not exactly a mystery why said insanity occurred. Federal spending patterns prior to the economic downturn were quite reasonable. Unfortunately, the events that directly followed didn't allow for that trajectory to continue. Quite a few years down the road remain before we sniff that territory again.

 

[Maenad]

I feel that this is a wise expenditure of money on a personal level. However, this is nothing more than entertainment. Do we also pay for their TV's, premium movie packages and greens fees?

*sigh*

Actually, I have no problem paying for the veterans' Viagra. (I was just making the point that we do as you suggested otherwise.) Many suffer PTSD and the meds for that cause ED. Also, just being deployed and nothing more can cause it as well. Most who have been deployed do get some type of pension. Here in KY, sadly, we don't expect much out of life. Many, though, are using their GI Bill to go to school. But many just want that little pension, and and old trailer on a little plot of land where they cans it and smoke the rest of their lives. No ambition. Which is very sad. I wish I could want more for them. I wish I could have wanted more for myself. But being from here, I didn't know all there was to want, as they don't. I got everything I wanted including the doctorate nd 6 figure salary. If I had known that would happen, I would have wanted more. I wish they would as well.

 

[YoungConserv]

Baseline budgeting hardly hijacks the budget process in favor of automation as claimed. It's simply used to form projections of future funding needs. Overall appropriations generally increase year over year by virtue of gains in both population and inflation. (serving the needs of the former and seeking to keep pace with both).

It hijacks the budget process when it's used for the cuts. When you do cuts to proposed spending what ends up happening is people just propose more than the need and count that diffrence as savings. For example if I said I was gonna give you $150 but then only gave you$125 would you say you lost $25 or gained $125?

 

[LowDown]

Most of what I hear from people is that they want cuts. Can they ever specify it? Of course not, they just think that we spend too much. If we had good politicians, they say, they would cut the corruption and the system would work fine. Well, we've been waiting decades for that. It's not going to happen. So tell me, how would you cut spending? Be specific! I don't think I need to go into too much detail about what I would like to see. I would cut all entitlement programs and suspend all future payments. I would cut the military budget about 99% and use the military exclusively for defense and minimize or eliminate any standing army. The rest is negligible compared to these, but I would cut DOE, DOA, NIH, NSF, and all the rest. There are too many to specify. So since you're not as radical as I am, how would you do it?

Cutting the agencies would be a good start, but that would not be enough. Follow it up with an increase in the retirement age plus some means testing for Social Security. After that put Welfare, Food Stamps, Social Security and Medicare on a revenue share basis. In other words, those programs get a fixed share of federal revenues every year and no more. Whatever they get is used to pay their obligations. That will put tremendous pressure on officials to stop handing out SSI to every lazy jerk who complains of headaches or back pain, for example. Also, any proposal to increase benefits automatically becomes a conversation about increasing taxes.