- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 96,116
- Reaction score
- 33,462
- Location
- SE Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Of course we reached our bounds, additional spending has not been approved.
Did you notice how the Earth continued spinning on its axis yesterday?
Yes, because we can play accounting tricks to hold off the disaster for a while.
I do, do you? It is funny how you pull this card when most conservatives state that you should run a country like you run a company.. if that is true, then you must also be able to run a failing country as a failing company no?
What accounting tricks?
What accounting tricks?
Not even close bud.
The US long term fiscal challenges lie simply in medicare, medicaid and social security.
Theres no hiding from that.
I'm as pro-military as the next guy but you can't claim that something which consumes over a third of the budget has nothing to do with the problem.
Please lay out your plan for cutting this much, all at once. In detail.
All areas of spending must be cut from. Nothing is sacrosanct anymore, not even the military.
Until we are willing to embrace that idea, then nothing will change.
You know, Canada's running surplus's now, maybe we can sell our allies a few carriers, missle frigates, maybe a nuke sub or two..??
Actually, I'm not kidding, why not sell some of our really cool military toys? We could have a huge yard sale, but only our friends and neighbors are invited.
Tim-
Not even close bud.
The US long term fiscal challenges lie simply in medicare, medicaid and social security.
Theres no hiding from that.
Not saying that we should, but one of the advantages of selling US military hardware is that it generates maintenance business we can further cash in on.
I know, right? Why not sell some of our goodies to places like Canada, Mexico, Europe? I'm sure Mexico could use some high tech gadgets to help them in their war on the drug lords?
Tim-
Why not tap the pensions? I didn't hear anyone complaining when SS was being tapped out.
The US government needs to file bankruptcy. You want to run the government like a company? That's what a company would do in this situation.
You know, Canada's running surplus's now, maybe we can sell our allies a few carriers, missle frigates, maybe a nuke sub or two..??
Actually, I'm not kidding, why not sell some of our really cool military toys? We could have a huge yard sale, but only our friends and neighbors are invited.
Tim-
Why not tap the pensions? I didn't hear anyone complaining when SS was being tapped out.
The US government needs to file bankruptcy. You want to run the government like a company? That's what a company would do in this situation.
As the military takes the largest piece of the pie you're saying continue spending that money on policing the world while Americans suffer? How generous of you.
I take it you haven't gotten the memo...
We're $14,000,000,000,000.00+ IN DEBT.
When you're borrowing, at $14,000,000,000,000.00+ In the hole, you most certainly CANNOT afford it.
Here's a hint: If you have to borrow in the TRILLIONS to fund spending, it means... GASP! You cannot afford it.
MrVicchio said:Yeah here's where you are in lala blind folder land. DOD spending is 16-20% of the budget. SS, Medicaide, Medicare are at 55-60% of the budget.
You do the math. Politically, you cannot, WILL NOT accept that social spending is what the problem is, so you pull out the old, tired, lame canard of "It's military spending!!!" when reality is clearly, otherwise. BOTH parties are guilty of not doing the right thing, which is to say "Hey, all these social programs... ya know the ones where we take your money and promise you things... well we lied!!! We've spending way more then we're taking in so you'll vote for us... our bad. Sorry old folks but your bribes for votes, we have to stop this before we're all ****ed".
Only in hyper-partisan land is 16-20% of the budget too much spending while 55-60% is A-OK
Kandahar is right, as far as discretionary spending goes the military is the biggest chunk.
Mandatory spending, which compromises Medicare and SS, would require major legislation action to change/cut.
A political but decent video explaining the difference.
I don't care what you call the spending Harry, discretionary or mandatory, we're 14,000,000,000,000.00 in debt. We cannot afford more Social Spending. We cannot afford current levels. If you took away all the military "discretionary" spending we'd still be forced to borrow to pay for the spending.
Period.
I don't care what you call the spending Harry, discretionary or mandatory, we're 14,000,000,000,000.00 in debt. We cannot afford more Social Spending. We cannot afford current levels. If you took away all the military "discretionary" spending we'd still be forced to borrow to pay for the spending.
Period.
Except it isn't a matter of semantics, it's a matter of law. If you just shriek "cut spending", that will completely IGNORE the entitlement programs and focus solely on discretionary spending, which isn't a problem and never has been (except for DoD). We need to fundamentally reform our entitlement programs - social security, Medicare, and Medicaid - and revise our tax code if we want to balance the budget. In order to do that, Congress needs to CHANGE the way those programs work. They can't just decide "We're going to cut 5% from social security this year." That isn't how entitlements work.
If you're interested in how those programs can be reformed, there are plenty of threads on the subject with lots of good ideas (and some bad ones). But none of those programs are the slightest bit relevant to the current sideshow in Congress over whether discretionary spending should be cut.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?