Should Republican House members be called out for their blatant scare tactics shown by the new proposed budget cuts?

The gov. adds 4 billion dollars a day to the national debt. Until we make some kind of cuts that stop the 4 billion dollars a day, we are screwed. Republicans have no true plan and neither do the Dems. The 4 billion a day,by the way, is the interest accrued from the money we already owe. Both parties should be ashamed.

@Russell_D_SpacePoet – that’s part of why I’m really pissed about this – it’s during the SOTU, so they can criticize with their new plan, it’s clearly not thought through, as it just cuts entire sectors that are stereotypically conservative targets, without thought to the effects, and it’s clearly not going to be taken seriously…it’s like they are trying to say “look, we’re really really trying” to their constituents, so when it gets kicked back, they can yell “Oh, Obama and the Dems aren’t willing to do what needs to be done!”

They’re shirking they’re responsibility to think about the problem because, I think, they can just blame Obama for holding them back.

I’m getting ranty…I’m going to let the thread progress a little before I step back in…

Hasn’t politics always been more about symbolism than action? Everyone wants to get reelected and that means pandering to their votes. What if there were some national Congressional candidates? Say 100 would have to appeal to a national audience and the rest would be from local districts. What would that do to the atmosphere in Washington?

I don’t know. It’s hard to work up any anger about this. It’s just normal behavior. The voters don’t punish it, as far as I can tell, so it’s just going to continue to give us fodder for outrage.

As much as I agree that DoD expenditures are ripe for cuts – massive cuts – at least “defense” is one sector of the government that is legitimate. I don’t see why we have any government spending for “the arts” (as much as I love the arts) at all. Ditto education and science, as a matter of fact.

@WasCy

If there’s anything that we should be spending money on, really – it’s education and science. With an outsourcing of production, we want to take the downtime of a recession to prep for innovation, creation, etc.

The last thing we need is more stupid people in this country.

The Republicans are simply doing what the people want. In my humble opinion, we should recall virtually all troops from overseas and determine how much funding we can cut from the military overall. It’s time the freeloaders in other countries started defending themselves!

Should Democrat House members be called out for their blatant race-mongering?

@iamthemob We pour oodles of cash into the school systems as it is, and it’s not helping. This is because the problem lies not in funding, but in philosophy. There seems to be a wrong-headed idea that we ought to lower the bar so that everybody can graduate on the first go, and it’s not working.

@Nullo

Exactly! GREAT answer! : )

14 minutes and one-and-a-half responses in the meantime so far – so much for ‘stepping back for a bit’

There are several times in each Congress when “posturing and grandstanding” is the order of the day. The State of the Union is one of those times. The President gets to trot out his wish list for the coming year, and the opposition party gets to say why that wish list will be the death of us all.

Election time, of course, is the other time for that. The beauty of the SOTU address is that it’s a single day, with a week or so of buildup to it (will he say this? will he say that? how will the other side respond?) and a couple of days of post mortem, and then it’s all (thankfully) over.

I think this is all show while America is coming to the end of its history as we know it. I think it has been planned for a long time for the economy to collapse and instigate a World Order. I have worked for the Air Force for many years and the funding should be called Fraud, Abuse and Waste (FAW). When the Federal Reserve was brought into America the plan was way on its way to success. You will see lots of information in the next while about bringing the World together and become united as a world order.

@WasCy

By God, they better HANDN’T be “grandstanding!” They were sent into office with a mandate to STOP spending. If they conveniently “forget” this, I will personally go to DC with a ROPE! Grrrrr!

DISCLAIMER: This is overstatment. Hyperbola for the sake of emphasis.

You need to look at the bright side, the positive side of it all:
China will become the world leader in science and technology.
I for one welcome your chinese overlords.

No serious change to addressing the deficit/debt problem can exclude significant reform to Medicare, SS, and DoD. I think the rest of the budget is 16%. This is largely a symbolic, toothless gesture IMO.

@iamthemob You mentioned SS. You realize SS is less than 1% of our US budget? I think there are other areas they could cut from.

@Russell_D_SpacePoet Social Security is over 20% of the budget. I think you have a misunderstanding. Otherwise please link where you got that info.

TL;DR

I think bullshit should always be called out regardless of the source :P

I will say that the bullshit from the GOP is often more blatant, often to the point where no sane, intelligent person could believe the stuff coming out of their mouths, but the fact that the Dems are more plausible (and actually have math skills) doesn’t mean that they are any less full of shit.

The difference is that one pile of shit is served with grilled onions and a side order of Freedom Fries while the other is covered in whipped cream with a cherry on top.

and don’t let the president talk to your kids

If the President asked to talk to me in private, I would demand at least five friends accompany me! : D

He’d still beat you in hoops

Hmmm! Maybe, maybe not. You nevah know! : D

You’re a baller? Nice.

I think it is pretty obvious by now to most voters that anything that the Republicans say is baseless bullshit. It’s pretty much the same with the Democrats. There is a growing awareness in this country that the Left-Right struggle is nothing more than a side show to keep the voter busy while the corporate whores in congress serve only their paymasters. It is becoming increasingly apparent to many that the problems that the Left and the Right complain about are one and the same, the only real argument is about the cause of these problems—is it our Government that is the problem, or is it the Corporations that have come to dominate it?

It is imperative that the majority of Americans never come to the realization that their representatives in Congress work in the interests of Corporations, spending the American treasury on profitable wars rather than non-profitable infrastructure, healthcare, education, or any other form of tax return. And to prevent this awareness, a whole industry of Left vs. Right has been encouraged and supported by said corporations—from paying the high salaries of Rightwing talk show hosts, blatant corporate support of astroturfing and propaganda-spewing “grassroots” organizations, even dictating daily talking points to major media outlets such as FOX News—all to keep us divided, occupied while our elected representatives give our national wealth and freedom away to the same corporations who pay for their campaigns, smother them in seductive lobbying, and arrange comfy sinecures for the more cooperative whores after their terms of “service“ are concluded.

Why haven’t the Democrats been able to pass through their professed social programs when they’ve had the chance?

Why, with all the talk of budget cuts, has not one of them ever seriously tabled the one great drain on our economy—the two on-going wars and the 173 off-shore military bases we taxpayers are expected to support without question?

Why, whenever there is a successful drive to replace incumbents in Washington, nothing ever really changes?

The answer to all of these questions is that there is in effect only one political party in the US, that the democracy is a sham and that in order for a candidate to get to Washington, they either must sell out to the corporatocracy or be left in the dust of the campaign trail. It is this realization which must be prevented from coming to light, because if it did, we Americans would finally understand what the real problem is and have a fighting chance at actually wresting our democracy back from the corporations who for years have run roughshod over it.

The guy who gave the Republican Response to the State of the Union speech tonight, Paul Ryan, is now Chairman of the House Budget Committee. His plan for balancing the budget includes eliminating Social Security for all who are under 55 now, and eliminating Medicare by replacing it with vouchers for elderly people to use to buy insurance from private, for profit health insurers. The Republicans in the House have voted to allow Ryan the power to decide what spending measures do and don’t come before his committee. So they have ceded to him the power to kill Social Security and Medicare singlehandedly if he wishes, and he does wish. I think we better get that message out before it’s a done deal.

Anyone who is over 65 and has tried to buy private health insurance knows that a government voucher sufficient to get a policy would be so expensive it would almost instantly bankrupt the government. And most seniors have so many preexisting conditions they would not be able to buy insurance at any price. Remember, the Republicans plan to defund the Healthcare Reform that stopped insurers from such discrimination. And again, Paul Ryan can do that all by his lonesome. No votes required or even allowed.

@ETpro Is this a new position? Is his committee all Republicans? This sounds a bit fantastic, you’ll have to forgive me for being dubious that we are all in sudden danger of draconian changes to our entitlement programs. Do you have some good info about this? It’s tough to swallow somehow one guy got that kind of power.

Those programs are definitely in need of reform if they are to remain solvent though.

@ETpro Considering that they support “horse and sparrow” economics (”...if you let horses gorge on oats, some of that grain will pass through their systems and be deposited on the ground for the sparrows to enjoy.”) and they are continuing to try cutting off healthcare to those who need it most (the poor and the elderly).
That basically means that the GOP is now the “Eat shit and die!” party!

Seriously though, both sides have agendas and the the GOP has made it abundantly clear that their agenda involves helping the economy at any/all costs. Now, I don’t think that they are actually heartless; many of them honestly believe that a strong economy will cure cancer and remove wine stains, so they will use any means necessary in order to do the right thing to help the Average American… according to their definition of “right” and “help”.

On the other hand, we would see exactly the opposite if the Dems were in control. Despite a couple of years of having both majorities on sides of Congress and the White House, they are (as is usual for them) chaotic and disorganized to the point where you can’t say that they ever had control over anything. You would see military cuts that would gut national defense and spending would be wildly excessive, and it would probably gain support by the same means; fear. Fear of growing old without medical care. Fear of being homeless, jobless, and penniless.

No matter what side of the aisle they are on, they are still politicians.

@cockswain
Please, Social Security is not an “entitlement program”. It’s an insurance program, like workmen’s comp is an insurance program that we have all paid into and, under the terms of contract, all have a right to receive benifits when needed. To call it an entitlement program falls right into republicanspeak calculated to make it sound like some government freebee and so much easier to kill without taking resonsibility for the resultant damage to the Americans who have paid into it all their lives.

It looks like a good list to me. Unfortunately it’s only a starting point. Dense should kick in at least another $100 billion ($1 trillion over 10 years). Social security and medicare both need some work. If you heard Ryan’s speech he does not intend to affect anyone on SS or nearing it. Frankly I think we could do a lot in SS by just getting rid of the fraud and abuse.

Democrats have been screaming that no has a plan to reduce spending. As soon as any plan is submitted, they immediately scream it’s unworkable. So if you don’t think this is a good one create another with all your pet projects on the chopping block. Hell, let’s make sure everything is up for review. As soon as you begin with all your untouchable projects, nothing gets cut. If you don’t believe the debt is a problem say that instead of all this garbage about what can’t be touched.

Soprry dense S/B defense

@Espiritus_Corvus It is generally regarded as an entitlement program. I’m just using the common language. But your point is understood.

@Espiritus_Corvus

Whereas I totally agree with you about SS, if you look back at the governments argument before the Supreme Court, they argued it was a tax. They have also treated it as a tax, lo these many years.

@Jaxk Well, I disagree with SCOTUS and I think Americans would disagree with that SCOTUS decision, but they’re all too busy watching TV.

@cockswain
I appologise, you’re right, SSI is an entitlement program in its truest sense—we’ve all paid into it and therefore are entitled to the benifits.

Drat! Tripped up by republicanspeak again! In republicanspeak sense, hoowver, I think a good example of an entitlement program will be the health benefits and pension Mr. Ryan will receive after he leaves his elected position. We might revisit those entitlements as taxpayers. How few years do our congressional reps have to serve to get these bennies?

WASHINGTON – This evening, Libertarian Party Executive Director Wes Benedict spoke in response to the addresses from President Barack Obama and Congressman Paul Ryan.

Mr. Benedict’s speech may be viewed online here.

A transcript of Mr. Benedict’s speech follows:

Good evening and thank you for your interest in the State of our Union.

My name is Wes Benedict. I’m the executive director of the Libertarian National Committee here in Washington, DC. The Libertarian Party stands for free markets, civil liberties, and peace.

Tonight we heard from President Barack Obama and a response from Republican Congressman Paul Ryan.

President Obama says he wants a freeze in non-security, discretionary spending. In the unlikely event that happens, it won’t really matter, because to make a real dent in the deficit, it’s necessary to cut spending on the military and entitlements. The president promised big government in the past, and he delivered. I expect more of the same.

However, Obama has truly been a hypocrite on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. As a candidate, he promised to end them. Tonight we heard more hollow promises. The fact is, as president, he has kept those wars going, and has greatly escalated the war in Afghanistan. As a percentage of GDP, military spending is higher now than it was during any year of the George W. Bush administration.

Unlike President Obama, Libertarians would bring our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan, and reduce the military budget.

On the Republican side, I found Congressman Paul Ryan’s hypocrisy appalling. He claims to want big cuts in government spending. But he didn’t seem to be too worried about cutting spending when Republicans were in charge. He supported the huge Medicare expansion in 2003, and the expensive No Child Left Behind Act in 2001. He supports the expensive War on Drugs. In 2008, he put hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars at risk by voting for the massive TARP bailout, and he even voted to spend billions on the GM and Chrysler bailout.

Just one month ago, Congressman Ryan voted for the tax compromise that included a big increase in unemployment spending, and even extensions of government spending on ethanol.

Republicans don’t want to cut spending—they want to talk about cutting spending.

Congressman Paul Ryan is a perfect example of why Republicans are bad for America.

Republicans’ plans for Social Security and Medicare are little more than a distraction. It’s time for someone to have the guts to tell seniors the truth: You were promised way too much, and now we’ve got to make major cuts. I’m asking retirees to think about the enormous debts piling up on your children and grandchildren.

Libertarians would stop spending billions on bailouts, the War on Drugs, federal education programs, and we would end mandatory Social Security and Medicare.

Today, America is a country that attracts hardworking immigrants from Mexico and around the world, leaving countries that are less free and prosperous. Libertarians welcome these immigrants warmly. But I often wonder if—in 20 years—America will still be a great place to live, or if it will be another declining civilization fraught with poverty and abuse that your children want to leave.

The future of America may depend on the Libertarian Party steering us towards liberty and away from tyranny.

The Libertarian Party is America’s third-largest party, and one of the most successful alternative parties in American history.

We are recruiting bold, principled men and women dedicated to freedom to fill leadership positions and to run for office as Libertarians.

You don’t have to agree with every single Libertarian position to join the Libertarian Party. You can still make a difference and help us move our country towards freedom.

The Libertarian Party has more information at our website, LP.org. Please visit LP.org and join the Libertarian Party today.

Thank you and good night.

@cockswain Here is info on the U.S. House Committee on the Budget which Rep. Paul Ryan now chairs. It is up to each house to set new rules at the beginning of a new Congress, and these rules include whether a committee chair has total, partial or no control over what the committee reviews. The Republicans decided Ryan should have complete control. Here is his Roadmap.

Coupled with his tax proposals, this is the Corporatocracy that @Espiritus_Corvus warns of on steroids. The tax policy in his Roadmap is an absolute wet dream for the nation’s billionaires, who obviously need a great deal of government assistance. Why else would they be buying whores Congressmen like Ryan to give more to them? I mean, buying Congress isn’t cheap, these days.

@CaptainHarley Rock on!

@Jaxk “Democrats have been screaming that no has a plan to reduce spending. As soon as any plan is submitted, they immediately scream it’s unworkable.”
While I think we both agree that not reducing spending is bad, I think we can also agree that over-compensating, knee-jerk reactions, and pendulum swings aren’t good either. Plus, the GOP doesn’t exactly have a stellar track record.
So tell me, if you had a choice between getting boned, screwed, or totally fucked (with no other options) which would you choose?

@Espiritus_Corvus GREAT insights into what is really going on. All of this division and fighting among Americans has been very well structured and planned. We as Americans need to stop the fighting and come together and not as any party. We are the people and it is the people who can have the power but it takes knowledge of what is really going on inside the closed doors of the government. Within the large money making corps and families lies the truth to what is happening and it has been planned for a long time. Look at the Federal Reserve and what it is about. We no longer have anything to back the value of the Dollar. Where do you think we owe the deficit too?

@Summum
Ah, the Federal Reserve…

That brings to mind more questions that I should have included in that post.

Why haven’t the Republicans over the years ever really decreased spending or the size of government when they had the chance?

Why did all of Congress, liberals and conservatives alike, so easily cast us into these wars with almost no dissention?

Why did our representatives on both sides of the aisle willingly empty our treasury into the coffers of the world’s largest investment banks and insurance companies over one weekend without even reading the bailout legislation? And why did they agree to give these billions of our tax money away with no strings attached and no demands for on-going auditing?

Why is there no real interest in Congress to audit the Federal Reserve?

Why did Congress gut the health care bill of “single payer” from the very beginning, then pass a substandard health care bill that still allows insurance corporations to drain off government funds as middlemen?

Why don’t our Congressional representatives bother to even read the bills that they vote on? Isn’t that why we tax payers pay for their Congressional staff? Is it possibly because their votes are a foregone conclusion before the bills are even written?

Why do our Congressional representatives allow corporate lobbyists to actually WRITE the bills that they vote on? Isn’t that also why we tax payers pay for their Congressional staff?

Why when it is time to make cuts in expenditures of our tax money, is it always the social programs—the ones that benefit the actual taxpayer—that go on the chopping block first and never those programs that benefit the corporations and their major stockholders?

In who’s interests is Congress really working?

It’s pretty bloody fucking obvious at this point.

The real question is; How do we get our Democracy back?
What kind of campaign reform do Americans need to be formulating?
What do we do about the system of rampant bribery that we refer to as Lobbying?

Any ideas?

@Espiritus_Corvus Great insight and ones I share. I think it is time to clean it all out and start over. There is an example of this happening before and a Captain went in and wiped out the government and started new. Maybe it is time?

@jerv

Frankly, I don’t choose any of them. We have a problem. You can either address it or ignore. It won’t go away on it’s own. Obama increased the budget by 30% in his first year and it continues to escalate from there. We heard his speech and basically his plan is to spend more but we’ll call it investment this time. His first year he put out his stimulus to build infrastructure. Now he says we need to build infrastructure. His first year, he put out his stimulus to spend on education. Now he says we need to spend more on education. His stimulus was to invest in green technologies. Now he wants it again. Basically continue spending exactly as he has been doing. If you think that will work, if we do it enough times, then continue to support this absurdity. Throwing money at a problem has never worked, but that’s what he wants to continue doing. And if you look at this list presented most of that doesn’t even go to the points Obama keeps carping on.

So continue to complain that things are bad. Continue to support the policies that are holding us back. Continue to call everybody (as many other on this thread want to do) names that comes up with any possible solution. But whatever you do, don’t try to fix the problem. Because that will only draw the ire of all the left wing hypocrites and put you in jeopardy of their ridicule.

The only problem with the proposal here is that it doesn’t go near far enough.

So continue to complain that things are bad. Continue to support the policies that are holding us back. Continue to call everybody (as many other on this thread want to do) names that comes up with any possible solution. But whatever you do, don’t try to fix the problem. Because that will only draw the ire of all the left wing hypocrites and put you in jeopardy of their ridicule.

What the hell are you talking about?

@cockswain

Go back and read this thread again. I picked on @jerv and maybe I should have listed a lot more names. All I see is a continuous stream of name calling and insidious remarks about the budget cuts. Not one comment about cutting anything other than some nebulous mention of defense. Everyone wants to complain about corporations, congressmen, republicans, but not one mention of what could be good. What might solve the problem even in a general sense. If all we can do is complain that we’re a victim, then we will continue to be victims.

@Jaxk The reality is that discretionary spending in now just 12% of the Federal Buidget, and a good bit of that represents things we actually need the Federal Government to do. But even if we shut down ALL if the Federal Government outside of Defense and Entitlements, and if the revenues still magically showed up with no IRS or regulatory agencies to collect them, we still would be writing red ink ever year.

So the argument comes down to whether we balance the budget primarily on the backs of the poor and the elderly, or whether the rich and the corporatists carry some of the load. That kind of an argument raises emotions. And the talking points Republicans have been using of late to argue that the poor should carry all the load is enough to make for heated rebuttals.

@Jaxk But when the same attitude is applied to things that the Republicans want cut or expanded, everything is fine? Sorry, not buying that. If you think that pouring gas on the fire will put it out then go with the GOP. But you and I have had enough squabbles over that in the past that, for brevity’s sake, I won’t go any further in that vein.

Just out of curiosity, how can anybody in their right mind support the policies that got us into this mess or made it worse, and why is it okay to victimize the poor and elderly while the rich are sacrosanct?

I think one thing that would help solve this would be if we removed all of the ideologues and replaced them with Congress-critters that wanted a balanced budget that didn’t throw anybody under the bus, though that would require dismantling our two-party system and a little cultural adjustment, so I don’t are that happening anytime soon.

@ETpro

Those are cute words but they don’t get you anywhere. There’s a hell of a lot of spending besides discretionary. Discretionary merely means congress does not have to appropriate the funds. Such as the benefits packages for all the government employees. And a lot of actual salaries. Take a closer look at what discretionary means.

As far as your comment on balancing the budget on the backs of the poor, it is a ridiculous statement. The poor don’t support government they don’t even pay federal taxes. That may be cute bumper sticker but save it for the butt of your car.

@jerv

Exactly what policies do you think got us into this recession? Remember democrats controlled congress for a year and a half before the recession started. The democratic congress added $6 trillion to the debt. We need some serious discussions on how to solve our problems and these wild accusations don’t help nor do they provide any food for thought.

And this is the one I love.

“I think one thing that would help solve this would be if we removed all of the ideologues and replaced them with Congress-critters that wanted a balanced budget that didn’t throw anybody under the bus”

So you want a balanced budget without making any cuts. Get real!

@Jaxk When did I say I wanted a balanced budget without making cuts? Please don’t put words into my mouth. The only way that statement makes sense to me is if you are opposed to trimming fat and actually support waste, and I know you don’t.
Diplomacy is often defined as, “The art of ensuring that all sides are equally pissed off”. Are you telling me that there is no possible balanced budget that fits that criteria? We both know that there is no way that everyone will be happy, but why does it always have to be whatever the majority party wants with little/no compromise?
Also, sometimes I get the feeling that politicians on both sides act like they are playing with Monopoly money, especially a many seem out of touch with how people poorer than they have ever been in their lives (a.k.a. “the average American”) is affected by their actions. This isn’t a game, folks, so stop acting like it is!

I don’t think a year and a half is enough to set this sort of thing up, and there was a time when the GOP actually have a shit about something other than pursuing on Democrats. But I think you missed my real point there, and I am not in the mod to spell it out for you. Take that as a sign of respect; I think you are smart enough to figure out what my point is, at least if you take a minute.

Exactly what policies do you think got us into this recession?

The unregulated derivatives market. There were apparently ~$600–700 TRILLION in mortgage backed derivatives in an unregulated market. Brooksley Born, who headed a small gov’t regulatory agency, warned of this, but Greenspan, Summers, and Rubin fought her quest to shed light on that market tooth and nail in the 90s. The economy was booming, Congress took the advice of Greenspan and friends, Born was ignored. When the recession hit, Greenspan admitted he was wrong.

There’s a fascinating Frontline documentary about this called The Warning. I’ve seen three other documentaries about the recession that support the notion that the unregulated derivatives market was to blame.

I know it’s off topic, but the “policies that caused it” can’t really be blamed on a political party. Hell, my wife’s uncle is conservative DC banker and he was explaining why the crisis was caused by Carter administration policies. It can’t be blamed on Clinton, Bush, or Obama.

Back more to the topic about cuts, I had a simple thought about this while driving to work. There is unquestionably redundancy and waste in state and federal programs. When budgets are tightened, people can become very good at eliminating waste. Not sure if any of you guys are familiar with the Lean Manufacturing or Six Sigma manufacturing practices, but companies like Toyota and GE have tremendously streamlined their processes by adhering to these principles. One such principle is to identify and eliminate ‘waste’, which could be waste in processes, resources, etc..

Now I don’t know the right way to do this, but if certain departments with clearly identifiable waste had their budgets significantly reduced, if properly trimmed, the department may still maintain roughly the same output but cost significantly less.

I don’t know, just an idea.

@cockswain I concur. If the government was as lean and mean as my for-profit machine shop that, unlike government, has to solve problems with brains instead of bucks, we would have far fewer problems.

Cruiser linked this Republican study on this thread. Admittedly I never finished reading it, so didn’t ever get back to discussing it there like I intended to, but it identifies redundancies. Might be worth revisiting as many of us were on that thread.

@jerv

When you say you want a balanced budget without throwing anyone under the bus. Any budget cut will draw screams of anguish from someone. Although I can’t for the life of me understand how people justify the federal government supporting the arts. Yet they scream nonetheless. We are racking up $1.5 trillion a year in debt. That won’t be fixed without some pain. If you want a balanced budget without pain you need to consider the tooth fairy or maybe Santa Claus. Because that’s the only place where the money seems to come without affecting anybody.

For the past 2 years we have seen absolutely NO compromise. I can’t remember any major bill that ever passed congress without some bipartisan support until these past two years. The democrats actually LOCKED the frigging door so that republicans could not only not participate but couldn’t even know what was being proposed. That’s what Democrats consider compromise.

To be honest, I’m not sure what what your real point is. Other than dumping on Republicans, I don’t see much in the way of suggesting anything to help. And after 2 years of total control, it’s time the Democrats take some responsibility for their actions. And after spending $2 trillion on the agenda, it’s not reasonable to say, OK now you’ve got to compromise on the rest of our spending agenda. Show me where the Democrats have proposed anything to cut the budget.

@cockswain

Your point is well taken. The redundancies in government are out of control. I would give Obama credit for his Salmon comments but what is amazing is that those agencies are all under his direct control. If he thought there was a problem he could fix it. He doesn’t need congress to do that.

The most obvious redundancy I see, is the overlap of education. The education system is designed to be a state responsibility. What the hell is the DoE doing besides creating regulation and increasing costs. Our education system has been declining for 30 years. Not surprisingly, the DoE was created 30 years ago. We have student loans administered by over 100 different agencies. All with thier own criteria and processes. There is no way that can be efficient and it is ripe for fraud.

But, if we expect any cuts as you suggest, get rid of duplicate processes or redundant agencies, you will hear screams of anguish that we are cutting essential services and putting government workers out of work. It’s a tough nut to crack and frankly I don’t see it happening without a fight (can I still say that).

@Jaxk I don’t have much time for a full reply right now, but since you don’t seem to get it, I will say outright that I am not impressed with what has happened over the last couple of years either, but that doesn’t mean that the Republicans are better. Just allow for the possibility that neither party has got it right and then you and I will get along just fine.
Also, pain should be distributed equally; no free rides.

@jerv

OK, I think we can agree on that. I will however submit one thing that makes me disagree with you generally. Republicans have not acted as conservatives for quite some time. Extravagant spending, poorly crafted legislation, etc. However they are now, at least saying they want to pull back. Whether we can believe them is anybody’s guess. But I know for sure when the Democrats say they will continue spending, you can take that to the bank.

My only agreement with Republicans, is that they are at least saying the right things. Democrats are still saying the wrong things. And there are a lot of fresh new faces in congress. Maybe some of them actually believe it’s time to get serious. Until proven otherwise, I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt.

@Jaxk As usual, we are closer in opinion than you think.
Regardless of whether Republicans are acting as Conservatives or not, the fact remains that they are the only thing keeping the Democrats from having >98% control of Congress, and history shows that they have screwed up enough that they really can’t be seen as being much better (if any).

I am too cynical to give much benefit of a doubt to any politician, regardless of affiliation :p

Ah, cynics, I love them.

@Jaxk I suspect you know very well what I mean by discretionary spending, as it a widely used term. By rights, all defense in included in it if you go by the dictionary definition of the word, discretionary. But in practice, defense spending is left out of discretionary—probably because the never touch defense mantra is so powerful in politics today. Defense can only be increased. Cutting it is touching another of those infamous third rails of politics. And when we leave out defense, plus long-term authorizations such as Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, etc.; the stuff left to cut is 12% of the total Federal Budget and cutting all 12% out would still not balance the budget. We cannot balance the budget without cutting either in defense or entitlements, or by increasing revenues.

@ETpro And cutting taxes won’t necessarily increase revenue either. Sure, sometimes it works, but the sweet spot on the Laffer Curve seems to be a moving target. Then again, raising taxes is never an option either :/

Defense is sacrosanct and the items you list as “discretionary” are not enough, so that means that we must dip into the sort of things that cutting will directly hurt (or even kill!) people, but doing so would be political suicide for a Democrat to even think of agreeing to. By the same token, even if we could get the same amount and quality of defense for one-tenth the price, we still would not cut spending there… though some contractors would see record profits.

FYI, the historical party split in Congress compared to the party in the White House and the policies enacted and all pretty much preclude laying the blame on either party.
I mean, Clinton did what he did with a mostly GOP Congress, so there must have been some GOP support of any of his policies. Of the past 15 Congresses, 9 Senates have had GOP majorities while the House has been a bit odd in that it was Dems for Reagan and Bush-41, and GOP for most of Clinton and Bush-43 as well as the second half of Obama’s first term.

Also bear in mind that Obama was left with a hot potato. He wasn’t in office long enough to even adjust the chair before the shit hit the fan. Whether he handled/is handling the after-effects properly is another matter for another time/place, but suffice it to say that he inherited a clusterfuck when he got inaugurated. And whether it was caused by Clinton, the Bushes, Reagan, Carter, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster is irrelevant; we are hip-deep in shit now.

So how about if we take the political affiliation out and get back to the original question which is basically whether a political entity should get the bullshit flag waved when they get dirty, deceitful, and dishonest. (In other words, when they act like politicians!)

@ETpro

Not trying to be a shit here but actually I don’t know what you mean. Most of the Rhetoric I hear from conservatives is that everything should be on the table. That means Defense, SS Medicare, everything. It doesn’t mean that we should cut everything, only that we should look at everything.

Obama made one comment in his SOTU speech that was music to my ears. He talked about streaming the various agencies to eliminate redundancy (his salmon comments). The problem is I don’t believe he will do it. I think there is enough waste in the overlapping responsibilities all all the government agencies to fix our deficit or come damned close. And it cuts across all government spending discretionary or not. Since Obama has been in office he has created hundreds of new agencies, hell, the health care bill alone creates a hundred new agencies. So what are the odds he’ll do it.

Education is another crazy issue. We spend more money per student than any country in the world and get worse results. But you can’t discuss anything rational about education because the emotional response is we need to spend more to fix. Hogwash. We need to get the federal government out of the way so that we can fix it. The DoE creates bureaucracy and sends money to the states to pay for it. Education doesn’t improve but the cost of education goes up If you get rid of the incredible regulatory burden imposed bu the federal government you can get rid of the excessive bureaucracy and the states won’t need the fed money and can actually put thier money into the classroom.

There are so many examples of government doing the wrong things that they simply can’t be listed here. And the problem becomes overwhelming because the government is so large. Billions get lost in the detail that is hidden within these categories. Cutting the budget doesn’t have to mean cutting services but any meaningful budget reform has got to at least look at what services we need and what are simply redundant and wasteful.

@jerv

I don’t have a problem with most of what you say. The problem comes in with your last sentence since I don’t know what you mean. I assume it’s a reference to the proposal in the question.

The problem I have with that is you seem to want to throw it out entirely just because in doesn’t include some things you want cut and includes some things you don’t want cut. If that’s the case add what you think should be added and make an argument for those you think should be eliminated. Don’t just throw the whole thing out without consideration. That’s exactly why nothing ever gets done to fix the problem.

The proposal works out to be about $250 billion annually. That’s not nearly enough. In fact only a fraction of what is needed to make a dent in the deficit. I believe we could easily get $100 billion annually from the defense budget. We could take the cap off SS payments and solve the SS problem with out cutting benefits. Yes I know that would be a tax increase but one I could live with as long as SS is reformed at the same time so that we don’t just spend our retirement money at the whim of congress.

And one last point that I know is not part of your argument but I’ll throw it out anyway. We’ve got to stop this insane rhetoric that a bill is paid for. You can’t pay for a new service or entitlement by taking deficit spending from one pot and moving it to another deficit spending pot. It’s all deficit spending. We’ve got to stop trying to trick the public by saying this bill is fully paid for, it’s not.

@Jaxk I’m completely with you that everything should be on the table. I agree that all to often, as soon as the discussion turns to what to cut, both parties start excluding this and that till they have effectively ruled out so much that eliminating ALL of what’s left would just be a drop it the bucket.

Agency consolidation, tax simplification, targeted revenue increases and closing loopholes all have to be part of the discussion right along with reductions in all programs where we can do so without hurting our future. It won’t be easy, but I am convinced it can be done. And it must be done.

@ETpro

Hear, hear!

@Jaxk You are partially correct. The way I see it though, the proposal is less about helping the budget as a whole and more about sticking it to the Dems. There are a few cuts I agree with whole-heartedly and quite a few that I grit my teeth, say “That sucks, but…” and agree with reluctantly.

However, you are correct in that I am a little miffed to see some omissions there, and that it doesn’t go far enough. So basically, it is a way to hurt the Dems without really accomplishing anything. If it also included some of the GOP’s pets and at least gave the appearance of being more “across the board” then I would have fewer problems with it, and odds are that it would at least double the savings.

I think that Homeland Security and the TSA should be cut, not because I want to see our nation weakened, but because they don’t really do a damn thing except suck money! Well, nothing good anyways. Yeah, we have to take off our shoes, get our genitals photographed at the airport, and make people wander around covered in their own piss , but we still don’t search >98% of the cargo containers and our borders are more porous than a kitchen sponge. Lots of money with little (except harm and humiliation) to show in return? That sounds like a prime target for budget cuts.

What about no-bid government contracts? As a fellow former Navy guy, I am sure you’ve joked a few times about your equipment being built by the lowest bidder, but is that always a bad thing? I thought that one of the great things about Capitalism was competition; you either provide quality stuff at reason able prices or someone else gets the money that could have contributed to your profit margins. How much taxpayer money is wasted by the lack of competition in some government contracts? That proposal targeted things with a price tag as low as $430,000 and I would imagine that we waste far more than that through “no-bid” contracts, so why is that not in there?

Our nation has issues that can’t be solved by half-assed solutions, and we are all in it together. We have both Democrats and Republicans being affected by the economy, yet each party is only willing to sacrifice the other; neither is willing to give up anything themselves.
Then there is the debate which has raged my entire life; is it better to tax and spend, or do we send the bill to our grandchildren? Put those two together and remove the possibilities of even-handedness, efficiency, or fiscal responsibility and what do you have? I call it “Modern American Politics”.

@jerv

ALL good points. Here’s my take on this. I’ve negotiated a lot of contracts in my time. It requires a lot of give and take. Some things you give up that you really wanted. Some things you get that you never though you would. It’s all part of the negotiations. A big part of which is your starting point. And the starting point becomes even more critical if the relationship is contentious.

So you offer up what you want and the other guy offers up what they want. It’s a starting point. You don’t start by offering everything you know the other guy wants. You have nothing left to bargain with and all you have left is how many of the things you want that you’ll get (if any). It’s kinda like dealing on a car if the guy wants $1500 and you’ll only spend $1250 you offer $1000. Hopefully, you’ll meet in the middle and get your $1250 car. But some one has to start.

So far, I haven’t seen anything proposed by the Democrats. Until we do, we don’t have a starting point. It doesn’t seem like the Democrats want to cut anything. Not even Defense. If they did they could come back with a proposal to cut $250 billion from Defense. Bingo, we have a starting point. I may agree to $100 billion from Defnse and throw in Homeland Security (I want that gone anyway). And so it goes. But someone has to get it rolling. I see this as the first attempt to get a starting point.

@Jaxk I think that first we have to get the Democrats to realize and get over the fact that they lost some seats due to their ineffectiveness and broken promises from the last couple of years. I don’t see that happening until at least the 2012 election though, and then they’ll have something new to be all angsty over. I don’t know know which is more appropriate; “C’est la vie” or “Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose”, but given how little was accomplished by the last Congress even when they had more power than they do now, I am (as usual, though now moreso) cynically pessimistic about them doing much of anything useful this term.

I do commend the GOP for offering a starting point, even a lopsided one like this, but it seems that it has been taken more as “another reason to bitch” than “a proposal better than what you have (not) come up with”. Then again, maybe preserving the status quo is the counter-proposal, in which case I should buy stock in Vaseline™ since our nation will need a lot of it pretty soon.

That brings me back to the second question I ever asked on Fluther which seems to be the rule rather than the exception in the 21st century :/

@jerv

Stock in Vasoline. That’s rich. Do you have the stock symbol for me? ;-)