Massive spending cuts - why now?

[jkjsooner]

I don't think we've talked enough about the perceived urgency and timing of the spending cuts the federal government is about to undertake.

I agree with everyone else that these cuts need to be done and soon. They probably needed to be done 10 or 20 years ago. And that's my point.

Why all of a sudden is it a crisis? I'm very cynical of the Republican's motivations here - not on the fact that cuts need to be made but on the timing. Where was all of this panic five years ago, ten years ago, etc?

I think the Republicans have found a political winner. If they can push through these cuts they will reap the entire benefit from it. (Who is going to give the "socialist" credit for billions of dollars in cuts.) Every economist I've heard states that, short term, large cuts will harm the economy. There is just no way around that. When the economy is harmed, the President is the one who takes the fall.

It seems to me that the Republicans are making a brilliant political move - they get the cuts they want, they get credit for making the cuts, and the President gets the blame on any additional economic fallout.

If you are not as cynical as I am, then I ask you, why did they not push these drastic steps while Bush was in office? Is it simply the tea party influence? I have my doubts.


That being said, the Republicans are playing with fire. If a deal does not get made and we end up defaulting on our obligations the chit could hit the fan. It's unclear who will take the blame if that happens.

[stevo]

first read this as "massive spending cats"



disappointed.

[87sooner]

it's a crisis now because debt levels wrt gdp are getting so high...the world is taking notice and losing confidence in our economy and the dollar...
especially those who are buying our debt..

yes...spending cuts will harm the economy....no ifs/ands/buts about it...
but you either do this now....or watch our economy collapse in the not too distant future...

[pphilfran]

Because the national debt as a % of GDP has doubled since 2005...and we are at or near 100% of GDP..

Because under current spending by 2016 we will be paying over 562 billion in interest to service the debt...up from the 196 billion we paid in 2010...

I haven't seen any real offers from either side...some talk from the dems about SS/Med cuts...how big are those cuts? Can they get enough support from those on the left?

Going back to the Clinton tax structure won't do chit...especially if they only raise the rate on the upper end and leave the bottom at current rates...

We are going to end up with a last minute deal that does little to stop the flood of money going into debt servicing...

[sappstuf]

Actually I don't think anything has been proposed from either side that actually reduces spending.. It only slows the rate of growth of government spending.

Even Paul Ryan's plan doesn't cut actual spending.

[KantoSooner]

If you go back to the 'Asian Flu' currency/debt crisis of 1997 and then the 'DotCom' collapse, the global economy was shaky heading into Bush's first term. With the 9/11 attacks, the Bush admin felt that they had to do 'whatever' to keep the economy, both domestic and international, ticking along. So, basically, a massive amount of spending was embarked upon without a lot of review. It was all going to be temporary anyway. Among other things, interest rates were kept low and housing purchases were encouraged. Not only did this help the economy, but also furthered a Bush philosophical goal of getting people out of renting and into owning property.

And yadda, yadda. All pretty good stuff, and done for pretty good reasons. It just went on way too long and went on too long at way too high a level. And now we can't afford it anymore and it's going to be a bummer when the music stops....as it did starting in late 2008 and will again here in about 2 weeks.

I like my government pork as much as the next guy, but you either have to tax to pay for it or cut it out of some other program and there are really only four programs that have anything to them: Defense, Medicare/medicaid, Social Security and Interest on the Debt. Since you can't do much with the last, you're left with the first three...or taxes.

Tiime for serious decisions. I'm disappointed that no one seems to want to stand up and put things about this simply to the American public.

[OutlandTrophy]

because today is better than tomorrow.

because we cannot wait another 10 years.

[stevo]

moar better!!

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/twn_up_fls/fat%20cat%20cigar.jpg

[pphilfran]

Kanto, the general population would go ape chit crazy if large cuts in spending and benefits were enacted...

The first thing we must do is get the economy up and running..at 9% unemployment we will be bleeding red ink until the bitter end...

At these unemployment levels we are going to spend 2.5 trillion dollars this year on Human Resource items...total receipts are only 2.16 trillion...

We are 300 billion in the hole when looking at only Human Resources...then tack on the military, interest, and others and we are drowning in red ink...

Best projection going forward is a 600 billion shortfall in 2015...we are currently projected to spend 16% more than we take in going forward...

Each day we wait to make deep cuts will only require deeper cuts down the road...

[TheLadiesMike]

http://www.heritage.org/BudgetChartbook/growth-federal-spending-revenue

Because deficits have gotten even larger and revenue will not rise without real economic growth. Plus, we keep approaching the day where entitlements start paying out more than they bring in, which has long been estimated to be 2017 or so.

[delhalew]

Tea Party forced their hand. There is a new crop of elected officials elected solely for their political will on the issue.

[pphilfran]

Tea Party forced their hand. There is a knew crop of elected officials elected solely for their political will on the issue.

It is the chits...too many people with their heels dug in...

knew crop? People that are new that know?

[sappstuf]

http://www.heritage.org/BudgetChartbook/growth-federal-spending-revenue

Because deficits have gotten even larger and revenue will not rise without real economic growth. Plus, we keep approaching the day where entitlements start paying out more than they bring in, which has long been estimated to be 2017 or so.

That is what it was estimated at, but we went into the red with SSN last year and will not get out for 50 years or whenever the baby boomers die off.

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/02/democrats-deny-social-securitys-red-ink/

[TheLadiesMike]

That is what it was estimated at, but we went into the red with SSN last year and will not get out for 50 years or whenever the baby boomers die off.

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/02/democrats-deny-social-securitys-red-ink/

Wow, then things are even worse than I realized.

[sappstuf]

http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/fed-revenue-spending.jpg

[hOUrricane]

because today is better than tomorrow.

because we cannot wait another 10 years.

I would wait a lifetime for your embrace.

[delhalew]

If not now, when?

[CrimsonCream]

That is what it was estimated at, but we went into the red with SSN last year and will not get out for 50 years or whenever the baby boomers die off.

Not totally true.

Social Security is/was funded through 2037. However, the politicians spent the money which now causes the Government to make up the yearly shortfall.

Such slimy bastards.

[StoopTroup]

I don't think we've talked enough about the perceived urgency and timing of the spending cuts the federal government is about to undertake.

I agree with everyone else that these cuts need to be done and soon. They probably needed to be done 10 or 20 years ago. And that's my point.

Why all of a sudden is it a crisis? I'm very cynical of the Republican's motivations here - not on the fact that cuts need to be made but on the timing. Where was all of this panic five years ago, ten years ago, etc?

I think the Republicans have found a political winner. If they can push through these cuts they will reap the entire benefit from it. (Who is going to give the "socialist" credit for billions of dollars in cuts.) Every economist I've heard states that, short term, large cuts will harm the economy. There is just no way around that. When the economy is harmed, the President is the one who takes the fall.

It seems to me that the Republicans are making a brilliant political move - they get the cuts they want, they get credit for making the cuts, and the President gets the blame on any additional economic fallout.

If you are not as cynical as I am, then I ask you, why did they not push these drastic steps while Bush was in office? Is it simply the tea party influence? I have my doubts.


That being said, the Republicans are playing with fire. If a deal does not get made and we end up defaulting on our obligations the chit could hit the fan. It's unclear who will take the blame if that happens.

I'm sure this is all you really need to know. Why bore you with facts and figures.


because today is better than tomorrow.

because we cannot wait another 10 years.

[jkjsooner]

because today is better than tomorrow.

because we cannot wait another 10 years.

This really ignores the meat of my question. Why today rather than yesterday? I do think there are political gains to be had by doing it today rather than yesterday. That is my point.

I'm not doubting the need for reform and spending cuts today. I'm doubting the motivations of those who only gave the issue lip service over the last 10 years and then all of a sudden it's a crisis.

[87sooner]

This really ignores the meat of my question. Why today rather than yesterday? I do think there are political gains to be had by doing it today rather than yesterday. That is my point.

I'm not doubting the need for reform and spending cuts today. I'm doubting the motivations of those who only gave the issue lip service over the last 10 years and then all of a sudden it's a crisis.

very simple....it wasn't a crisis 10 years ago....

[OutlandTrophy]

This really ignores the meat of my question. Why today rather than yesterday? I do think there are political gains to be had by doing it today rather than yesterday. That is my point.

I'm not doubting the need for reform and spending cuts today. I'm doubting the motivations of those who only gave the issue lip service over the last 10 years and then all of a sudden it's a crisis.

this may sound simplistic but here goes: Because we cannnot go back in time to do or undo things.

It could have something to do with our debt doubling in the past 2 or so years, I don't know.

[soonercruiser]

very simple....it wasn't a crisis 10 years ago....

Remember, Harry Reid and Peeloski still do not believe that there is a financial crisis!

Why now? Simple......
Now the Repubicans "own" the House......they have leverage based on the last election......and must keep their promises....or pass into oblivion!
They will never have it this good agaion....unless they act NOW!
:O

[87sooner]

Remember, Harry Reid and Peeloski still do not believe that there is a financial crisis!

Why now? Simple......
Now the Repubicans "own" the House......they have leverage based on the last election......and must keep their promises....or pass into oblivion!
They will never have it this good agaion....unless they act NOW!
:O

it's not a crisis because the repubs own the house...
the repubs spend just as bad as the dems...
the problem is as stated earlier....those buying our worthless paper are starting to balk....
the well is drying up

[delhalew]

If this is hard to understand, we should give up the ghost now.

[jkjsooner]

If this is hard to understand, we should give up the ghost now.

Bullcrap. I asked legitimate questions. Three years ago nobody talked of making trillion dollar cuts. Now it is imperative that they are made immediately. I think it is a valid question to ask if the fact that we have a democratic President has anything to do with the urgency.

And for those who said the people buying t-bills are balking, I don't see it in the t-bill rates, not to mention that the Chinese have expressed concerns going back many years.

Nope, the timing of the crisis at least partially political.


Again, I didn't say cuts should not be made now. I'm simply saying those screaming from Washington are hypocrits at best.

[bigfatjerk]

Since about the last 10 years or so the spending has skyrocketed. Just about 10 years ago the debt was around 6 trillion and the deficit was less than half a trillion.

About the only one talking about cutting spending 10 years ago was Ron Paul.

[sappstuf]

Bullcrap. I asked legitimate questions. Three years ago nobody talked of making trillion dollar cuts. Now it is imperative that they are made immediately. I think it is a valid question to ask if the fact that we have a democratic President has anything to do with the urgency.

And for those who said the people buying t-bills are balking, I don't see it in the t-bill rates, not to mention that the Chinese have expressed concerns going back many years.

Nope, the timing of the crisis at least partially political.


Again, I didn't say cuts should not be made now. I'm simply saying those screaming from Washington are hypocrits at best.

That is probably because spending has went up a trillion dollars in the past 4 years....

[TheLadiesMike]

Democrats were very worried about the deficit under Bush and not Obama. All people are hypocrites. That doesn't mean they are wrong on the issue.

[StoopTroup]

You guys and your MANtage.....

JvltzwkUEEA&feature=relmfu

[bigfatjerk]

About the only thing that's really different from Bush to Obama in my view is that Obama doesn't always refer to God in his speeches. Policy wise they aren't really all that different as people think. Democrats should hate Obama if they hated Bush.

[87sooner]

Democrats were very worried about the deficit under Bush and not Obama. All people are hypocrites. That doesn't mean they are wrong on the issue.

the crooked politicians pretend to be concerned about the debt/deficit.....but they continue to fund their pork projects in their own states....that benefit their campaign contributors.....

[TheLadiesMike]

About the only thing that's really different from Bush to Obama in my view is that Obama doesn't always refer to God in his speeches. Policy wise they aren't really all that different as people think.

People don't protest Obama's war efforts.

[TheLadiesMike]

the crooked politicians pretend to be concerned about the debt/deficit.....but they continue to fund their pork projects in their own states....that benefit their campaign contributors.....

Earmarks don't increase spending. Say $10 billion is given to the Dept. of Transportation. A Congressman or Senator then earmarks $10 million of that to go to a project. If they don't do any earmarks the money will be spent but bureaucrats will decide where. Pork projects are easy to criticize but they don't increase spending and they are too small to be part of the problem. It's all entitlements.

[bigfatjerk]

People don't protest Obama's war efforts.

Yeah he's only added troops in Afghanistan, and has made us more aggressive in Pakistan, Lybia, and other places in the middle east.

[sappstuf]

People don't protest Obama's war efforts.

What DID happen to all those anti-war protests?

[bigfatjerk]

Earmarks don't increase spending. Say $10 billion is given to the Dept. of Transportation. A Congressman or Senator then earmarks $10 million of that to go to a project. If they don't do any earmarks the money will be spent but bureaucrats will decide where. Pork projects are easy to criticize but they don't increase spending and they are too small to be part of the problem. It's all entitlements.

I agree we have to figure out how to change our entitlement system into more of a safety net than to have people living off it. An entitlement trying to take care of millions of people just won't work in the long run.

[pphilfran]

Bullcrap. I asked legitimate questions. Three years ago nobody talked of making trillion dollar cuts. Now it is imperative that they are made immediately. I think it is a valid question to ask if the fact that we have a democratic President has anything to do with the urgency.

And for those who said the people buying t-bills are balking, I don't see it in the t-bill rates, not to mention that the Chinese have expressed concerns going back many years.

Nope, the timing of the crisis at least partially political.


Again, I didn't say cuts should not be made now. I'm simply saying those screaming from Washington are hypocrits at best.

IOUSA came out in 2008...CNN broadcast the doc in Jan 2009....Participants include Warren Buffett, Alan Greenspan, Paul O'Neill, Robert Rubin, and Paul Volcker, along with the Peter G. Peterson Foundation's own David Walker and Bob Bixby of the Concord Coalition, a Foundation grantee...

http://www.iousathemovie.com/about/

So it is nothing new...just something that has been ignored by both parties...

If it does have political motivation it is no worse than the dems refusing to pass a budget knowing they would get hammered in the polls if they did so...

[StoopTroup]

Zq-kvGpEvrw&feature=related

[BermudaSooner]

This really ignores the meat of my question. Why today rather than yesterday? I do think there are political gains to be had by doing it today rather than yesterday. That is my point.

I'm not doubting the need for reform and spending cuts today. I'm doubting the motivations of those who only gave the issue lip service over the last 10 years and then all of a sudden it's a crisis.

Well for one, Bill Gross and Pimco (the leading bond market maker) wasn't dumping all of his US debt 10 years ago---he is now.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/09/us-pimco-debt-idUSTRE7285M020110309

[cccasooner2]

Not totally true.

Social Security is/was funded through 2037. However, the politicians spent the money which now causes the Government to make up the yearly shortfall.

Such slimy bastards.

A doooooshbags definition of entitlement: what's yours is mine to spend for my common good and if you want what was originally yours to begin with, that is an entitlement burden on America. Oh, by the way did I fail to mention the 40 bills I co-sponsored? Let me explain each and every one of them to you and how I was personally lied to by .........(zzzzzzzzzzzz). Oh well, the important thing is I can't wait for the recess that's only a few weeks away. Yes, I am the best America has to offer, because all you fools said I was.

[delhalew]

Bullcrap. I asked legitimate questions. Three years ago nobody talked of making trillion dollar cuts. Now it is imperative that they are made immediately. I think it is a valid question to ask if the fact that we have a democratic President has anything to do with the urgency.

And for those who said the people buying t-bills are balking, I don't see it in the t-bill rates, not to mention that the Chinese have expressed concerns going back many years.

Nope, the timing of the crisis at least partially political.


Again, I didn't say cuts should not be made now. I'm simply saying those screaming from Washington are hypocrits at best.

It started when the economy tanked, and normal working folks looked at the reasons for the sub-prime market getting out of control. Bush signed the bank bail-out.

This followed by staggering stream of bloated bills, IMF expendatures,, FED mismanagement of the markets, a year long struggle over a "health care" Trojan horse...

I say it shouldn't be hard to understand. Not that DC isn't packed with hypocrites, that has yet to change.

[87sooner]

Bullcrap. I asked legitimate questions. Three years ago nobody talked of making trillion dollar cuts. Now it is imperative that they are made immediately. I think it is a valid question to ask if the fact that we have a democratic President has anything to do with the urgency.

And for those who said the people buying t-bills are balking, I don't see it in the t-bill rates, not to mention that the Chinese have expressed concerns going back many years.

Nope, the timing of the crisis at least partially political.


Again, I didn't say cuts should not be made now. I'm simply saying those screaming from Washington are hypocrits at best.

it's very similar to an approaching tornado...
when it's 30 miles away....you're concerned but it's not really a crisis yet...
when it's a mile away...things start getting a bit more serious...
and it really doesn't matter which party your favorite weatherman is affiliated with....

[soonercoop1]

Actually I don't think anything has been proposed from either side that actually reduces spending.. It only slows the rate of growth of government spending.

Even Paul Ryan's plan doesn't cut actual spending.

Agreed. They won't act until it is way past too late and we are very close to that now.

[Blue]

We need a worldwide Jubilee. "Bam , we don't owe you and if you don't like it here's a bomb."

And it's always political. Every 100 years or so the 1% rape and pillage the 99% and we're all left arguing with each other and saying, "wtf?"

[87sooner]

a preview of what's coming to america....

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/487bc3a0-ac67-11e0-bac9-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1RzMhCBUN

[MR2-Sooner86]

About the only one talking about cutting spending 10 years ago was Ron Paul.

Look how it got him treated too. He is the "crazy one" in Washington :rolleyes:

We're done. Nothing is going to change in Washington. They're going to sit around, debate, argue, and at the last minute pass some cuts to an organization that helps asians understand NASCAR. The real problem will be kicked down the road, like always.

Partisan politics is too ingrained in this country, especially Washington. The Republicans could come up with a plan to fix everything but the Democrats would stop them because it'd hurt their reelection. The Democrats could come up with a plan and the Republicans would stop them in fears for their reelection. They all want the same thing, money and power, our money and power over us. They don't care about the average citizen. We're nothing but pawns that help them live in style and throw money around. It's the classic "us versus them" mentality. There is no debate, reason, or exchange of ideas.

Anybody who can bridge the gap, sees the problem, and tries to fix it, see Ron Paul, automatically gets thrown out by the establishment. Why? They want to follow the Constitution and limit the government's power. We can't have that now.

Of course what do you expect from the people? Nobody cares to learn anything. More people in this country know the Three Stooges than the Three Branches of Government. The Public Schools succeeded in their goals all too well. As long as people can watch ESPN or American Idol, they don't care. The "me first" set in place by the Baby Boomers has come to full fruition. While George W. Bush was leading us into Iraq, looking for those "misplaced" WMDs we had the news media talking about Howard Stern Congressional Trial because of some sex jokes he made on the radio.

They do it all the time. You dangle a shiny object in front of a animal and it's focused on that object. We've had shiny objects dangling in front of us all the while we get our wallets stolen and our "list of rights" gets shorter and shorter every single year.

I don't know when it'll happen but things have been set into motion the past 50 years that really can't, or won't, be undone. Our economy, for the most part, has been able to handle it but it's showing signs that it can't anymore. It's all going to burn down, like in Greece. I fear ours will be much worse in terms of riots. How many people are going to go crazy when their credit card doesn't work? We'll then fall behind everybody else and be, somewhat, average.

Everybody has said for a long time, "this country is going to Hell in a hand basket." Well, we're approaching the gates. Guess what, we took ourselves there.

[87sooner]

move to a state that allows gay marriage and you won't care about the economy..

[pphilfran]

They're going to sit around, debate, argue, and at the last minute pass some cuts to an organization that helps asians understand NASCAR.

:)

[MR2-Sooner86]

move to a state that allows gay marriage and you won't care about the economy..

I think if you were given an enima you'd lose most of your IQ points. Find me talking about gay marriage in my pervious post. You can't? I talked about it in another thread but unlike you, I can actually discuss multiple subjects. It's called multitasking, you learn about it if you're able to acquire a GED. Just because I talk about gay rights, drug legalization, prostitution, etc. doesn't mean I can't care just as much, if not more, for the economy. Just because I'm focused talking on the economy doesn't mean I can't care about the other rights as well.

[Serenity Now]

Earmarks don't increase spending. Say $10 billion is given to the Dept. of Transportation. A Congressman or Senator then earmarks $10 million of that to go to a project. If they don't do any earmarks the money will be spent but bureaucrats will decide where. Pork projects are easy to criticize but they don't increase spending and they are too small to be part of the problem. It's all entitlements.
But, earmarks are wrong on principle. You can't have it both ways.

This "crisis" has been coming since W. got into office. W. cut taxes and increased spending. Economic theories are pretty clear. For supply side economics (tax cuts) to work, you have to actually cut/limit spending. Bush cut taxes and increased spending. That's like lining up for a fade away from the water and drawing the ball left - the classic double cross. The draw is fine as long as you're not lined up for the fade. Bush's tax cuts that expired once he was out of office were ludicrous. Another shrewd move by Karl Rove that was good for the GOP but not good for the US.

Paul Ryan's debt line was funny when John Stewart put it up against the same line if the Bush tax cuts weren't extended. It went away. We are at the lowest marginal tax rate in 60 years and our spending is %'ly higher than ever. Taxes need to be increased. F'n Exxon makes BILLIONS and gets a Tax CREDIT. WTF?

I think we need to shrink spending (reduce defense $, foriegn aid, subsidies, etc.), increase taxes and take whatever steps necessary to encourage spending within the US (local oil, manufacturing, etc.).

[pphilfran]

But, earmarks are wrong on principle. You can't have it both ways.

This "crisis" has been coming since W. got into office. W. cut taxes and increased spending. Economic theories are pretty clear. For supply side economics (tax cuts) to work, you have to actually cut/limit spending. Bush cut taxes and increased spending. That's like lining up for a fade away from the water and drawing the ball left - the classic double cross. The draw is fine as long as you're not lined up for the fade. Bush's tax cuts that expired once he was out of office were ludicrous. Another shrewd move by Karl Rove that was good for the GOP but not good for the US.

Paul Ryan's debt line was funny when John Stewart put it up against the same line if the Bush tax cuts weren't extended. It went away. We are at the lowest marginal tax rate in 60 years and our spending is %'ly higher than ever. Taxes need to be increased. F'n Exxon makes BILLIONS and gets a Tax CREDIT. WTF?

I think we need to shrink spending (reduce defense $, foriegn aid, subsidies, etc.), increase taxes and take whatever steps necessary to encourage spending within the US (local oil, manufacturing, etc.).

Whatever steps are necessary? Care to be a little more specific?

[Blue]

QE3, Debt ceiling, and downgrading our credit rating. Getting interesting folks.

[sappstuf]

His plan brings us down to something like 20% of GDP which is well below the 24-25% Obama is doing, but still above Reagan, Clinton and both bush presidents.

He certainly reduces spending, but my point is he doesn't actually have any year to year cuts in spending... He only reduces the annual increase in spending, which over time reduces our overall spending.

Is that clearer?

[badger]

It basically comes down to the fact that we've gotten more for less for awhile and are going to have to deal with less for more now to make up for it.

An OU professor had a fun quotable on this: If you live like a doctor when you're a college student, you'll live like a college student when you're a doctor. It's like the U.S. was a fresh outta college 20-something that wanted to immediately have the lifestyle that his/her parents had currently, bypassing all the years and responsibility it took to build up that wealth. Instead of settling for that crappy one-bedroom apartment and a clunker car, the U.S. upgraded to a new house and new car immediately without the means to afford either.

It happens. Can't just say "learn from mistakes," but own up to them. It's time for the U.S. to live like a poor college student to make up for the years of living like a doctor without being one.

[BU BEAR]

We should wait to deal with this. It will be a lot more fun to default on $25 Trillion than it will be to default on $15 Trillion.

[Blue]

It happens. Can't just say "learn from mistakes," but own up to them. It's time for the U.S. to live like a poor college student to make up for the years of living like a doctor without being one.

You go first. Sorry Badge but thats bs to me. With the cost of living at where it is today with groceries, gas, insurance and ultra high rents even for dumps, wages need to go up or somethings gonna give.

I guess we're all finding out the American dream was crap and that we can expect less than our parents. It's sad to everyone resign to that option.

[Blue]

What I was tryin to say was that "They" make so many bad decisions and send us into the pit and then "we" are blamed for being irresponsible.

Well I didn't do anything to cause a global credit crisis. THEY did.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

it's a crisis now because debt levels wrt gdp are getting so high...the world is taking notice and losing confidence in our economy and the dollar...
especially those who are buying our debt..

yes...spending cuts will harm the economy....no ifs/ands/buts about it...
but you either do this now....or watch our economy collapse in the not too distant future...People Get Ready!

[JohnnyMack]

an organization that helps asians understand NASCAR.

Drive fast, turn reft.

[OutlandTrophy]

but even NASCAR'S hero didn't understand the "Don't hit the wall" rule.

[badger]

You go first. Sorry Badge but thats bs to me. With the cost of living at where it is today with groceries, gas, insurance and ultra high rents even for dumps, wages need to go up or somethings gonna give.

I guess we're all finding out the American dream was crap and that we can expect less than our parents. It's sad to everyone resign to that option.

Oh yes, I'm totally resigned to certain things at this point:

1- I will never receive Social Security. That system will be long gone by the time I need to retire... do I even want to retire? I'm not thinking about retirement.

2- I will not reap a huge windfall from the housing market. I am not gonna build a house for $30,000 and then be able to sell it for $100,000. I'm not going to be able to take a handyman's dream and improve it to double its value. I know I will be lucky if I even get back what I paid for it originally.

3- I will not receive a huge inheritance. With rising healthcare costs, people living longer and more and more things subject to taxation (and higher taxation), I will not expect a huge windfall the day my parents die. I only hope to not cry too much at the funeral... in public. Or right now typing that.

4- I may not be able to afford to pay for my child's college education. It stinks, but even my own parents didn't pay for mine. Scholarships, my own contributions and grandparent's help did. Tuition and fees are just rising too fast to imagine what higher ed will cost in 20-25 years.

5- I will receive less governmental services in return for higher taxes. That's the future of the middle class right now and for the near future.

Is this raising the white flag? Absolutely not. When you think about it, do we all have any of these things in the first place? Nope (with perhaps the exception of social security, with raising retirement ages and COLAs not guaranteed, who's to say that we'd get anything back anyway?).

So, I'm gonna be part of the generation that deals with getting less for more. I only hope that means a better America for future generations. If the Greatest Generation can make it through tough economic times and come out of it labeled "greatest," then maybe some adversity will just make all of us wimpy Y'ers and Millennials a little bit stronger.

[The Profit]

I propose cutting defense spending in half immediately. Mothball one half of the existing posts, bases and naval stations within 18 months. Reduce the size of each defense group (army, navy, air force, coast guard) by one-half and end our participation in global police work.

[OutlandTrophy]

I propose cutting defense spending in half immediately. Mothball one half of the existing posts, bases and naval stations within 18 months. Reduce the size of each defense group (army, navy, air force, coast guard) by one-half and end our participation in global police work.

heck yeah! that's a great start!

[JohnnyMack]

I propose cutting defense spending in half immediately. Mothball one half of the existing posts, bases and naval stations within 18 months. Reduce the size of each defense group (army, navy, air force, coast guard) by one-half and end our participation in global police work.

So you'll save money and raise unemployment? Good jorb.

I too agree we need to cut defense spending, but something that draconian is just silly.

[sappstuf]

I propose cutting defense spending in half immediately. Mothball one half of the existing posts, bases and naval stations within 18 months. Reduce the size of each defense group (army, navy, air force, coast guard) by one-half and end our participation in global police work.

What would you like your military to be able to respond to?

For example, 90% of the world's commerce travels by ocean. A large percentage of that commerce passes through the Straits of Malacca. If you wanted the world economy to ground to a halt in about 5 days, starting sinking every ship that goes through there. The world would shut down.

Should we be able to respond to that? How quickly?

[MR2-Sooner86]

I propose cutting defense spending in half immediately. Mothball one half of the existing posts, bases and naval stations within 18 months. Reduce the size of each defense group (army, navy, air force, coast guard) by one-half and end our participation in global police work.

http://www.randomfunnypicture.com/pictures/535Barkerfail.jpg

I agree we need to cut back on defense spending, shut allot of our bases down, and bring guys home from overseas. What you're proposing, going just after defense, is nothing more than your partisanship coming through if you really believe it's the only reason for the situation we're in. It has helped, but it's no the only reason.

Doing this will not cure our debt. If you're going to do this to National Defense, which is well documented in the Constitution, then you must go over Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid.

I'm for cuts, across the board, shutting down whole departments, shutting down foreign aid, and eliminating "special" pet projects.

[The Profit]

heck yeah! that's a great start!





Thanks, and I am still bewildered by Conway Twitty.

[The Profit]

http://www.randomfunnypicture.com/pictures/535Barkerfail.jpg

I agree we need to cut back on defense spending, shut allot of our bases down, and bring guys home from overseas. What you're proposing, going just after defense, is nothing more than your partisanship coming through if you really believe it's the only reason for the situation we're in. It has helped, but it's no the only reason.

Doing this will not cure our debt. If you're going to do this to National Defense, which is well documented in the Constitution, then you must go over Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid.

I'm for cuts, across the board, shutting down whole departments, shutting down foreign aid, and eliminating "special" pet projects.





I never said that defense spending is the only area I would like to see reduced. I would also like to eliminate all tax credits to corporations, especially the oil industry. I would like to see more waste taken out of medicare and medicaid. I would like to see the amount paid to doctors and hospitals for medicare and medicaid patients reduced. I am definitely for reducing foreign aid, until we learn to take care of our own.