Thread: Why We Fight....

Democrats, 2008-2010: "The key to economic prosperity is funding programs we'd like to grow anyway."

Republicans, 2010-2012: "The key to economic prosperity is de-funding programs we'd like to cut anyway."

Discuss....

The key to any economic prosperity is to first escape the crushing debt you've foolishly accumulated.

Originally Posted by Rassales

Democrats, 2008-2010: "The key to economic prosperity is funding programs we'd like to grow anyway."

Republicans, 2010-2012: "The key to economic prosperity is de-funding programs we'd like to cut anyway."

Sounds about right. While I expect the Democrats to freely spend OPM (Other People's Money), I am not impressed by the Republican efforts to reduce the deficit by cutting NPR while leaving SS, Medicare and Medicaid rising costs unresolved and raising an already bloated Defense budget. A DOD budget, mind you, that is mostly geared to propping up weapons systems even SecDef Gates says we don't need.

How Obama's plan to cut the deficit compares with others - USATODAY.com

Defense spending

•Obama: Saves $400 billion over 12 years.

•Fiscal Commission: Cuts several hundred billion dollars over 10 years from Obama’s 2012 budget.

•Bipartisan Policy Center: Freezes spending for five years, then allows only inflationary increases.

•House Republicans: Cuts about $78 billion over 10 years, $100 billion less than the amount recommended by Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Of all the plans detailed in the link, it appears the Bipartisan Policy Center has the best, most realistic ideas:

Deficit

•Obama: Cuts $4 trillion over 12 years, including $1 trillion already outlined in his proposed 2012 budget.

•Fiscal Commission: Cuts $3.9 trillion over 10 years.

•Bipartisan Policy Center: Cuts $5.9 trillion over 10 years.

•House Republicans: Cuts $4.4 trillion over 10 years.

Originally Posted by AmendmentX

The key to any economic prosperity is to first escape the crushing debt you've foolishly accumulated.

Let's say we stipulate to that. Is there any reason to cut one thing more than another?

Originally Posted by Divine Wind

Of all the plans detailed in the link, it appears the Bipartisan Policy Center has the best, most realistic ideas:

I'd like to see more details, but that plan involves some pretty serious tax increases, and they are all (except for changes in payroll taxes) pretty regressive. They shift the burden of taxation even more to the middle class.

Originally Posted by Divine Wind

Sounds about right. While I expect the Democrats to freely spend OPM (Other People's Money), I am not impressed by the Republican efforts to reduce the deficit by cutting NPR while leaving SS, Medicare and Medicaid rising costs unresolved and raising an already bloated Defense budget. A DOD budget, mind you, that is mostly geared to propping up weapons systems even SecDef Gates says we don't need.

How Obama's plan to cut the deficit compares with others - USATODAY.com


Of all the plans detailed in the link, it appears the Bipartisan Policy Center has the best, most realistic ideas:

What I find most interesting in your post is that there is no mention of Congressional Democrats...whether in the House or Senate.

Originally Posted by AmendmentX

The key to any economic prosperity is to first escape the crushing debt you've foolishly accumulated.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Rassales

Let's say we stipulate to that. Is there any reason to cut one thing more than another?

The short answer is Yes. Cutting waste, for example, aka "low hanging fruit", is obvious. Duplicate programs is wasteful such at the alternative engine for the F-35 fighter which would cost tax payers $3B.

While the current Republican Congress focused on cutting programs favorable to Democrats and the arts in general such as NPR, NEA and PBS, those are peanuts compared to many of the big ticket items they avoided discussing. In hard economic times, I think funding for those programs should be reduced along with everything else, but to eliminate them would be a mistake.

Originally Posted by Rassales

Let's say we stipulate to that. Is there any reason to cut one thing more than another?

I think everything needs cutting. As far as being equally cut, no. We should focus mainly on cutting/eliminating expenditures not specifically designated to the federal government by the Constitution. Eliminating fraud and waste in constitutional expenditures should be a top priority as well.

Originally Posted by JoJoGunne

What I find most interesting in your post is that there is no mention of Congressional Democrats...whether in the House or Senate.

Is there a reason to mention them? What are they eager to cut? Do they have a tax increase plan? Your name doesn't appear in the gamebook if you don't make a tackle.

Originally Posted by Rassales

Is there a reason to mention them? What are they eager to cut? Do they have a tax increase plan? Your name doesn't appear in the gamebook if you don't make a tackle.

I think that was his point.