killerbee99 Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 As a left leaning independent voter, I do applaud the House Republicans for trying but as it has been said ad nuaseum here, there has to be cuts across the board, nothing should be protected if you want to do this right but you can probably guess which programs weren't affected by this budget "proposal"....sigh. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_congress_spending WASHINGTON – House Republicans called for cuts in hundreds of programs across the face of government Friday night in a $61 billion savings package toughened at the last minute at the demand of tea-party backed conservatives. From education to job training, the environment and nutrition, few domestic programs were left untouched — and some were eliminated — in the measure, which is expected to reach the floor for a vote next week. Among the programs targeted for elimination are Americorps and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. In contrast, spending on defense and veterans programs were protected. The measure marks an initial down payment by newly empowered Republicans on their promise to rein in federal deficits and reduce the size of government. In a statement,House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., called the measure "a historic effort to get our fiscal house in order and restore certainty to the economy. .This legislation will mark the largest spending cut in modern history and will help restore confidence so that people can get back to work." Democrats harshly criticized the bill within moments of its formal unveiling, signaling the onset of weeks of partisan struggle over spending priorities. House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi issued a statement calling the bill irresponsible, adding that it would "target critical education programs like Head Start, halt innovation and disease research, end construction projects to rebuild America and take cops off the beat." But first-term Republican conservatives claimed victory after forcing their own leadership to expand the measure after rejecting an earlier draft as too timid. "$100 billion is $100 billion is $100 billion," said Rep. Tim Scott R-S.C., referring to amount the revised package would cut from President Barack Obama's budget request of a year ago. That was the amount contained in the Republican "Pledge to America" in last fall's campaign, and when party leaders initially suggested a smaller package of cuts this week, many of the 87-member freshman class who have links to the tea party rebelled. In fact, even some Republicans acknowledged privately the legislation will cut about $61 billion from current spending on domestic spending. Click link for rest of article.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Why does it seem that almost every proposal is to cut investment in Americans while trying to keep the American empire? And is just me or is there the same sort of thinking that goes into dictatorships in the ME going on in the US keep the military happy and give them money and create a larger and larger peasent class. People just saw what happened in Egypt eventually this comes back to bite you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Yep,,, all a bunch of window dressing until the sacred cows of big government are included. DOD, DHS, SSI, Medicare, etc all need to be cut to have any realistic chance of getting ourselves out of this mess, So I too appluad what cuts they found, but think its way too weak. They should start with Rands proposal as the bases and work from that IMHO ---------- Post added February-12th-2011 at 01:39 PM ---------- Why does it seem that almost every proposal is to cut investment in Americans while trying to keep the American empire? I hate the term "investment" when it comes with federal spending, but to your point, they do seem to always do that in terms of spending proposals. Then again, even when much more deep cuts have been proposed, I recall seeing many here get up in arms too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FanboyOf91 Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Let's delay the hard choices a little longer... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Yep,,, all a bunch of window dressing until the sacred cows of big government are included. DOD, DHS, SSI, Medicare, etc all need to be cut to have any realistic chance of getting ourselves out of this mess, So I too appluad what cuts they found, but think its way too weak.They should start with Rands proposal as the bases and work from that IMHO ---------- Post added February-12th-2011 at 01:39 PM ---------- I hate the term "investment" when it comes with federal spending, but to your point, they do seem to always do that in terms of spending proposals. Then again, even when much more deep cuts have been proposed, I recall seeing many here get up in arms too. It is investment when I pay taxes and it goes to educating children that is an investment in those kids. And you do not need to eliminate programs but they be fixed, for instance I always hear complaints about how people do nothing and live off government programs, that is not good for anyone but they are not getting rich, there are actual people getting rich. For instance defense contractors, lawyers who sue over SSI denials and companies that advertise directly to people telling them they need medical equipment and offering to bill medicare directly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Governments can't invest. It doesnt have its own money. Investing is for producers. Govt plans, directs, incentivizes. Private sector does the investing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Governments are just a group of people they tax their own taxes and those of others and decide on how to use them and the best governments know to not allow to much much of an imbalance to occur and to keep the citizenary happy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Though i think we should figure out where the exact percentage of tax works the best in the current situation. (55% during war, 35% during peace, anything higher than xyz = loss in revenue)... They are doing what they were elected to do, the Senate will neaten it up hopefully and the President will fight for their pieces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Governments are just a group of people they tax their own taxes and those of others and decide on how to use them and the best governments know to not allow to much much of an imbalance to occur and to keep the citizenary happy Yes, I suppose. not sure how this is related to our discussion though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 There will be amendments offered by Rep. John Campbell (CA) that will apparently get the cuts up to $100B. He's offering two amendments, one of them is aimed at "defense spending" but he claims it is non-defense spending which has been shoved into the DoD budget. There is a promise out there by Rep. David Drier (CA) who is the chair of the rules committee that there will be an open process for amendments on the Continuing Resolution. There's a guide on their webpage.... it looks like it will be an open process. There is some rumbling going on that the Republicans are going to break the Pledge for America if they don't cut $100B or get spending to the pre-bailout and pre-stimulus 2008 levels. I'm not perturbed entitlement spending hasn't been put up on the table yet... a bit perturbed about the Defense and DHS spending not being put on the table. Senator Reid this week was going on about a problem that added more cops to the streets; so some of these fights over budget items are going to get really fun... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Governments can't invest. It doesnt have its own money. Investing is for producers. Govt plans, directs, incentivizes. Private sector does the investing. I can buy the rhetorical difference, but I think it's semantic. Investing money into our children, into research, into starting businesses, etc. all could pay dividends to the country. It could make the country richer, more capable, and more stable. School breakfast programs increase concentration and focus which means that government investment produces an immediate dividend in safety and a better learning environment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 So, let's look at some specifics. (What a concept, huh?) Some of the largest cuts would be borne by WIC, which provides nutritional support for women and infants, cut by $747 million, and training and employment grants to the states, ticketed for a $1.4 billion reduction. From what I can find, WIC current funding is 7.8B, so a cut of 0.7B is "only" a 10% cut. I wonder how they cut it. For example, the Wiki page says that people qualify for this program if they are making up to 185% of the poverty level. To they lower the bar for people to qualify? Or do they just reduce the funding for everybody? Can't say if I agree with this or not, without more info. Dunno if now's a good time to be cutting funding for training people for jobs. In addition, Republicans proposed a 43 percent cut in border security fencing and a 53 percent reduction in an account used to fund cleanup of the Great Lakes. The Republicans cut funding for a border fence? :yikes: Certainly doesn't sound, to me, like "business as usual". Cutting funding for pollution cleanup? That sounds like business as usual. It prohibits the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from terminating plans for a nuclear waste site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada — a direct challenge to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. Love this plan. Don't like the idea, Harry? Signify by saying "My proposal for a better solution is . . . " (Although observing: How this fits into a "budget cutting proposal", I have no idea.) Reid dissented quickly, issuing a statement that said, "Any attempt to restart the Yucca Mountain project will not happen on my watch as Senate majority leader." :secret:Harry, I think that's what they're counting on. The Environmental Protection Agency would be banned from regulating greenhouse gases, linked to global warming, from fixed sources such as factories. The District of Columbia could not use federal funds to run a needle-exchange program for drug users. Funny, these sound like "using a spending bill to push legislation". Nah. Couldn't be. I love politics. Wouldn't want to hand out 2 cent needles to prevent million dollar health care costs. ---------- Wondering how they get to "100B", when the two biggest cuts are 1.4 and 0.7B. There must be a whole lot of little cuts to bring the total up. (Or is this one of those "over 10 years" things?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Some of that stuff is really terrible. So, Republicans are okay with the EPA regulating pollution as long as it doesn't originate from a factory? Yikes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 I can buy the rhetorical difference, but I think it's semantic. Investing money into our children, into research, into starting businesses, etc. all could pay dividends to the country. It could make the country richer, more capable, and more stable. School breakfast programs increase concentration and focus which means that government investment produces an immediate dividend in safety and a better learning environment. It could also make the country bankrupt long before those goals are attained. I'm all for common sense spending if its in a time where the nation can afford it and if its something temporary. But irresponsible spending, even for all the very honorable and commendable programs, is still irresponsible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 It could also make the country bankrupt long before those goals are attained. I'm all for common sense spending if its in a time where the nation can afford it and if its something temporary. But irresponsible spending, even for all the very honorable and commendable programs, is still irresponsible. It's just a fundamental difference in how we understand the world. I believe that there are moral imperatives and that trumps economic issues. More, I think if you zero out "investment" and/or safety net spending you will wind up paying a great price for that also. A broke man is sometimes well off getting a hair cut and a new suit even if it puts him a little deeper in debt... or at least a disposable razor and some soap. Without those, getting back on your feet gets tougher and tougher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 It's just a fundamental difference in how we understand the world. I believe that there are moral imperatives and that trumps economic issues. More, I think if you zero out "investment" and/or safety net spending you will wind up paying a great price for that also. A broke man is sometimes well off getting a hair cut and a new suit even if it puts him a little deeper in debt... or at least a disposable razor and some soap. Without those, getting back on your feet gets tougher and tougher. You cant perform many moral imperatives if you are broke. How many haircuts, suits and razors can be bought for the masses of broke people with zero money or international credit? Its not a difference in world understanding, its a difference in seeing the forest for the trees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 You cant perform many moral imperatives if you are broke. How many haircuts, suits and razors can be bought for the masses of broke people with zero money or international credit? Its not a difference in world understanding, its a difference in seeing the forest for the trees. We're not that broke. If we were there would be no United States. I think it is pretty fundamental. I believe that the only purpose of having a government is to defend the people and protect people. That's the primary purpose and if a government can't or won't do that it should cease to exist. That's why I believe in vaccinations, public education, law enforcement, military, and a whole bundle of things that make me grumble about everytime the bill comes around in April. See, if we don't have the money to keep an eye and try to keep factories from polluting we don't need a government. To put it a little extremely, I find it odd that so many conservatives say they are against abortion, but yet through conscious benign neglect champion birth defects and cancer. The government's duty is to protect us from domestic and foreign enemies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 It could also make the country bankrupt long before those goals are attained. I'm all for common sense spending if its in a time where the nation can afford it and if its something temporary. But irresponsible spending, even for all the very honorable and commendable programs, is still irresponsible. There are trillions upon trillions of dollars in the US, the problem is the lack of investment back into America is it any surprise the larger the debt the larger the trade imbalance. The problem with the US is it is government of the corporation and for the corporation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojobo Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 There are trillions upon trillions of dollars in the US, the problem is the lack of investment back into America is it any surprise the larger the debt the larger the trade imbalance.The problem with the US is it is government of the corporation and for the corporation It is extremely difficult to invest in the United States with all the rules, regulation and taxes that go into it. Capital and investments go to where they can make the greatest return. The fact that we have an economic system that doesn't allow for the greatest return is not the fault of business or industry. This huge government spending is at the expense of available credit to businesses and efficiency in the market. If investors can make more money abroad than they can domestically then they are going to invest abroad. The government shouldn't be upset with their people for investing in other countries, the people should be upset with the government for not having a system that allows them to be prosperous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 It is extremely difficult to invest in the United States with all the rules, regulation and taxes that go into it. Capital and investments go to where they can make the greatest return. The fact that we have an economic system that doesn't allow for the greatest return is not the fault of business or industry. This huge government spending is at the expense of available credit to businesses and efficiency in the market. If investors can make more money abroad than they can domestically then they are going to invest abroad. The government shouldn't be upset with their people for investing in other countries, the people should be upset with the government for not having a system that allows them to be prosperous. Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what your country can do for big business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojobo Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what your country can do for big business. Because jobs leaving the country, enormous trade and budget deficits, and too big to fail businesses that will consistently need bailouts have worked extremely well for our economy right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killerbee99 Posted February 13, 2011 Author Share Posted February 13, 2011 Well, having fewer regulations, and regulations repealed also led to the economic mess of 2008, so there has to be a balance somewhere, or do we have no financial regulations or business regulations, hell let's go back to the 1800's baby, then I am sure all the businesses of the world will set up shop in America. To be honest there has to be a balance between sensible regulations and enticing busineeses to invest a lot more in America....that is what President Obama is working on...heck he said so as much at the recent chamber of Commerce meeting that he attended with big businesses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojobo Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Well, having fewer regulations, and regulations repealed also led to the economic mess of 2008, so there has to be a balance somewhere, or do we have no financial regulations or business regulations, hell let's go back to the 1800's baby, then I am sure all the businesses of the world will set up shop in America. To be honest there has to be a balance between sensible regulations and enticing busineeses to invest a lot more in America....that is what President Obama is working on...heck he said so as much at the recent chamber of Commerce meeting that he attended with big businesses Failure and losing money is a pretty good regulator for bad decisions. If you want a really good book on the 2008 crash that was written BEFORE the crash actually happened check out Crash Proof by Peter Schiff. Heres a good video on some of the stuff he was saying before the crash happened when trying to warn people about what was going to happen... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw The $61 billon in spending cuts isn't a step in the right direction, its an admission that the GOP either has no idea of the inflationary crisis that is coming, or that they don't care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 61 billion dollars? I'm thinking that changing the Congressional toilet paper from Charmin to Scott would save roughly that much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 It is extremely difficult to invest in the United States with all the rules, regulation and taxes that go into it. Capital and investments go to where they can make the greatest return. The fact that we have an economic system that doesn't allow for the greatest return is not the fault of business or industry. This huge government spending is at the expense of available credit to businesses and efficiency in the market. If investors can make more money abroad than they can domestically then they are going to invest abroad. The government shouldn't be upset with their people for investing in other countries, the people should be upset with the government for not having a system that allows them to be prosperous. We cannot and do not want to compete w/ China in some areas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.