The $60 billion in cuts they've made have mostly targeted:

• social programs
• environmental programs
• regulatory programs
  The programs that they don't like the most. Also, those programs make up something like 16% percent of the overall budget. Also, tax breaks for the rich and business (really corporations) aren't making much of dent in job creation or revenue. They don't want to touch defense spending but want to get their hands on social security, medicare, and medicaid. Putting those programs in hands of investors, which after 2008 is shown to be a bad idea. I haven't heard any plans from them about tax reform. To be fair, I haven't heard anything from the Democrats either, but they're not the ones calling for cuts.
  
  I would think a freeze on spending increases for the next 2 to 4 years would solve a lot of our problems and cause departments and programs to really get their budgets under control. As opposed to hacking these programs in the middle of the year as they are doing.

The $60 billion in cuts they've made have mostly targeted:

• social programs
• environmental programs
• regulatory programs
  The programs that they don't like the most. Also, those programs make up something like 16% percent of the overall budget. Also, tax breaks for the rich and business (really corporations) aren't making much of dent in job creation or revenue. They don't want to touch defense spending but want to get their hands on social security, medicare, and medicaid. Putting those programs in hands of investors, which after 2008 is shown to be a bad idea. I haven't heard any plans from them about tax reform. To be fair, I haven't heard anything from the Democrats either, but they're not the ones calling for cuts.
  
  I would think a freeze on spending increases for the next 2 to 4 years would solve a lot of our problems and cause departments and programs to really get their budgets under control. As opposed to hacking these programs in the middle of the year as they are doing.
  

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/06/pentagon-spending-cuts_n_805628.html

You realize you're proving my point with that link, right?

Everyone agrees that spending needs to be brought down, it's just a question of what spending. The Republicans have their own special interest which is well known (ie eliminate environmental and business regulation, more military spending, defunding abortion, Medicare and financial aid) etc.. The Democrats have their own interests too ofcoruse.. There will be a fight, and ultimately a compromise will be reached.. The overarching theme though is without comprehensive cutbacks on the military all of it won't matter. That 60 billion they cut from the budget, thats just 6 months in Afghanistan and if u include Iraq its comes out to just 3 months of funding for the occupation and wars.. Reality is they thought they would win the wars in 2-3 years but its stretched out to 10+ years..

-ddn

Everyone agrees that spending needs to be brought down, it's just a question of what spending. The Republicans have their own special interest which is well known (ie eliminate environmental and business regulation, more military spending, defunding abortion, Medicare and financial aid) etc.. The Democrats have their own interests too ofcoruse.. There will be a fight, and ultimately a compromise will be reached.. The overarching theme though is without comprehensive cutbacks on the military all of it won't matter. That 60 billion they cut from the budget, thats just 6 months in Afghanistan and if u include Iraq its comes out to just 3 months of funding for the occupation and wars.. Reality is they thought they would win the wars in 2-3 years but its stretched out to 10+ years..

It hasn't been 10 years yet (though it probably will go that long, and it's a minor point).

The rest is pretty accurate.


The link above was just to show that the military is budgeting itself at least whereas before it wasn't really concerned and just threw money around. A large problem with military spending is that it gets tied up for such long periods of time. It's really hard to just cut the spending outright without having a dramatic impact on an enormous number of people. A good example is them considering canceling the marine amphibious landing craft. It seems like an easy thing to cut, but when you've been working on designing the craft for 10 years expecting to get hundreds of orders and all of a sudden the buyer backs out a lot of people can lose jobs, which is probably going to be the case at General Dynamics.

It's a lot easier to decide to stop doing new stuff, but so much money is caught up in old stuff in the military budget, and it's a really difficult position to cut projects that have been in development for so long.

I do not envy the guys that have to deal with that budget.


edit: also a lot of military spending goes into cool research projects like the darpa grand challenge, darpa urban challenge, and the internet, which benefit the military in huge ways, but also result in a better way of life for the whole country.

not saying it can't be trimmed. Just that it's not as easy as, "yea... just cut stuff we don't need."

[quote name='ddn3' timestamp='1298160665' post='4776497']
Everyone agrees that spending needs to be brought down, it's just a question of what spending. The Republicans have their own special interest which is well known (ie eliminate environmental and business regulation, more military spending, defunding abortion, Medicare and financial aid) etc.. The Democrats have their own interests too ofcoruse.. There will be a fight, and ultimately a compromise will be reached.. The overarching theme though is without comprehensive cutbacks on the military all of it won't matter. That 60 billion they cut from the budget, thats just 6 months in Afghanistan and if u include Iraq its comes out to just 3 months of funding for the occupation and wars.. Reality is they thought they would win the wars in 2-3 years but its stretched out to 10+ years..

It hasn't been 10 years yet (though it probably will go that long, and it's a minor point).

The rest is pretty accurate.


The link above was just to show that the military is budgeting itself at least whereas before it wasn't really concerned and just threw money around. A large problem with military spending is that it gets tied up for such long periods of time. It's really hard to just cut the spending outright without having a dramatic impact on an enormous number of people. A good example is them considering canceling the marine amphibious landing craft. It seems like an easy thing to cut, but when you've been working on designing the craft for 10 years expecting to get hundreds of orders and all of a sudden the buyer backs out a lot of people can lose jobs, which is probably going to be the case at General Dynamics.

It's a lot easier to decide to stop doing new stuff, but so much money is caught up in old stuff in the military budget, and it's a really difficult position to cut projects that have been in development for so long.

I do not envy the guys that have to deal with that budget.


edit: also a lot of military spending goes into cool research projects like the darpa grand challenge, darpa urban challenge, and the internet, which benefit the military in huge ways, but also result in a better way of life for the whole country.

not saying it can't be trimmed. Just that it's not as easy as, "yea... just cut stuff we don't need."
[/quote]
I agree for the most part. It is sad and refreshing at the same time that the military and not Republicans are the ones making the hard choices to cut spending. This is the reason why I asked the question in the OP.

Only $60 billion? Not enough I say! I support Rand Paul's $500 Billion Dollar Cuts.

I wouldn't say Republicans are against defense cuts, however funds can be stripped away from redundant and pointless things outside of defense.
To not cut these before cutting waste in defense would be against the modern-conservative philosophy: cut spending, lower taxes, and maintaining a strong defense.

That being said, it shows a slight skizim between the hardline spend cutters, and the hardline defensers, just look at the recent cutting of the secondary engine for the F-35. And also at the hawking about only having a $60 billion dollar cut as opposed to the aforementioned $500 billion dollar cut.


Cutting taxes for the rich isn't a bad thing, the more money out of governments hand, either it be saved in a bank or spent is good thing. You might have class envy, but understand that no matter what, you rely on the "rich". Why is the economy not rebounded yet? Because "rich" and "companies" are less inclined to move money if they're going to be penalized for it.


As for ss/medicare etc, I think we'd be better off with an option, give us a choice of putting it in a government plan, putting it in a private investment firm, or pocketing it with a tax penalty.. I would do either the private or pocket my self, I can get far better return on my $4000 a year in an IRA. In the end I don't care I guess, because I'm not as dumb as the masses and started saving for retirement at 19... People just need to learn how to be responsible, it's not the government's job to cottle us.

Freezing the budget will only work if gpd growth is good during the freeze. Some estimates are that it won't be. A much safer bet is to rollback spending to a slightly profitable level, then constitutionally limit growth of government to growth of gpd. (Something which a few states have already passed). That way we kill the debt, and reduce the chances of being where we are today.

I wouldn't say Republicans are against defense cuts, however funds can be stripped away from redundant and pointless things outside of defense.
To not cut these before cutting waste in defense would be against the modern-conservative philosophy: cut spending, lower taxes, and maintaining a strong defense.

That being said, it shows a slight skizim between the hardline spend cutters, and the hardline defensers, just look at the recent cutting of the secondary engine for the F-35.

Well given the fact that the Secretary Gates and Adm. Mullen are the ones to initiated the spending cuts and not the Republicans says enough in and of itself. Also, it was Speaker Boehner who's been going on and on about the American people spoke and said they want gov't to rein in wasteful, run-away spending by the gov't. Also, just this week he said if people are going to lose their jobs, "so be it. We're broke!" But, he can't bring himself to end a mulit-million program that the Pentagon has said is unnecessary and therefore wasteful. If people in his home state lose their jobs, "so be it". It's the mandate of the American people. The same people who voted him and his other colleagues in office.

And also at the hawking about only having a $60 billion dollar cut as opposed to the aforementioned $500 billion dollar cut.[/quote]
I have no idea about the $500 billion dollar cut. Honestly I don't see how that's possible unless you end every program or stop both wars completely and immediately.

Cutting taxes for the rich isn't a bad thing, the more money out of governments hand, either it be saved in a bank or spent is good thing.[/quote]
I never said it was a bad thing. It has to be justified however. The justification that has been given so far is that the cuts will create jobs and grow the economy. So far, that hasn't happened. Therefore, it's unjustified. If more money is kept in the banks, then they have more money to lend. Normally that's a good thing. But given the last financial catastrophe my trust in banks has waned greatly.

You might have class envy, [/quote]

Really? Did you actually read my post? Way to use the personal attack to start off your defense of the rich....

but understand that no matter what, you rely on the "rich". Why is the economy not rebounded yet? Because "rich" and "companies" are less inclined to move money if they're going to be penalized for it. [/quote]

The rich don't get rich through magic. At the end of the day, the rich get rich off the back of the poor and middle-class. Even through investments, the middle-class and poor determine ultimately decide if the investment brings back a return or goes bust. Also, with all the tax breaks that the rich have in place right now, what penalties are you referring to?

As for ss/medicare etc, I think we'd be better off with an option, give us a choice of putting it in a government plan, putting it in a private investment firm, or pocketing it with a tax penalty.. I would do either the private or pocket my self, I can get far better return on my $4000 a year in an IRA. [/quote]

We have 401s and IRAs, don't we? So obviously, we have a choice.

In the end I don't care I guess, because I'm not as dumb as the masses and started saving for retirement at 19... People just need to learn how to be responsible, it's not the government's job to cottle us.[/quote]

Unfortunately, the masses don't always have the option of saving when they have to spend to feed their family or themselves. It's always an issue of stupidity or even ignorance, but of necessity.

Freezing the budget will only work if gpd growth is good during the freeze. Some estimates are that it won't be. A much safer bet is to rollback spending to a slightly profitable level, then constitutionally limit growth of government to growth of gpd. (Something which a few states have already passed). That way we kill the debt, and reduce the chances of being where we are today.
[/quote]

Or we just don't let investment firms and mortgage companies create shady accounting and investing tricks which cause a global crisis. Or don't start two wars in the middle of a recession without an understanding of the enemy or even a plan. Because if we did that, we wouldn't be running a trillion dollar deficit and SS would actually still be solvent.

Republicans, Democrats, and everyone, they all follow the same rulebook: Give people whatever the candidates think the people want, and who care's about the mess that the next fellow in office has to clean up.

Almost every politician's goal is to give the people who elected them some special tax break, or passing/blocking of law, so they can stay in office. They don't do it for the better of the country, they don't do it for the better of the people, they do it so that they can stay in office. And, well, that's what the people want: "Screw everyone else (including my descendants), give me extra benefits! ...and make me feel good about it, while you do so."

Wikiquote - Unsourced/Unconfirmed
[font="sans-serif"]A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.[/quote][/font]
Despite their stated moral/social values, they're just as self-centered as the rest of us, and the government degenerates financially, politically, and morally. It's just a match between a bunch of people who can lie to the public with the silkiest voices about justice or morals, liberty or progress, and the public choses the lies that best fit with their own delusions or desires.
Then to safeguard ourselves from corruption, we create webs of rules politicians must follow, with the result that they can hardly give us what we want anyway, since we gridlock ourselves into being unable to get anything done on a reasonable time-frame. If they are corrupt, we hinder their corruption. If they are just, we hinder their ability to fix the country. Then we complain about how nothing gets done, and vote someone else in to office - the only people who then can actually get things done are the people that can lie the best, not only to the public, but also to other politicians, and who can make under-the-table deals with other politicians. Our system promotes politicians who can negotiate or talk the best, and puts them in power - regardless of whether or not they are qualified to make decisions on whatever it is they've just been given authority over.

It's not an issue of whether Republicans or Democrats are ruining the country, or driving it into debt - they both are. They both want to give the people who elected them whatever the people want, so they can stay in office. It's not their business to run the country well - it's their business to stay in office. Which do they want - to make progress for the country, but not get re-elected, or to stay in office by making today's voters slightly more comfortable financially or mentally, at the expense of tomorrow's voters?

[/end-rant]

At least dictators can actually get things done in their country. We just need to find a just and moral dictator.

Almost every politician's goal is to give the people who elected them some special tax break, or passing/blocking of law, so they can stay in office. They don't do it for the better of the country, they don't do it for the better of the people, they do it so that they can stay in office. And, well, that's what the people want: "Screw everyone else (including my descendants), give me extra benefits! ...and make me feel good about it, while you do so."

Wikiquote - Unsourced/Unconfirmed
[font="sans-serif"]A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.

[/font]
[/quote]
This certainly doesn't apply to the current situation. The majority has not discovered this. Rather, it is a minority of extremely wealthy and financial sector actors who have discovered that they can give themselves largess out of the public treasury, and they manage to influence the media in such a way that the majority follows them unthinkingly.

At least dictators can actually get things done in their country. We just need to find a just and moral dictator.
[/quote]
I realize you're joking, but historically, loose fiscal policy has always been more of a problem in dictatorships or other undemocratic regimes, e.g. most recently Zimbabwe. If anything, the current problem in Western democracies is that fiscal policies are too tight, and/or targeted badly (basically, wealth inequality spinning out of control).