"These programs make up something like 16 percent of the overall budget"[/quote]

You lost me right there. Here's your CBO breakdown for last year:




Anyway, I don't think the cuts are enough. We should cut deeper into entitlement programs, foreign aid, and defense.

"US debt doesn't matter because the US issues the currency the debt is in". Laughable argument. Elementary stuff here - The higher the debt gets, the more we owe. If we can't afford the debt, but can print money, why not just print enough to pay it back, since it is "our money"? Because the more US currency in circulation, the less it is worth - hence inflation. Not to mention that confidence in the currency falls, which has any number of negative effects on the economy. And let's not bring Zimbabwe into this, a small country with 95% unemployment and hilariously high inflation - the only thing relevant there is the negative effect of mass printing money to pay off debt.

I said 16%. The chart says 19%. Were you really that lost?

In any case, I think SS, Medicare and Medicaid should be reformed as opposed to cut. Defense Spending should find the cuts where possible then have its increases frozen for the next 2 to 5 years. There should budget increases should be frozen across the board. While we're doing that, tax loopholes should just be closed.

You should be referring to all targeted programs - not just those in this bill (which were intentionally aimed at discretionary spending, and assumed to be just "the beginning")

[color="#CCCCCC"]

"They don't want to touch defense spending but want to get their hands on social security, medicare, and medicaid."[/quote]


[font="arial, helvetica, sans"]

(Reuters) - House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner said on Thursday his fellow Republicans would follow efforts to cut $61.5 billion from this year's budget with an attack on waste in Medicare and other so-called mandatory U.S. spending programs.[/quote]
[/font]
http://www.reuters.c...E71G69T20110217

The bad news is that even recent spending cuts at state levels are receiving serious protest.

If Republicans were serious about reducing the deficit they would have allowed the Bush tax breaks for billionaires to expire. What they're serious about is cutting government to the bone to eliminate any obstacles that might stand in the way of the rule of their corporate puppet masters. They simply lack the courage to admit that's what they're about, so they create a bogus budget crisis in order to ram their desires down every one's throats (Wisconsin!). Rush Limbaugh says as much every time he prattles on about taking it in the ass and getting it shoved down his throat and all that homo-psycho-sexual talk he likes to employ to stir the loins of his most rabid fans. There are still 15 million unemployed workers in the United States. The austerity programs the Republicans are championing will swell that number. Boehner knows it and doesn't care ("So be it!"). Look at what happened in the UK. The Tory's pushed austerity and their economy shrank. Double dip recession! Yeah! The Republicans probably think that increased unemployment will make Obama's reelection difficult and stopping that from happening is all they really care about. They want power and they'll do and say anything they have to in order to get it. They don't have a clear idea of what they want to do with that power - at least not one they're willing to share with the public. Whatever their plan it probably involves destroying labor unions and the Democratic Party, privatizing social security, banning abortion, militarizing the border with Mexico and a host of other unsavory actions that they know the public would never honestly accept.

Corporations to Government: Give Us More, Tax Us Less
http://www.truth-out.org/corporations-government-give-us-more-tax-us-less67942

What Conservatives Really Want
http://www.truth-out.org/what-conservatives-really-want67907

This whole argument kinda hinges on the assumption that there's two parties in government, right?

America is actually sitting on a powder keg, look at Egypt no one expected it and suddenly it exploded.. Real unemployment at 20% it doesn't take much of a spark to light that fire.. Combine with higher fuel and food costs and a hard winter and all u need is a food shortage and that is how governments fall.. Through out history those have been the warning signs, ie lots of out of work hungry miserable people facing a tough winter.. they go crazy...

-ddn

"US debt doesn't matter because the US issues the currency the debt is in". Laughable argument. Elementary stuff here - The higher the debt gets, the more we owe. If we can't afford the debt, but can print money, why not just print enough to pay it back, since it is "our money"?

First of all, do you understand what you mean when you say "we owe"? And do you care to explain? Second, who is saying that the US government can't "afford" the debt?

As for paying back the debt, that's a reasonable long term strategy, but doing it abruptly is not a good idea, simply because it would cause chaos. Keep in mind that most holders of government bonds do so to store wealth: When the bonds reach maturity, they simply buy new bonds, and a large part of the economy relies on getting interest on these bonds. If this source of income were to suddenly disappear, it would obviously be disruptive, partly because insurance companies, banks, pension funds, etc. suddenly lose an income stream that they rely on, partly because some of the money would probably go into the stock market or commodities in the irrational hope that comparable interest can be won there. However, the government could certainly implement a long-term strategy of pushing bond yield down to 0% over let's say 15 years buy buying bonds back gradually. It would be wise to complement such a strategy with a restructuring of how the pension system works.

Please explain how that could cause a horror scenario, according to your view.

America is actually sitting on a powder keg, look at Egypt no one expected it and suddenly it exploded.. Real unemployment at 20% it doesn't take much of a spark to light that fire.. Combine with higher fuel and food costs and a hard winter and all u need is a food shortage and that is how governments fall.. Through out history those have been the warning signs, ie lots of out of work hungry miserable people facing a tough winter.. they go crazy...

One significant difference between the US and Egypt is that the typical fraction of income that is spent on food is much lower in the US than in Egypt, so there is a bigger buffer against hunger in case of rising food prices. Of course the poorest in the US are still going to suffer, and it is absolutely irresponsible of politicians to allow that to happen. But it will be quite some time before there's really a potential for revolution like in Egypt.

One significant difference between the US and Egypt is that the typical fraction of income that is spent on food is much lower in the US than in Egypt, so there is a bigger buffer against hunger in case of rising food prices. Of course the poorest in the US are still going to suffer, and it is absolutely irresponsible of politicians to allow that to happen. But it will be quite some time before there's really a potential for revolution like in Egypt.

the poorest in any country always suffer compared to the norm. It is not irresponsible of politicians to allow it to happen, because it is impossible for it not to happen in a capitalist country.

Nonsense. Every sovereign government has both the responsibility and the capability to care for the poorest in its country. At a very minimum, every government has the responsibility and capability to ensure full employment, such that lack of jobs cannot be a source of poverty.

The only exception to this is if the country is devastated in terms of real resources; if the real amount of food you can produce just isn't enough to feed everybody, then you're in deep shit. But the developed world is very far away from that extreme, so there really is no excuse for letting millions of human beings suffer.

Note: Watch your wording. It is a given that the income and wealth distributions in a county are never perfectly equal. However, you can have moderately unequal distributions without human tragedy at the poor end of the scale. "Suffering" doesn't just mean having smaller nominal income than your neighbour, it includes an absolute component as well.

Nonsense. Every sovereign government has both the responsibility and the capability to care for the poorest in its country. At a very minimum, every government has the responsibility and capability to ensure full employment, such that lack of jobs cannot be a source of poverty.

I'm pretty sure "Full Employment" has never existed outside the arms of totalitarian governments holding surveys with conveniently-placed ink smudges. Not sure you consider that "capability at a very minimum". Do we all get visits from the Job Fairy?