Republicans back off pledge to cut $100B from budget

Discussion in 'Off-topic Political' started by bdee, Jan 5, 2011.

  1. bdee

    bdee انا باتمان

  2. CountryGun

    CountryGun New Member

    7,594
    0
    0
    Same church, different pew.
     

  3. kkennett

    kkennett New Member

    2,139
    0
    0
    The reason is that they only have 1/2 a budget year left. There is a continuing resolution through March, and the new fiscal year starts in October. The $100B number was for a whole year. Now, whether they'll get that done, who knows?
     
  4. EJR914

    EJR914 Cheezburger Operator

    44,830
    186
    63
    Keep voting in those Republican like a good little subject! Bwhahahahahahaha! :devil:
     
  5. 87FieroGT

    87FieroGT New Member

    181
    0
    0
    When the Democrats took control of the House on 1/4/2007 the debt was $8,670,596,242,973.04
    a very short 4 years later as the Republicans take control of the house the debt is $14,014,049,043,294.41

    That’s a 5.3 Trillion dollar increase in just 4 years. A 62% growth in the debt in just 4 years.

    At this point I don't care who dose it but it has to stop PEROID!!!!!!!

    http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLog ... ication=np
     
  6. Rugerer

    Rugerer GeePeeDoHolic

    6,372
    61
    48
    And yet as she's leaving office, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said, "Deficit reduction has been a high priority for us. It is our mantra, pay-as-you-go." (link)

    Real knee-slapper there.
     
  7. TippinTaco

    TippinTaco New Member

    4,447
    0
    0
    I never believe politicians.. period. Most are educated in political fields, but they all seem to take an extracurricular class in deception and mind games. As my dad always told me every politician has one thing in common: they all lack spines.

    They lie to get the vote, they lie more to try to keep everyone happy, but once they're in the chair, they force their personal agendas on everyone.
     
  8. spector

    spector New Member

    1,849
    0
    0
    $100B, that's it?

    That's barely 10% of military (read:eek:verseas empire maintenance) spending alone. What happened to 15% across the board?

    This is pathetic.
     
  9. bdee

    bdee انا باتمان

    I wonder what would happen if someone proposed spending only what we brought in without adding to our debts. :screwy:

    We have to tackle the big three. Make the retirement age 80, when you are also eligible for Medicare and Social Security, and cut our military budget by half.

    Those two things would help.
     
  10. spector

    spector New Member

    1,849
    0
    0
    Of course they would, but good luck getting republicans to agree to cut the "defense" budget. They truly believe we are made safer by poking around in foreign countries we have no right or reason to be in.

    The fact that terrorists must now only wait until we economically destroy ourselves trying to fight them overseas is lost on them. Why go through the trouble of trying to destroy the USA when we are doing such a good job ourselves?
     
  11. bdee

    bdee انا باتمان

    Yeah, if you are not for a series of nation building exercises costing us billions, then you are soft on terrorism.
    A few things:
    1. We need to stay in Japan to make it safe for democracy.
    2. We still need to defend Germany from the Soviet Union.
    3. Most people realize that bin Laden died years ago, but we stay because we want to rebuild that nation at our own expense.
    4. I am sure we will find WMDs in Iraq any day now.

    How about we bring all our troops home, put some on our southern border and reassign the rest to the National Guard?
    Make it a point that troops can only be deployed when a state of war exists.
     
  12. Verbal101

    Verbal101 Active Member

    2,133
    14
    38
    bdee, what would you say to dismantling social security? For those of us still working, give us our money back and let us manage for our own retirements. For those who plan & manage well, retirement comes early. For those who don't, well, a retirement age of 80 is self-imposed.
     
  13. bdee

    bdee انا باتمان

    I don't have a problem with that in theory.

    But a couple of problems.
    1. If you emptied the coffers of current employees money, what money would you use to continue paying current retirees?
    2. Recent law has allowed that money to be used for disabled people regardless of age. What do we do with those people?
     
  14. spector

    spector New Member

    1,849
    0
    0
    Dunno what bdee would say, but:

    Privatize it. Give the option to roll up what has been paid into a private account where you can invest tax free anywhere from 5%-15% of your income in a vehicle of your choosing for retirement. Make the private system the default for anyone new and optional for all existing SS payees.

    -No one is forced to switch
    -NO ONE loses what they have put in so far
    -A minimum retirement amount still exists to "make" people plan for retirement, so that we don't have scores of old people suckling at the government teat in the future
    -You should get to choose to invest above the minimum if you want, similar to an IRA.

    The only people losing in that scenario are power-hungry politicians.
     
  15. TippinTaco

    TippinTaco New Member

    4,447
    0
    0
    Honestly we shouldnt have social security for anyone. I'm not paying $100+ a pay check every 2 weeks for MY retirement. I'm paying $200 a month for people WHO DIDNT SAVE to retire. This country is poor BECAUSE WE HAND MONEY OUT TO PEOPLE FREELY. We send millions upond millions to foreign country in aid, we pay politicians WAY more than they deserve. We fight unecessary wars that cost us a fortune and we didnt even need to be there!!! Why when our country is crippled, do we keep doing this to ourselves? Why do we give every useless POS welfare when they've been on it for 30+ years, has 9 kids, and never had a job in their life?!?! Why when you file your taxes, us who pay $$$$$ get little to none back, but these couples that have 1-2 kids and don't work get a check back for $1500+?.

    The fact is its our crummy @#[email protected]#$ politicians who made this mess. It's failures of trial and error that they've played to gain votes from the people in this country that DONT CONTRIBUTE!! I'm sick and tired of being a peasant in this country. I work hard, I make a good living for my family which is just my wife and I, I pay my mortgage that has neagtive equity while others richer than I walk away from their multimillion dollar homes. @[email protected]#[email protected]#[email protected] it I do my part to be a contributable member of this society. All I am to the GOV is a peasant, a form of revenue, a number. Thats what we all are except those who are on the inside.

    Do you think the GOV cares about us? the only thing they care about is us working the "fields", tending to the "livestock", we step out of line OFF WITH YOUR HEAD!!

    Nothing had changed from the medieval era. You fight against the King, they silenced you. You stand up for what you believe in they make sure you regret it. They needed people to take care of the land and earn money for them to pay for all the lavish things they had in those castles.

    Tell me how 2011 is any different from the 15th century? Besides the fact women can vote?

    I'm not trying to rant or be all anti-gov but the facts are facts. When will the socialistict behaviors end and finally running this country in the name of god and the people begin? This counrty isn't anything with out us middle class working families. We built this country from bottom up and without us it doesnt exist. Why is it important for us to have jobs? Because without jobs they don't make money. To make up for it they raise taxes accordingly to compensate for the loses.

    I'm not a patriot guys, I'm just a 28 year old employeed guy who is trying to make it day by day without losing the stuff I worked so hard for even if its not worth what it used to be. Do I give a @#[email protected]#$ that my home isn't worth $500,000 in equity? No. Because I have a place to lay my head, watch my tv and consider my safety dwelling.

    I hope after they read that constitution I hope those people ELECTED to represent us will understand we put them there, we can remove them just as easily. We need to start warming up the presses for impeachments and get very familiarized witht he procedings on how to do it. These people will understand we mean business and if you fail to represent us as you promised.. we will impeach you, fine you, and possibly lock your sorry @#[email protected]#$ up like the criminal you are. When I go to court, they make me swear to tell the truth, the whole truth so help me god. When you become a politician you should be sworn in just the same. When I lie in court, I go to jail. When you lie as a politician: YOU SHOULD GO TO JAIL.
     
  16. mb90535im

    mb90535im Well-Known Member

    3,857
    32
    48
    I would prefer "pay as we go" to raising the debt ceiling, but that ain't going to happen.

    Tax and Spend vs. Borrow and Spend.

    Sorry, but it appears those are the current options in play with the current congress. Let's quit passing the bill to our grand kids.
     
  17. bdee

    bdee انا باتمان

  18. spector

    spector New Member

    1,849
    0
    0
  19. jhvaughan2

    jhvaughan2 Member

    364
    0
    16
    Don't give him too much credit. the $78 billon is over 5 years. (And can be eliminated by future budgets.) 15bn/year sounds like a big amount but compared to this year's budgeted defense spending of $725 (yep, almost $2bn / day) it is not so much. In fact it is not even 10% of the Afghan war part of the budget ($158.7bn)

    I'm just happy they finally have enough courage to finally begin the talk. To talk "balancing" the budget without cutting talk about the largest budget item is idiotic.
     
  20. bdee

    bdee انا باتمان

    Well there is no balancing the budget without serious cuts to both entitlements and the military.