Jump to content

What needs to be cut/reformed?


rolltide316

Recommended Posts

Party politics is really putting any budget cuts in a precarious situation. Politicians are afraid to make the necessary cuts and look for easy cuts that make no real impact. What do you guys think needs to be cut? If we are not able to get any serious cuts or reforms to happen where do we go from there? tax or what?

I don't want more taxes but I am more fearful of what would happen if expenses are not cut. How far would you fellow GOPers willing to budge? For me fixing the budget deficit is most important issue we need to address. Taxes shouldn't be raised and the only compromising I would be willing to do would be involved with reducing the deficit.

Entitlements1.jpg

Entitlements need to be reformed or have their expenses cut. Defensive spending is pretty reasonable plus we have to spend money on researching for the future. Almost 57% percent of our nations expenditures comes from entitlements. In reality anything other than reforming/cutting entitlements is stupid and will be insignificant in reducing the budget deficit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





Social Security does not equal Medicare/Medicaid. They both are very different. Social Security is pretty much solvent - maybe some minor, minor changes, but the basic structure is as sound a government program as we have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Social Security does not equal Medicare/Medicaid. They both are very different. Social Security is pretty much solvent - maybe some minor, minor changes, but the basic structure is as sound a government program as we have.

Yeah you're right we've been talking about it in my fiscal policy and budgeting class. It still needs changes the trust fund for ss runs out by 2037 if we don't make any changes. I'll never get to see that money unless something changes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of it. Every segment. Don't spend more than you make. Balance the budget, allot money, divide by 12, do your thing until the money runs out, then start over on the 1st.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1st, we need to make the distinction between an "actual cut" (that is, we spend less next year than we did this year) and a "budget cut". Budget cuts in Washington lingo means "Department head: I want to spend $1.1B this year....that is $100m more than I did last year. Response: No, you can only spend $50m more than you did last year. Department head: OMG, you are cutting my budget by $50m; you are a cruel and heartless person that is trying to starve children, the homeless and blah blah blah". The response to this should be; "what, are you stupid, you are spending $50m more than you did last year. Shut up and quit whining...and stop asking me to waste the citizens money". For some reason, we cannot get the discussion to this point of real spending increases vs this fictional "budget cut" discussion.

The reality is, no one is proposing we actually spend less money going foward. The Repub and Dem proposals both propose spending more $$ every year going forward. e The repubs propose not confiscating more income from the people and restrain spending to a lower growth rate. The Dems want to confiscate more money from the people (raise taxes) and continue to increase spending at the rate of the last few years....bascially doubling government spend every 10 years which is shameful.

I would like someone to actually articulate this with simple numbers and analogies so the people understand this and we start solving the real problems. FDR, Kennedy, Reagen were all very good at speaking in plane terms to highlight the real issue and getting people to act. That is what we need now. I am sick and tired of being told I am heartless because I only want to spend $100 more next year instead of $110. What is the best analogy you can think of to illustrate this concept?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe a 4 year freeze on any new spending should be enacted and we could see what the effect is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Social Security does not equal Medicare/Medicaid. They both are very different. Social Security is pretty much solvent - maybe some minor, minor changes, but the basic structure is as sound a government program as we have.

How can a program that we know will go bankrupt as soon as 35 years from now, and will soon be paying out more than it takes in, be considered solid? I guess because you compared it to other government programs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Social Security does not equal Medicare/Medicaid. They both are very different. Social Security is pretty much solvent - maybe some minor, minor changes, but the basic structure is as sound a government program as we have.

How can a program that we know will go bankrupt as soon as 35 years from now, and will soon be paying out more than it takes in, be considered solid? I guess because you compared it to other government programs.

Even though he was countering my point I'll try to clarify what he was saying or from what I think his point was. Most economists are worried more about medicare medicaid due to the rapid pace that costs are increasing which would eventually surpass S.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...