Dems win the Senate...

[Moneyguy1]

So.........

Where DO we cut? What programs go on the block? Why? What are the ramifications of the cuts you guys propose?

Come on....be specific.....

I want to see whose ox you are willing to gore.

[hardflex]

Tom Delay, when he was Speaker said something along the lines of "there's nowhere we can cut this 2.4 Trillion dollar budget". LOL

[Moneyguy1]

A good start might be with the Alaskan Senator who threatened his compatriots if they voted against his "bridge to nowhere" I am sure this is just a pimple on the overall problem of abuse.

[Nathans_Dad]

Moneyguy there are countless programs that could be cut or eliminated. Programs we have come to consider as sacred cows, not to be touched on fear of death. Yes, military spending dominates the budget, always has. I think that the military could certainly spend their money more wisely, I don't think cutting the military funding during these times is a great idea though.

How about this list for starters: welfare, social security, medicare (especially the drug benefit), all of the thousands of pork projects (they probably would add up to a couple billion). How's that for starters?

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
Moneyguy there are countless programs that could be cut or eliminated. Programs we have come to consider as sacred cows, not to be touched on fear of death. Yes, military spending dominates the budget, always has. I think that the military could certainly spend their money more wisely, I don't think cutting the military funding during these times is a great idea though.

How about this list for starters: welfare, social security, medicare (especially the drug benefit), all of the thousands of pork projects (they probably would add up to a couple billion). How's that for starters?

Welfare was reformed under a democrat president. 5 year lifetime "benefit" now. Government was exclusively controlled for 6 years by all republican congress/WH. The only thing that happened during this time was MORE (medicare prescription).

Ya'll scrutinize your "opponent" but you don't bother to do the same to your own. Your party had the chance to address these issues....why didn't they, why did they ADD? And then some think we should've allowed them to remain in control longer?????

[on-ramp]

The Dems didn't win, the Reps just lost.

[Nathans_Dad]

CC, again, you won't find me defending the spending habits of the Republicans. The Republicans aren't conservatives, they are liberals from 30 years ago. The Democrats have become socialists.

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
CC, again, you won't find me defending the spending habits of the Republicans. The Republicans aren't conservatives, they are liberals from 30 years ago. The Democrats have become socialists.

The Republicans are the socialists.

Hell, even you tried to claim I would starve without welfare for farmers.

[Nathans_Dad]

Um, no. I claimed that you would starve if the farm production stopped. That is, unless you have a little garden in your Chicago apartment that can produce enough food to sustain you.

My point here is that people who voted for Democrats thinking the Dems would provide fiscal responsibility are in for a rude awakening. The ONLY good news coming from the Dems taking the Congress is that you now will have the two parties fighting each other and gridlock will ensue. Of course that's a pretty pathetic assessment of our government, the only way they do well and don't spend themselves into oblivion is when we have gridlock.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by hardflex
If you're giving money to the downtrodden, perhaps you should see where they're actually spending it...

It is amazing how different things are when you actually put federal discretionary spending on defense into perspective:

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
[B]Um, no. I claimed that you would starve if the farm production stopped. That is, unless you have a little garden in your Chicago apartment that can produce enough food to sustain you.

Why would you think farm production would stop?

My point here is that people who voted for Democrats thinking the Dems would provide fiscal responsibility are in for a rude awakening. The ONLY good news coming from the Dems taking the Congress is that you now will have the two parties fighting each other and gridlock will ensue. Of course that's a pretty pathetic assessment of our government, the only way they do well and don't spend themselves into oblivion is when we have gridlock.

LOL, the only fiscal responsibility we had in 25 years was under the only democrat president.

You're about lip service, I'm about actions. You're about guesses, I'm about facts. You *guess* stuff, I wait neutrally and see what they will do.

Though I can't imagine they could get worse than the socialists just voted out of office....

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by cool_chick


LOL, the only fiscal responsibility we had in 25 years was under the only democrat president.

And you feel that Clinton would have been more fiscally responsible under a Dem congress? Is that really what you think?

[Porsche-O-Phile]

How about we start with 10% across-the-board cut to ALL programs (including military spending). Five years from now, another 10%. Five years later, another 10% and so on until we're at about 50% (or less) of current budget. That'd be fine by me. Naturally the taxes that go along with them also go bye-bye, phased over the next 25-or-so years if necessary.

Welfare? Eliminate it. Minimum wage? Gone. Pork projects for transportation, infrastructure and so forth? Gone. Eliminate them completely. Let the states take care of themselves. The federal government has WAY overstepped its boundaries in taking power from the states. If the states want to do these things, let them vote on them in referendums and pass them as STATE (not federal) laws.

In this way, the different values and philosophies that the indivduals of this great nation hold can be represented through as many as 50 different interpretations or expressions as sets of priorities. The individual states can define themselves uniquely and express their own sets of priorities and values through their laws and policies. They can ally with each other in some areas and compete in others. It's the ultimate expression of the strength of competition. Don't like it here? Go somewhere else. There will be someplace for every reasonable person. No more "donor states" and "recipient states" - you rise and/or fall on your own merits.

Smaller, more localized governments almost ALWAYS are more effective than large, broad-reaching ones. The federal government should be strong enough to deter foreign invasion (illegal immigration is a form of this) and able to hold the union of the constituent states together and prosecute interstate crimes that are violations of federal law. Little more than that is necessary, justified or was ever intended by the founders of this country.

The over-centralization of government in present-day form is an abomination and would make our founding fathers roll over in their graves. It was never intended to be like this. It was intended to be stronger than the federal government under the (failed) Articles of Confederation but not a pseudo-totalitarian power that routinely strips power from the states and trumps their right to govern themselves.

Same issue that was fought over a century and a half ago in the Civil War - states rights. Maybe it's time we solved it.

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by lendaddy
And you feel that Clinton would have been more fiscally responsible under a Dem congress? Is that really what you think?

Not more or less. The same.

The republicans have total power for how long now....and they're horrid with regard to fiscal responsibility. There's nothing to indcate Clinton would be different depending on the makeup of congress.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by cool_chick
Not more or less. The same.

The republicans have total power for how long now....and they're horrid with regard to fiscal responsibility. There's no indication to think Clinton would be different depending on the makeup of congress.

Do you remember HillaryCare? Care to guess where that little diddy would have ranked on the spending chart? Do you recall which party said "Oh....hells no!"?

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Furthermore every new law passed in Congress must be accompanied by the removal of three others. Trim the fat and get rid of some of the stupid/outdated laws on the books. The inherent problem with democratic government is that if legislators aren't constantly inventing new issues (and laws to "solve" them), it's easy for them to be painted as "do-nothing". Sad, but unavoidable. As such, over time is you get what we have today - bloated, unmanageable codes of laws and regulations covering EVERYTHING from birth to death (inclusive) and covering everything from how we have sex to how we take a ****. It's ridiculous. We need to find ways to make REVIEW of laws (new and existing) as important as pumping them out by the thousands. Expiration dates or "sunset clauses" would be good in a lot of them. Fewer laws, fewer lawsuits, fewer lawyers and increased PERSONAL accountability to deal with problems. Probably a good thing to allow (and force) people to resolve their OWN problems instead of relying on "the system" to play mommy constantly. It will make us stronger and more individually (and collectively) self-reliant in the long run.

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by lendaddy
Do you remember HillaryCare? Care to guess where that little diddy would have ranked on the spending chart? Do you recall which party said "Oh....hells no!"?

Yet we have medicare prescription plan now. How did that happen under a republican controlled everything? What were you thinking?

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by cool_chick
Yet we have medicare prescription plan now. How did that happen under a republican controlled everything? What were you thinking?

Me? I didn't do it, idiots in my party tried to appease the left with that. That program is far removed from anything my party stands for.

If you recall, the '04 elections had that as an issue and both parties were promising a drug plan. They would have created an even larger program, no doubt.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by hardflex
If you're giving money to the downtrodden, perhaps you should see where they're actually spending it...

Leaving out non-discretionary spending, the bulk of which funds sociofascist programs, from your chart above is lying by omission.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by hardflex
another from this site. Interesting budget proposals there, you all should take a look.

http://www.sensiblepriorities.org/budget_analysis.php

When discussing military spending with respect to taxes, it is more telling to look at it with respect to GDP. Even at war we are ranked 26th behind China, Greece, Syria...even peace-loving Kuwait and Singapore.