The spending the Democrats want to cut: ...nothing.

[joeydb]

Congresswoman from Texas is a broken record of talking points:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzN0SSXuqfo

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Congresswoman from Texas is a broken record of talking points:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzN0SSXuqfo

Oh, the irony.

[Danzig]

i'm pretty sure i heard her say entitlements are on the table. too bad she didn't say we need to cut defense. i'm sure cavuto would have been bothered by that. cuts are all well and good, as long as they're the 'right kind'.

[joeydb]

The key thing is that the Democrats don't care what the math says. The fact that they want the tax hikes "on the rich" (repeated ad nauseum like a reflex) and will not talk about cutting non-defense spending is symptomatic of that reality.

The revenue produced by raising taxes will amount to about 8 or 9 days of federal spending @ $10B per day.

With defecits over $1T, or 100 days annually of unfunded spending on average, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that an aversion to cutting spending is absurd.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by joeydb

The key thing is that the Democrats don't care what the math says. The fact that they want the tax hikes "on the rich" (repeated ad nauseum like a reflex) and will not talk about cutting non-defense spending is symptomatic of that reality.

The revenue produced by raising taxes will amount to about 8 or 9 days of federal spending @ $10B per day.

With defecits over $1T, or 100 days annually of unfunded spending on average, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that an aversion to cutting spending is absurd.

it's because Defense is the only major spending we could actually cut. Non defense discretionary spending is less than ten percent of total budget.

Raising Medicare eligibility will cost more than it will save.
Social Security doesn't contribute to the deficit.
If we don't pay interest on our debt, we go into default.
Cutting Medicaid pushes the additional cost onto the states. Or people starve. One is not cost effective and the other is immoral.

So that leaves Defense.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

it's because Defense is the only major spending we could actually cut. Non defense discretionary spending is less than ten percent of total budget.

Raising Medicare eligibility will cost more than it will save.
Social Security doesn't contribute to the deficit.If we don't pay interest on our debt, we go into default.
Cutting Medicaid pushes the additional cost onto the states. Or people starve. One is not cost effective and the other is immoral.

So that leaves Defense.

yes, it does. i know with the convoluted accounting practices the gov uses that it's argued it doesn't, but it really does. we pay less in than will be taken out. then there's the iou's.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

yes, it does. i know with the convoluted accounting practices the gov uses that it's argued it doesn't, but it really does. we pay less in than will be taken out. then there's the iou's.

Right, but that is money that has been lent out to the government. If we're saying that that money was a gift, not a loan, then we're saying the US government isn't good for its debts, in which case we're really screwed.

It's not convoluted accounting- SS, thanks to the changes instituted by Reagan and Tip O'Neill's Congress back in, what, 1982? 1983?, started running a surplus, which was then LENT to the government's general operations funds, via purchasing Treasury bonds. SS, if I understand, is required to lend out surpluses so that it can generate interest on the surpluses and contribute to its stability. Now, admittedly, the changes were instituted with the intent of creating a surplus so that they could justify slashing taxes on the wealthy, but it still is a loan, not a gift.

Fun fact- much like the Bush tax cuts, the big Reagan tax cuts on the wealthy were also supposed to be temporary- Greenspan said they'd be okay for about 30 years, and then taxes would have to go back up on the wealthy because the low tax rate wouldn't be sustainable. Aaaannd... let's see..... 30 years from 1982 would bring us to when?

Social Security contributes to the deficit only if you think the USA isn't good for its debts. Otherwise, SS taking in less money than it pays out is actually good for the US, as it requires the US to pay back some of the money borrowed from SS, and that actually reduces our debt.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

Oh, the irony.