Shock Graphics Show Severity of Proposed Obama Budget Cuts

  • 155 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for deactivated-598fc45371265
deactivated-598fc45371265

13247

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#1 deactivated-598fc45371265
Member since 2008 • 13247 Posts

Merciless.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/shock-graphics-show-severity-of-proposed-obama-budget-cuts/

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/06/opinion/06lew.html?_r=3&ref=opinion

Avatar image for nocoolnamejim
nocoolnamejim

15136

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 22

User Lists: 0

#2 nocoolnamejim
Member since 2003 • 15136 Posts
Since the TC's link references the Rand Paul proposal, allow me to discuss Senator Paul's proposed budget cuts. For those of you who are at all curious, here is a detailed view of the proposal for the new Rand Paul budget that shows how he would save the U.S. $500 billion per year. Before I proceed further, I want to show you all two important visual representations of how the U.S. spends your tax dollars if you live in this country.   Now, back to Senator Paul's budget. Look at it. I mean REALLY look at it. This is about as dead on arrival as is politically possible for a budget proposal to be. These two items positioned right next to each other show you everything that you need to know. DEFENSE.......................................................$47,500,000,000. (6.5%) EDUCATION..................................................$78,000,000,000 (83%) Only the Pell grant program survives. Cutting out 47.5 billion dollars from the Defense budget would only reduce it by 6.5%, but Rand Paul would rather eliminate over 83% of our Education Budget? This is honestly nothing more than a Republican fantasy dream put on paper. I doubt that there are even that many Republicans that want to go face the voters and say things like: "Because we think our children are the future of this country and we're falling behind the rest of the world in things like math and science, we've cut spending on their education by 83%."

"Because it's so important for the U.S. to be on the cutting edge of new scientific developments, we've cut the National Science Foundation by 62%."

"Because we think it is important that there be no discrimination when it comes to Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, we're eliminating the Department of Housing and Urban Development completely." (Among other things that cabinet level position is responsible for...) You get the idea. These programs/government entities exist and get more and more funding every year for two very important reasons: 1. They do useful things. Things that we, as a country, have felt is the legitimate role of government for decades.



2. The U.S. keeps growing each year, therefore the jobs that these programs/government entities do needs more resources because the job they need to do keeps getting bigger. As a simple analogy, think of staffing a tech support call center. Let's say that three people can handle 40 calls a day and give good service. If the call volume goes up to 80 per day, then those three people may not be enough and you need to invest in a larger tech support staff. Pretty basic right? It's the same way things like education work. If the number of kids that need to be educated goes up, then the money you need to spend to do things like build and maintain more schools, hire and train more teachers and support staff, etc. also goes up. And since the U.S. population is going to continue to grow, so is the size of government if we want to continue to have a public school system. So for Mr. Paul to blithely suggest cutting the education budget by 83%, what does he think is going to be the result? Unless you really feel that our education system is so bloated and inefficient that we can magically IMPROVE the quality of our schools and our education by removing 83% of the funding then what will happen is that our kids will get deeply dumber, less of them will be able to go to college, and the U.S. will gradually over time lose our ability to compete globally. Go through the rest of the list and think about what each one does and how slashing their funding billions and billions of dollars a year will impact their ability to do what they do successfully. So all these cuts that would utterly ravage our government's ability to do important things, and it still wouldn't actually accomplish it's goal. We'd still have a huge budget shortfall of approximately 800 billion to 1 trillion dollars. Let me repeat that: Even if every single one of Senator Paul's draconian cuts to all these discretionary spending programs went through, we'd still have an annual budget deficit of one trillion dollars. A serious approach to reducing the longterm structural deficit involves precisely three things. 1. Entitlement program changes (Social Security, Medicare, etc.) 2. Defense/military changes 3. Tax changes Any deficit reduction plan that is not 95% composed of some combination of cuts to Entitlement and Defense and increases in taxes is, flat out, not a serious deficit reduction strategy. It is unserious from a political standpoint, since I would wager even the majority of Republicans will run away as fast as they can from Rand Paul's recommended cuts to the "everything else" category of the first pie graph above. And it's unserious from the end goal it is trying to accomplish: actually reducing the longterm deficit since those are not the major areas we spend the vast majority of our money.

This is not difficult to understand when you take a high level view and look at where our spending really comes from as a country.
Avatar image for deactivated-5fc147aeeb0aa
deactivated-5fc147aeeb0aa

8315

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#3 deactivated-5fc147aeeb0aa
Member since 2009 • 8315 Posts

^ Woa....

Avatar image for deactivated-598fc45371265
deactivated-598fc45371265

13247

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#4 deactivated-598fc45371265
Member since 2008 • 13247 Posts

A serious approach to reducing the longterm structural deficit involves precisely three things. 1. Entitlement program changes (Social Security, Medicare, etc.) 2. Defense/military changes 3. Tax changes Any deficit reduction plan that is not 95% composed of some combination of cuts to Entitlement and Defense and increases in taxes is, flat out, not a serious deficit reduction strategy. It is unserious from a political standpoint, since I would wager even the majority of Republicans will run away as fast as they can from Rand Paul's recommended cuts to the "everything else" category of the first pie graph above. And it's unserious from the end goal it is trying to accomplish: actually reducing the longterm deficit since those are not the major areas we spend the vast majority of our money.

This is not difficult to understand when you take a high level view and look at where our spending really comes from as a country. nocoolnamejim

So the question is, is there any hope at all?

Avatar image for DivergeUnify
DivergeUnify

15150

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 DivergeUnify
Member since 2007 • 15150 Posts
That kind of annoys me a lot... military spending needs to be cut cut cut before anything else receives cuts
Avatar image for fl4tlined
fl4tlined

4134

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#6 fl4tlined
Member since 2007 • 4134 Posts
all i know is that i got lulz from seeing defense spending while one of the biggest things we pay for the smallest cut by half of the second smallest
Avatar image for mattbbpl
mattbbpl

23010

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 mattbbpl
Member since 2006 • 23010 Posts

^ Woa....

sherman-tank1
Indeed, but he's spot on. It became rather clear that the politicians weren't serious about debt reduction when they voted to extend the Bush tax cuts.
Avatar image for mattbbpl
mattbbpl

23010

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 mattbbpl
Member since 2006 • 23010 Posts
[QUOTE="StormMarine"] [QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] A serious approach to reducing the longterm structural deficit involves precisely three things. 1. Entitlement program changes (Social Security, Medicare, etc.) 2. Defense/military changes 3. Tax changes Any deficit reduction plan that is not 95% composed of some combination of cuts to Entitlement and Defense and increases in taxes is, flat out, not a serious deficit reduction strategy. It is unserious from a political standpoint, since I would wager even the majority of Republicans will run away as fast as they can from Rand Paul's recommended cuts to the "everything else" category of the first pie graph above. And it's unserious from the end goal it is trying to accomplish: actually reducing the longterm deficit since those are not the major areas we spend the vast majority of our money. This is not difficult to understand when you take a high level view and look at where our spending really comes from as a country.

So the question is, is there any hope at all?

Probably not with this Congress. Most of the current politicians can't seem to see past the ideology they cling to so dearly.
Avatar image for inoperativeRS
inoperativeRS

8844

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#9 inoperativeRS
Member since 2004 • 8844 Posts
83% cut to educati*faints*
Avatar image for fl4tlined
fl4tlined

4134

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#10 fl4tlined
Member since 2007 • 4134 Posts
[QUOTE="sherman-tank1"]

^ Woa....

mattbbpl
Indeed, but he's spot on. It became rather clear that the politicians weren't serious about debt reduction when they voted to extend the Bush tax cuts.

i dont think anyone is serious about reducing debt no one wants to hears the republicans or democrats say hey we really need to raise taxes and cut some spending people vote for what they greedily want the people better off wanna screw over the poor people the poor people wanna be lazy and screw over the hard working... one wants programs and more taxes the others wants less programs and less taxes either way the debt problem will never be fixed and we will continue this bull**** of ridiculousness until something bad really does happen
Avatar image for nocoolnamejim
nocoolnamejim

15136

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 22

User Lists: 0

#11 nocoolnamejim
Member since 2003 • 15136 Posts

So the question is, is there any hope at all?

Storm_Marine
Definitely still hope! The hope is in four areas. 1. Economic recovery. Right now, unemployment is high. When unemployment is high, that means folks aren't paying taxes. Most economists are saying we've seen the worst of the recent recession. Hiring is a lagging indicator of economic recovery. Essentially, most companies wait until they're damn sure that the recession is over before they start unfreezing hiring and hiring new people again. So simply reducing the number of people unemployed will lead to a dent in the deficit. 2. Reduction in long-term military expenses We've got two simultaneous and very costly wars going on. Ending those will scale down the defense impact to the deficit 3. The question on the Bush Tax cuts will be revisted prior to the 2012 election. Ending the top-end tax cuts for the very rich among us (which allows their taxes to return to the Clinton levels) will have a pretty sizeable impact on the deficit. 4. Doing things like raising retirement age and the like on Entitlement programs. Essentially, I mock the Rand Paul budget because it really is a fantasy more than a legitimate proposal. It will be interesting to see the next couple of years of split governance with the Dems controlling the Senate and the Republicans controlling the House. What is needed is a grand compromise approach. 1. Taxes on the rich need to rise, something Republicans don't want...but is necessary. 2. The age of which things like Social Security kicks in needs to be adjusted. (People are living longer. So when SS pays out needs to be adjusted.) Dems won't like this, but it is necessary. 3. We need to get our asses out of Iraq and Afghanistan SOON. (Which will scale down defense spending.) At least this is the "Jim" recommendation.
Avatar image for deactivated-598fc45371265
deactivated-598fc45371265

13247

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#13 deactivated-598fc45371265
Member since 2008 • 13247 Posts

We need to get our asses out of Iraq and Afghanistan SOON.

nocoolnamejim

Are there any estimates to how much those to place are costing the US?

PS I feel you've hijacked what was supposed to be a humorous thread. :( Of course a mod would come and ruin the fun.

Avatar image for mattbbpl
mattbbpl

23010

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#14 mattbbpl
Member since 2006 • 23010 Posts

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="StormMarine"] So the question is, is there any hope at all? Storm_Marine

Probably not with this Congress. Most of the current politicians can't seem to see past the ideology they cling to so dearly.

Was there more hope with the previous congress in your opinion?

Technically yes, but that's really only due to the technicality of one party holding a majority in both houses - at least that would made it slightly more possible to get something like tax increases through or specific cuts through (albeit still not all that's needed).

Now we have Republicans in the House, Democrats leading the Senate (still with enough Republicans to filibuster), and what I perceive as a higher number of politicians fiercely clinging to ideology than in the recent past (the proposal here seems to illustrate that rather nicely).

I think we'll see a lot of gridlock in the next two years.
Avatar image for nocoolnamejim
nocoolnamejim

15136

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 22

User Lists: 0

#15 nocoolnamejim
Member since 2003 • 15136 Posts

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]

We need to get our asses out of Iraq and Afghanistan SOON.

Storm_Marine

Are there any estimates to how much those to place are costing the US?

PS I feel you've hijacked what was supposed to be a humorous thread. :(

I'm sorry! I didn't mean to hijack. I can back out if you want? To be fair, there's plenty to mock when it comes to politics! (And to answer your question...) This is the best visual representation that I've seen on the cost of the various factors causing our deficit.
Avatar image for carrot-cake
carrot-cake

6880

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#16 carrot-cake
Member since 2008 • 6880 Posts

[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]

We need to get our asses out of Iraq and Afghanistan SOON.

nocoolnamejim

Are there any estimates to how much those to place are costing the US?

PS I feel you've hijacked what was supposed to be a humorous thread. :(

I'm sorry! I didn't mean to hijack. I can back out if you want? To be fair, there's plenty to mock when it comes to politics! (And to answer your question...) This is the best visual representation that I've seen on the cost of the various factors causing our deficit.

MMmmm look at those delicious Bush era tax cuts. Imagine if they weren't there. How wonderful.

Oh, and if Rand paul actually would like to go ahead with that kind of buget, he's ****ed in the head. 83% cut to education with a 4.9% cut to military spending? Nice to see his priorities are with making Americans smarter.

Avatar image for Theokhoth
Theokhoth

36799

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#17 Theokhoth
Member since 2008 • 36799 Posts
I'm sorry, but anyone who wants to cut over eighty percent of our educational funds and actually thinks that's a good idea is about as credible as a raving psychopath.
Avatar image for Ace6301
Ace6301

21389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#18 Ace6301
Member since 2005 • 21389 Posts
That Rand dudes idea is genius. Cut education so people won't be educated and thus won't know just how stupid those cuts are.
Avatar image for mattbbpl
mattbbpl

23010

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#19 mattbbpl
Member since 2006 • 23010 Posts
I'm sorry, but anyone who wants to cut over eighty percent of our educational funds and actually thinks that's a good idea is about as credible as a raving psychopath.Theokhoth
Rand Paul is a libertarian. Haven't they been advocating a private school system for a while now? I imagine he envisions the void eventually being filled with such a private sector.

Not that I advocate such a proposal myself, mind you.
Avatar image for DroidPhysX
DroidPhysX

17098

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#20 DroidPhysX
Member since 2010 • 17098 Posts

But House Republicans go easy on the Congressional budget. Yay!

Avatar image for kayoticdreamz
kayoticdreamz

3347

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#21 kayoticdreamz
Member since 2010 • 3347 Posts
ive got the disagree the recession is far far from over. in fact i doubt this is even the worst of it. we still have plenty of things that could cause a collapse. the US dollar value still remains weak and hasnt shown any signs of improving. the energy problem is still very real. all we need is another disaester(spelling?) in the states that creates 5 or 6 dollar a gallon gas prices like it was a few years in the current state of problems and oh man the fun the follow. like every other politician i dont believe they are going to do budget cuts. and even then the budget cuts are small in comparison to http//www.usdebtclock.org which is a staggering amoung of money and i didnt read everything completely but the numbers i saw didnt seem to even come to terms with scratching the surface. also healthcare say what you will but it is going to cost private businesses ALOT of money. this is money they can use to hire people instead must be used to fork out an endless array of benefits. never mind the fact we are putting a bunch of politicians in charge of medicine i personally cant stand the thought of a bunch of liars in charge of my health. in what sane world does adding 200 million people to a beneifts program cut back the defeicit? i cant see how this logically makes any sense. dont add 200 million to a payroll and expect a surplus of money without ALOT of cuts else where and im not seeing those cuts add up. or being implenented also many retirement benefits are dried up. people who are in their 20s wont see this stuff. people in their 40s probably wont see it. what happens when dear old grandma cant afford her medicine? i suspect riots will ensue. why? because everyone has been taught to rely on retirement programs like medicare and SS to live off and the irony is medicare pamplhets recommend getting a private insurance and the healthcare bill pretty much makes the government which cant even offer a great retirement insurance now have a huge national for everyone insurance. heck the endless people living off of welfare what happens when that ends? the number of people that will have no food money? the world does know what happens when people run out of food money and a lot of people have it happen at once? violence. lots and lots of violence. rules go out the window. people dont care they just want to survive. chaos ensues it is one the deadly reasons why reliance on welfare is a very very bad idea. in a similar train of thought take the dogs food dish away from him....sure the dog trusts you to put it back but what if you dont? the dog will eventually turn on the master the dog wont starve on account of a dumb decision by the master if the dog can help it. the same exact thing here humans are animals after all. all these things and a host more are reasons why the recession is far from over the worst is far from behind us and its only going to go downhill. really until the government stops growing and stops passing more pointless laws and understand the concept of lower taxes = more money and fighting a war full force and not this half baked fighting style they are doing then were never going to get out of iraq and were never going to create jobs. businesses need lower taxes to higher people its simple basic math. go play an old game called colonization by sid meir the concept is sound as the king taxes you more you trade with him less and you are forced to smuggle goods to other countries for more money. the king gets mad raises taxes more to make up for lost money. you in turn smuggle even MORE goods. guess what higher taxes means? less disposable income to higher people with. in the game it meant i was more less likely to visit home and buy stuff. its simple basic math. now maybe just maybe if these businesses thought they were serious about debt control they might volunteer money but everyone knows they arent. everyone knows this is all just a political show nothing will get done but more spending and more regulation on the american citizen. wait for it when the big spending splurges of the government come crashing down....then we will see a REAL depression. you know with unemployment rates like the 30's 20-30% or higher possibly. or wait for our AAA credit status to go down even one notch cause i dont think it has just yet. heck wait for riots to break out. say what you will but the tea party embodies the frustration of this country well. wait for a violent version of that to emerge. its coming. i suspect the usual mostly liberal gamespot will laugh at me but whatever i dont care.
Avatar image for Theokhoth
Theokhoth

36799

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#22 Theokhoth
Member since 2008 • 36799 Posts
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]I'm sorry, but anyone who wants to cut over eighty percent of our educational funds and actually thinks that's a good idea is about as credible as a raving psychopath.mattbbpl
Rand Paul is a libertarian. Haven't they been advocating a private school system for a while now? I imagine he envisions the void eventually being filled with such a private sector.

Not that I advocate such a proposal myself, mind you.

Hence the "credible as a raving psychopath" thing. I can't imagine how messed-up our country would be with only private education.
Avatar image for limpbizkit818
limpbizkit818

15044

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#23 limpbizkit818
Member since 2004 • 15044 Posts
@nocoolnamejim Seeing as the public school system is the US is decentralized and standards are not set by the federal government, cutting funding from the top is not going to have as large as an impact as you would like to believe. And remember that Republicans and Rand Paul have for a long time been pushing to get rid of the DoE: I am going to guess he simply defunds it. Budget cuts are not going to be easy, but it has to be done. The problem is people often call foul without ever even looking at what a program really does. I have heard many bad things about the Department of Housing and Urban Development yet could not honestly tell you all of its functions. Would getting rid of it be a good thing? Maybe. The problem is that some people (not necessarily you) will blindly defend every cut at all times. The teachers union is a perfect example. The second you talk about lowering education spending they claim that you "hate kids" or that you want everyone to be dumb. That is completely false but indicative of people who oppose such cuts. The mudslinging is so bad that nothing gets done. There will always get an interest group that opposes cutting spending in some sector. If anything the Rand's proposal is a breath of fresh air. A politician willing to [really] cut spending? Yes please. And sure, you can go on about how cutting this and that is bad but this bill is just the start. Lets get the ball rolling. The wars will end and the tax cuts reversed (maybe) in the coming years. Things will get better. But if nothing else I hope Rand's proposal gets people to look at some of these programs and ask if we really need them. Do we need a Energy Department? A Bureau of Indian Affairs? And just one more thing about Defense spending: Rand's bill does shuffle some programs around (like the control of nuclear waste) and adds them to the Defense Department. This is going to raise defense spending.
Avatar image for DroidPhysX
DroidPhysX

17098

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#24 DroidPhysX
Member since 2010 • 17098 Posts

Its safe to say we are screwed:

  • GOP House + Dem. Senate + Dem. White House + Conservative Supreme Court = Nothing done
  • Obama keeps on trying to compromise. (Bush tax cuts for teh lulz)
  • Told the Chamber of Commerce he was going to lower the corporate tax (Closet republican?), even though all that will do is give them more money and not create jobs.
  • Wars that have no end in sight.
  • Possibility of permenant extenstion of bush tax cuts. Studies HAVE shown that middle class families LOSE on avearge $20,000 over 8 years thanks to Bush tax cuts while the top 2% gain money....

Avatar image for Serraph105
Serraph105

36038

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#25 Serraph105
Member since 2007 • 36038 Posts

wow....am I seeing that Rand Paul actually wants to cut energy spending down by literally 100%? And Education by 83%?

Do I really have to put into words how idiotic this is?

Avatar image for BMD004
BMD004

5883

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#26 BMD004
Member since 2010 • 5883 Posts

Since the TC's link references the Rand Paul proposal, allow me to discuss Senator Paul's proposed budget cuts. For those of you who are at all curious, here is a detailed view of the proposal for the new Rand Paul budget that shows how he would save the U.S. $500 billion per year. Before I proceed further, I want to show you all two important visual representations of how the U.S. spends your tax dollars if you live in this country.   Now, back to Senator Paul's budget. Look at it. I mean REALLY look at it. This is about as dead on arrival as is politically possible for a budget proposal to be. These two items positioned right next to each other show you everything that you need to know. DEFENSE.......................................................$47,500,000,000. (6.5%) EDUCATION..................................................$78,000,000,000 (83%) Only the Pell grant program survives. Cutting out 47.5 billion dollars from the Defense budget would only reduce it by 6.5%, but Rand Paul would rather eliminate over 83% of our Education Budget? This is honestly nothing more than a Republican fantasy dream put on paper. I doubt that there are even that many Republicans that want to go face the voters and say things like: "Because we think our children are the future of this country and we're falling behind the rest of the world in things like math and science, we've cut spending on their education by 83%."

"Because it's so important for the U.S. to be on the cutting edge of new scientific developments, we've cut the National Science Foundation by 62%."

"Because we think it is important that there be no discrimination when it comes to Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, we're eliminating the Department of Housing and Urban Development completely." (Among other things that cabinet level position is responsible for...) You get the idea. These programs/government entities exist and get more and more funding every year for two very important reasons: 1. They do useful things. Things that we, as a country, have felt is the legitimate role of government for decades.



2. The U.S. keeps growing each year, therefore the jobs that these programs/government entities do needs more resources because the job they need to do keeps getting bigger. As a simple analogy, think of staffing a tech support call center. Let's say that three people can handle 40 calls a day and give good service. If the call volume goes up to 80 per day, then those three people may not be enough and you need to invest in a larger tech support staff. Pretty basic right? It's the same way things like education work. If the number of kids that need to be educated goes up, then the money you need to spend to do things like build and maintain more schools, hire and train more teachers and support staff, etc. also goes up. And since the U.S. population is going to continue to grow, so is the size of government if we want to continue to have a public school system. So for Mr. Paul to blithely suggest cutting the education budget by 83%, what does he think is going to be the result? Unless you really feel that our education system is so bloated and inefficient that we can magically IMPROVE the quality of our schools and our education by removing 83% of the funding then what will happen is that our kids will get deeply dumber, less of them will be able to go to college, and the U.S. will gradually over time lose our ability to compete globally. Go through the rest of the list and think about what each one does and how slashing their funding billions and billions of dollars a year will impact their ability to do what they do successfully. So all these cuts that would utterly ravage our government's ability to do important things, and it still wouldn't actually accomplish it's goal. We'd still have a huge budget shortfall of approximately 800 billion to 1 trillion dollars. Let me repeat that: Even if every single one of Senator Paul's draconian cuts to all these discretionary spending programs went through, we'd still have an annual budget deficit of one trillion dollars. A serious approach to reducing the longterm structural deficit involves precisely three things. 1. Entitlement program changes (Social Security, Medicare, etc.) 2. Defense/military changes 3. Tax changes Any deficit reduction plan that is not 95% composed of some combination of cuts to Entitlement and Defense and increases in taxes is, flat out, not a serious deficit reduction strategy. It is unserious from a political standpoint, since I would wager even the majority of Republicans will run away as fast as they can from Rand Paul's recommended cuts to the "everything else" category of the first pie graph above. And it's unserious from the end goal it is trying to accomplish: actually reducing the longterm deficit since those are not the major areas we spend the vast majority of our money.

This is not difficult to understand when you take a high level view and look at where our spending really comes from as a country.nocoolnamejim

To be fair, this is exactly what Rand Paul says about Education:

The mere existence of the Department of Education is an overreach of power by the federal government. State and

local governments, parents, and teachers are far better equipped to meet the needs of their students than this redtape laden department, which benefits teachers' unions more than pupils. However, Pell Grants will be preserved in

this proposal.

The Department of Education has increasingly meddled with the more traditional idea of education being tailored to

the needs and requirement of communities and states. The growth in education spending at the federal level has

gone from nearly $53 billion in 2001 to an estimated $95 billion in FY2011 – an 80 percent increase. When the

federal government spends money, those are resources that are drained from the state, diluted by way of large

Washington bureaucracy, and sent back to the school districts with red tape and strings attached.

During the first half of the past century, America ranked among the most educated population in the world. Since that

time, the role of the federal government in education has expanded significantly, at one point (FY2009) accounting for

10 percent of all government spending. The expansion of the role of the federal government in education has been

detrimental, as the U.S. now ranks far below other economically developed countries. In December 2010, the OECD

reported that the U.S. ranked 14th in reading skills, 17th in science, and 25th in mathematics (considered below

average) out of 35 developed nations.

Avatar image for BMD004
BMD004

5883

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#27 BMD004
Member since 2010 • 5883 Posts

wow....am I seeing that Rand Paul actually wants to cut energy spending down by literally 100%? And Education by 83%?

Do I really have to put into words how idiotic this is?

Serraph105
Once again, to be fair, this is what Rand Paul says about Energy: Created in 1977, the purpose and intent of the Department of Energy was to regulate oil prices. The DoE today reflects an agency that encompasses national security activities such as nuclear weapon production, maintenance, and cleanup which are better suited for the Department of Defense, and other activities that are nothing more than corporate handouts. In addition, the DoE has provided research grants and subsidies to energy companies for the development of newer, cleaner forms of energy. All forms of energy development are subsidized by the federal government, from oil to nuclear, wind, solar, and bio-fuels, however these subsidies and research are often centered on forms of energy that can survive without subsidies. This drives the cost of energy up for all American taxpayers. The market has always provided new forms of energy development without governmental interference; it is time for the free market to start taking the reins.
Avatar image for DroidPhysX
DroidPhysX

17098

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#28 DroidPhysX
Member since 2010 • 17098 Posts

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_heating_aid#mwpphu-container

And what better way, than to cut off heating aid for low income families

Avatar image for nocoolnamejim
nocoolnamejim

15136

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 22

User Lists: 0

#29 nocoolnamejim
Member since 2003 • 15136 Posts
@limpbizkit818 I give Rand Paul credit for really putting something out there (even if I DO think it is complete lunacy) because it is a step beyond what we saw in the previous two years from the GOP in terms of actual policy proposals. What has been interesting to watch in the two years before the recent midterm election is that all the actual policy debates in both houses of Congress were not between the Republicans and the Democrats, but between the Left Wing and the Centrist Wing of the Democratic Party. The recent Health Care reform that just got passed is a good example. The Left Wing of the Democratic Party REALLY would have preferred a Single Payer model similar to what most of the advanced countries in Europe have. Barring that, they wanted a Public Option as a mechanism to drive down/compete with the private models. The Individual Mandate was the compromise approach that the Centrist Dems like Nelson, Lieberman, etc. were willing to agree with. I'm willing to bet that most folks can't name the GOP proposal to solve the health care crisis in the country with the roughly 47 million or so people without health insurance. Now? Well, now the GOP controls the House of Representatives. And they've been making a lot media noise about repealing the Affordable Care Act (Or the Job Killing Health Care Act or whatever they've called it...I forget). But what's their alternative? Why I said earlier in this thread that the next couple of years what the GOP does will be interesting is now they actually have to GOVERN. Want to repeal the Dem plan for Health Care Reform? Great! What's your other, BETTER idea? Don't like the deficit? What's YOUR idea to fix it? And that's why I give credit to Rand Paul. His ideas are, in my opinion, a mixture of pure fantasy and idiocy and don't really cut from the areas that you NEED to cut (defense and entitlement spending) but at least he's trying.
Avatar image for Renevent42
Renevent42

6654

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#30 Renevent42
Member since 2010 • 6654 Posts
How can anyone call themselves fiscally conservative and have no problem with our enormous over-bloated and out of control military spending. What a colossal waste of resources.
Avatar image for comp_atkins
comp_atkins

38662

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#31 comp_atkins
Member since 2005 • 38662 Posts

we need to install a temporary dictator who has the authority to make any cuts necessary to get our --- together without concern over voter blowback... the simple reason nothing is ever significantly reduced is there is always someone who will get pissed off by it and politicians pretty much live by the creed never to piss off their voters.

Avatar image for nocoolnamejim
nocoolnamejim

15136

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 22

User Lists: 0

#32 nocoolnamejim
Member since 2003 • 15136 Posts

we need to install a temporary dictator who has the authority to make any cuts necessary to get our --- together without concern over voter blowback... the simple reason nothing is ever significantly reduced is there is always someone who will get pissed off by it and politicians pretty much live by the creed never to piss off their voters.

comp_atkins
I'll fall on that grenade.... As long as I can have my own personal harem. I'm not going to look like our presidents usually look by the time they leave office without some nookie compensation.
Avatar image for BMD004
BMD004

5883

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#33 BMD004
Member since 2010 • 5883 Posts
[QUOTE="comp_atkins"]

we need to install a temporary dictator who has the authority to make any cuts necessary to get our --- together without concern over voter blowback... the simple reason nothing is ever significantly reduced is there is always someone who will get pissed off by it and politicians pretty much live by the creed never to piss off their voters.

nocoolnamejim
I'll fall on that grenade.... As long as I can have my own personal harem. I'm not going to look like our presidents usually look by the time they leave office without some nookie compensation.

What are your thoughts on Rand Paul's explanations that I posted a few posts up... on education and energy. Does it change your opinion any?
Avatar image for F1_2004
F1_2004

8009

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#34 F1_2004
Member since 2003 • 8009 Posts
What is wrong with politicians, aside from the fact that most of them are too old and have lost most of their mind? I swear, the only reason our government is so ****ed up is because people are too complacent and unwilling to actually take a stand and fix it.
Avatar image for comp_atkins
comp_atkins

38662

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#35 comp_atkins
Member since 2005 • 38662 Posts
[QUOTE="comp_atkins"]

we need to install a temporary dictator who has the authority to make any cuts necessary to get our --- together without concern over voter blowback... the simple reason nothing is ever significantly reduced is there is always someone who will get pissed off by it and politicians pretty much live by the creed never to piss off their voters.

nocoolnamejim
I'll fall on that grenade.... As long as I can have my own personal harem. I'm not going to look like our presidents usually look by the time they leave office without some nookie compensation.

to ensure you don't try to outlast your welcome, a chip will be implanted in your head like in mi3 which will turn your brain to soup should you try a permanent take-over...
Avatar image for nocoolnamejim
nocoolnamejim

15136

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 22

User Lists: 0

#36 nocoolnamejim
Member since 2003 • 15136 Posts
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="comp_atkins"]

we need to install a temporary dictator who has the authority to make any cuts necessary to get our --- together without concern over voter blowback... the simple reason nothing is ever significantly reduced is there is always someone who will get pissed off by it and politicians pretty much live by the creed never to piss off their voters.

BMD004
I'll fall on that grenade.... As long as I can have my own personal harem. I'm not going to look like our presidents usually look by the time they leave office without some nookie compensation.

What are your thoughts on Rand Paul's explanations that I posted a few posts up... on education and energy. Does it change your opinion any?

I wouldn't say that there aren't mitigating factors in what you say. I'm not one of those "throw money at things and it will fix it all" folks. But I don't think it changes my overall analysis of the situation. 1. Rand Paul's cuts are draconian. - Example: Do any of us REALLY think that the Department of Education is SO bloated that an 83% cut isn't going to have negative ramifications? If they are bloated, then what are the changes needed to make them more efficient? 2. Rand Paul's cuts aren't from the areas where the fat is - Every single one of Paul's cuts are from a tiny slice of the overall federal budget. Combined with them being draconian, they aren't long-term efficient relative to the impact caused by what you're cutting. I do think he's a well-intentioned, if in my opinion incorrect, man. He's genuinely trying to govern. But I think he is ultimately wrong and too blinded by his own libertarian ideology to realize the impact of his own proposals. My personal view is that the magic formula remains... 1. Economic recovery out of the recession 2. Letting some of the Bush Tax cuts expire 3. Ending the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan 4. Making some adjustments to Entitlement programs along the lines of retirement age in social security.
Avatar image for nocoolnamejim
nocoolnamejim

15136

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 22

User Lists: 0

#37 nocoolnamejim
Member since 2003 • 15136 Posts
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="comp_atkins"]

we need to install a temporary dictator who has the authority to make any cuts necessary to get our --- together without concern over voter blowback... the simple reason nothing is ever significantly reduced is there is always someone who will get pissed off by it and politicians pretty much live by the creed never to piss off their voters.

comp_atkins
I'll fall on that grenade.... As long as I can have my own personal harem. I'm not going to look like our presidents usually look by the time they leave office without some nookie compensation.

to ensure you don't try to outlast your welcome, a chip will be implanted in your head like in mi3 which will turn your brain to soup should you try a permanent take-over...

That's fine by me. I'm just a man. There are limits to how long I'd be able to keep up my heroic undertakings. :P
Avatar image for BMD004
BMD004

5883

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#38 BMD004
Member since 2010 • 5883 Posts

[QUOTE="BMD004"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] I'll fall on that grenade.... As long as I can have my own personal harem. I'm not going to look like our presidents usually look by the time they leave office without some nookie compensation.nocoolnamejim
What are your thoughts on Rand Paul's explanations that I posted a few posts up... on education and energy. Does it change your opinion any?

I wouldn't say that there aren't mitigating factors in what you say. I'm not one of those "throw money at things and it will fix it all" folks. But I don't think it changes my overall analysis of the situation. 1. Rand Paul's cuts are draconian. - Example: Do any of us REALLY think that the Department of Education is SO bloated that an 83% cut isn't going to have negative ramifications? If they are bloated, then what are the changes needed to make them more efficient? 2. Rand Paul's cuts aren't from the areas where the fat is - Every single one of Paul's cuts are from a tiny slice of the overall federal budget. Combined with them being draconian, they aren't long-term efficient relative to the impact caused by what you're cutting. I do think he's a well-intentioned, if in my opinion incorrect, man. He's genuinely trying to govern. But I think he is ultimately wrong and too blinded by his own libertarian ideology to realize the impact of his own proposals. My personal view is that the magic formula remains... 1. Economic recovery out of the recession 2. Letting some of the Bush Tax cuts expire 3. Ending the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan 4. Making some adjustments to Entitlement programs along the lines of retirement age in social security.

What he says here makes a lot of sense: "The growth in education spending at the federal level has gone from nearly $53 billion in 2001 to an estimated $95 billion in FY2011 – an 80 percent increase. When the federal government spends money, those are resources that are drained from the state, diluted by way of large Washington bureaucracy, and sent back to the school districts with red tape and strings attached." ^^ In addition to that, the education rankings in relation to the rest of the world have had an inverse relationship to increase in education spending. Why is education getting worse with the more money spent on it? I think he simply wants states to have more control over their education, and less from the federal government.

Avatar image for Renevent42
Renevent42

6654

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#39 Renevent42
Member since 2010 • 6654 Posts

I don't think the problems with our education system has to do with how much (or little) we have been spending on education...rather what we have had our children focusing on. So much emphasis and wasted effort with standardized testing for instance. My kids literally have weeks blocked out from quality teaching time to "study" for these tests. The main issue I see is these tests are idiotic, and the only reason they spend so much time is to ensure the lowest common denominators are able to score a tad better to raise the schools overall average. We are holding back too many of our bright children in order to baby the stupid and lazy. I am not saying we shouldn't invest in our...er...more needy students, but it should not be at the expense of our bright stars and cetainly not waste their precious time.

I don't know if there is any 'fat' to cut from the education budget and if there is I would welcome it. Personally though, I think we need to empower our teachers instead and let them teach the way they are supposed to. This is what most teachers tell me, anyways. I am not a teacher so I defer to them on what they believe is the right course of action.

As far as where to really make cuts there's nowhere more obvious than our over-bloated military budget. Not just with the wars either; there's really no reason why we need to have a defense budget equal to the rest of the world combined.

Avatar image for fl4tlined
fl4tlined

4134

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#41 fl4tlined
Member since 2007 • 4134 Posts
i think cutting everything in somewhat equal parts is better then having both sides trying to cut the others sides and not getting anywhere but meh...
Avatar image for Former_Slacker
Former_Slacker

2618

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#42 Former_Slacker
Member since 2009 • 2618 Posts

[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

So the question is, is there any hope at all?

nocoolnamejim

Definitely still hope! The hope is in four areas. 1. Economic recovery. Right now, unemployment is high. When unemployment is high, that means folks aren't paying taxes. Most economists are saying we've seen the worst of the recent recession. Hiring is a lagging indicator of economic recovery. Essentially, most companies wait until they're damn sure that the recession is over before they start unfreezing hiring and hiring new people again. So simply reducing the number of people unemployed will lead to a dent in the deficit. 2. Reduction in long-term military expenses We've got two simultaneous and very costly wars going on. Ending those will scale down the defense impact to the deficit 3. The question on the Bush Tax cuts will be revisted prior to the 2012 election. Ending the top-end tax cuts for the very rich among us (which allows their taxes to return to the Clinton levels) will have a pretty sizeable impact on the deficit. 4. Doing things like raising retirement age and the like on Entitlement programs. Essentially, I mock the Rand Paul budget because it really is a fantasy more than a legitimate proposal. It will be interesting to see the next couple of years of split governance with the Dems controlling the Senate and the Republicans controlling the House. What is needed is a grand compromise approach. 1. Taxes on the rich need to rise, something Republicans don't want...but is necessary. 2. The age of which things like Social Security kicks in needs to be adjusted. (People are living longer. So when SS pays out needs to be adjusted.) This is not entirely true. The average life expectancy, like average income, is skewed. When you look at the actual changes in life expentancy you see that the upper c lass has made significant gains whereas those made by the middle and lower c lasses don't really compare. Furthermore social security uses a regressive tax system. Every dollar made after $106,000 is not taxed so the middle and lower c lasses end up paying much more than the rich. Get rid of that cap and social security will be solvent for generations. You could even raise benefits if you wanted to.Dems won't like this, but it is necessary. 3. We need to get our asses out of Iraq and Afghanistan SOON. (Which will scale down defense spending.) At least this is the "Jim" recommendation.

Avatar image for Former_Slacker
Former_Slacker

2618

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#43 Former_Slacker
Member since 2009 • 2618 Posts

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

Are there any estimates to how much those to place are costing the US?

PS I feel you've hijacked what was supposed to be a humorous thread. :(

carrot-cake

I'm sorry! I didn't mean to hijack. I can back out if you want? To be fair, there's plenty to mock when it comes to politics! (And to answer your question...) This is the best visual representation that I've seen on the cost of the various factors causing our deficit.

MMmmm look at those delicious Bush era tax cuts. Imagine if they weren't there. How wonderful.

Oh, and if Rand paul actually would like to go ahead with that kind of buget, he's ****ed in the head. 83% cut to education with a 4.9% cut to military spending? Nice to see his priorities are with making Americans smarter.

This is the guy who said that government shouldn't be telling businesses they have to cater to the handicapped or to people of different racial or ethnic backgrounds if they don't want to.

Avatar image for Former_Slacker
Former_Slacker

2618

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#44 Former_Slacker
Member since 2009 • 2618 Posts

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]BMD004

To be fair, this is exactly what Rand Paul says about Education:

The mere existence of the Department of Education is an overreach of power by the federal government. State and

local governments, parents, and teachers are far better equipped to meet the needs of their students than this redtape laden department, which benefits teachers' unions more than pupils. However, Pell Grants will be preserved in

this proposal.

The Department of Education has increasingly meddled with the more traditional idea of education being tailored to

the needs and requirement of communities and states. The growth in education spending at the federal level has

gone from nearly $53 billion in 2001 to an estimated $95 billion in FY2011 – an 80 percent increase. When the

federal government spends money, those are resources that are drained from the state, diluted by way of large

Washington bureaucracy, and sent back to the school districts with red tape and strings attached.

During the first half of the past century, America ranked among the most educated population in the world. Since that

time, the role of the federal government in education has expanded significantly, at one point (FY2009) accounting for

10 percent of all government spending. The expansion of the role of the federal government in education has been

detrimental, as the U.S. now ranks far below other economically developed countries. In December 2010, the OECD

reported that the U.S. ranked 14th in reading skills, 17th in science, and 25th in mathematics (considered below

average) out of 35 developed nations.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Avatar image for BMD004
BMD004

5883

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#45 BMD004
Member since 2010 • 5883 Posts

[QUOTE="BMD004"]

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]Former_Slacker

To be fair, this is exactly what Rand Paul says about Education:

The mere existence of the Department of Education is an overreach of power by the federal government. State and

local governments, parents, and teachers are far better equipped to meet the needs of their students than this redtape laden department, which benefits teachers' unions more than pupils. However, Pell Grants will be preserved in

this proposal.

The Department of Education has increasingly meddled with the more traditional idea of education being tailored to

the needs and requirement of communities and states. The growth in education spending at the federal level has

gone from nearly $53 billion in 2001 to an estimated $95 billion in FY2011 – an 80 percent increase. When the

federal government spends money, those are resources that are drained from the state, diluted by way of large

Washington bureaucracy, and sent back to the school districts with red tape and strings attached.

During the first half of the past century, America ranked among the most educated population in the world. Since that

time, the role of the federal government in education has expanded significantly, at one point (FY2009) accounting for

10 percent of all government spending. The expansion of the role of the federal government in education has been

detrimental, as the U.S. now ranks far below other economically developed countries. In December 2010, the OECD

reported that the U.S. ranked 14th in reading skills, 17th in science, and 25th in mathematics (considered below

average) out of 35 developed nations.

Correlation does not imply causation.

True, but he explained that it is because "when the federal government spends money, those are resources that are drained from the state, diluted by way of large Washington bureaucracy, and sent back to the school districts with red tape and strings attached." So in his opinion, that is the reason.

Avatar image for quiglythegreat
quiglythegreat

16886

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#46 quiglythegreat
Member since 2006 • 16886 Posts
taxes need to go up. the military needs to be cut. entitlement programs need to be scaled back. this is nothing new, and it is nothing that is going to happen.
Avatar image for Renevent42
Renevent42

6654

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#47 Renevent42
Member since 2010 • 6654 Posts
What does he mean when he says: "when the federal government spends money, those are resources that are drained from the state, diluted by way of large Washington bureaucracy, and sent back to the school districts with red tape and strings attached."
Avatar image for Pixel-Pirate
Pixel-Pirate

10771

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#48 Pixel-Pirate
Member since 2009 • 10771 Posts

I'd be for cutting 90% of the military budget.

Avatar image for BMD004
BMD004

5883

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#49 BMD004
Member since 2010 • 5883 Posts
[QUOTE="Renevent42"]What does he mean when he says: "when the federal government spends money, those are resources that are drained from the state, diluted by way of large Washington bureaucracy, and sent back to the school districts with red tape and strings attached."

Basically means that the states can handle a lot of things that Washington does much more efficiently.
Avatar image for MrSelf-Destruct
MrSelf-Destruct

13400

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#50 MrSelf-Destruct
Member since 2010 • 13400 Posts
Since the TC's link references the Rand Paul proposal, allow me to discuss Senator Paul's proposed budget cuts. For those of you who are at all curious, here is a detailed view of the proposal for the new Rand Paul budget that shows how he would save the U.S. $500 billion per year. Before I proceed further, I want to show you all two important visual representations of how the U.S. spends your tax dollars if you live in this country. nocoolnamejim
Whoa. Very informative, man, thanks. Rand Paul's budget proposal is based on one thing; making money while saving money. This countries blatant disregard for education and the future of my children really sickens me at times. I feel bad for Obama. He's doesn't want to cut the things he knows are important to the people, but he also can't cut the things that are important to the right wingers and private corporations because his proposal will never pass and he'll just get slammed for even writing it up. He's in a damned if you do damned if you don't kind of situation.