Shock Graphics Show Severity of Proposed Obama Budget Cuts

[QUOTE="Renevent42"]Well then if that's true I am a little surprised you would even mention that as a response to cutting 350 billion from our budget. Last time I checked the current federal deficit is something like 1.3 trillion dollars...it doesn't take an accountant to see that a cut of that magnitude would have a tremendous impact on our overall budget and deficit.surrealnumber5

Are you sure you are an accountant? If we cut the budget by 350 billion dollars that's a 25% reduction in our mounting debt annually vs had we done nothing.

It doesn't fix the problem, but how one can just brush a reduction like that aside is beyond me.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="Renevent42"]Well then if that's true I am a little surprised you would even mention that as a response to cutting 350 billion from our budget. Last time I checked the current federal deficit is something like 1.3 trillion dollars...it doesn't take an accountant to see that a cut of that magnitude would have a tremendous impact on our overall budget and deficit.Renevent42

There's a difference between our debt and our budget deficit. We will never get out of debt (or at least get it back in line with GDP) unless we balance our budget...a 350 billion dollar reduction is 25% of our current deficit. That's a huge saving and a giant step in the right direction. "its funny how you are all for cutting military spending to get our countries finances under control but you are fine with continuing destructive spending policies as long as the military is cut" That's the weakest strawman argument I've seen in this thread...can you please show me exactly where I said anything like that?Renevent42

[QUOTE="Renevent42"]You are downplaying the seriousness of it by pointing to another problem...and maybe you were just being silly at the time but you also called the people who pointed out the defense budget cry babies. I don't think the rate of entitlement spending we have now is responsible either, never said that anywhere.surrealnumber5

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="Renevent42"]You are downplaying the seriousness of it by pointing to another problem...and maybe you were just being silly at the time but you also called the people who pointed out the defense budget cry babies. I don't think the rate of entitlement spending we have now is responsible either, never said that anywhere.comp_atkins

[QUOTE="Renevent42"]There's a difference between our debt and our budget deficit. We will never get out of debt (or at least get it back in line with GDP) unless we balance our budget...a 350 billion dollar reduction is 25% of our current deficit. That's a huge saving and a giant step in the right direction. "its funny how you are all for cutting military spending to get our countries finances under control but you are fine with continuing destructive spending policies as long as the military is cut" That's the weakest strawman argument I've seen in this thread...can you please show me exactly where I said anything like that?surrealnumber5

I never said anywhere I was fine with running a debt, I am in favor of getting back to a surplus and to start paying off our total debt. That particular comment is in reference to how most countries (and even a lot of businesses) are run. They run a debt as it increases the pace at which a country/company can grow. The problem is it's usually done at a certain ratio to total GDP/revenue and we have gone way out of whack with it.

Also, I stated exactly the opposite many times in this thread and agreed entitlement programs need to be cut too. Your argument is starting to degenerate into strawmans and other fallacies...

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

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] and i never said the military should not have cuts, but where we might be able to cut that spending in half that still would do nothing to get us out of debt because of runaway entitlement programs. surrealnumber5

[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.Stevo_the_gamer

... I would agree if it were not for the fact that the United States includes the Bible Belt.. Especially Texas.. Do we really want Texas to be completely running their education system? I don't think so.

... I would agree if it were not for the fact that the United States includes the Bible Belt.. Especially Texas.. Do we really want Texas to be completely running their education system? I don't think so.

sSubZerOo

... I would agree if it were not for the fact that the United States includes the Bible Belt.. Especially Texas.. Do we really want Texas to be completely running their education system? I don't think so.

sSubZerOo

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

... I would agree if it were not for the fact that the United States includes the Bible Belt.. Especially Texas.. Do we really want Texas to be completely running their education system? I don't think so.

Stevo_the_gamer

Actually it is our business if they provide a increasingly bias view on certain things that are incorrect that hamper the system.. Thats why we try to have a standardized education system to insure that things are being taught to how the scholars think is the most accurate account.. Something that can change consistently based upon peer review.. This may hinder the children for jobs that are out of state.. Or may provide increasing amounts of misinformation.. States are not seperate countries.. They are interconnected and one can affect all, just as all can affect one. With this kind of logic we can make arguments on states should have the right to deside what are capital offences and are not.. Or numerous other possibilities.. States have a well set of powers.. This isn't the 1700s... States should not control every facet of their working.. Thats not how system works anymore.

Actually it is our business if they provide a increasingly bias view on certain things that are incorrect that hamper the system.. Thats why we try to have a standardized education system to insure that things are being taught to how the scholars think is the most accurate account.. Something that can change consistently based upon peer review.. This may hinder the children for jobs that are out of state.. Or may provide increasing amounts of misinformation.. States are not seperate countries.. They are interconnected and one can affect all, just as all can affect one.

sSubZerOo

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Actually it is our business if they provide a increasingly bias view on certain things that are incorrect that hamper the system.. Thats why we try to have a standardized education system to insure that things are being taught to how the scholars think is the most accurate account.. Something that can change consistently based upon peer review.. This may hinder the children for jobs that are out of state.. Or may provide increasing amounts of misinformation.. States are not seperate countries.. They are interconnected and one can affect all, just as all can affect one.

Stevo_the_gamer

:| Any person half versed in education and pyschology would realize that some of the youngest ages are the most important for education..

:| Any person half versed in education and pyschology would realize that some of the youngest ages are the most important for education..

sSubZerOo

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Actually it is our business if they provide a increasingly bias view on certain things that are incorrect that hamper the system.. Thats why we try to have a standardized education system to insure that things are being taught to how the scholars think is the most accurate account.. Something that can change consistently based upon peer review.. This may hinder the children for jobs that are out of state.. Or may provide increasing amounts of misinformation.. States are not seperate countries.. They are interconnected and one can affect all, just as all can affect one.

sSubZerOo

:| Any person half versed in education and pyschology would realize that some of the youngest ages are the most important for education..

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

:| Any person half versed in education and pyschology would realize that some of the youngest ages are the most important for education..

Stevo_the_gamer

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

:| Any person half versed in education and pyschology would realize that some of the youngest ages are the most important for education..

Stevo_the_gamer

Your logic fails.. View on biology would have a huge problem if it were based upon medicine or other related fields.. And it could have a huge deal in Criminal justice if we are talking about their grasp in history.. Are we to accept a judge that may never believed or accepted the historical precidence the civil rights movement had? In fact we have already had a few judges in the south make a full on mockery of it with things such as denying interacial marriages..http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/15/interracial-couple-denied_n_322784.html

[QUOTE="Renevent42"] Absolutely...I can't believe that person even made that comment.Stevo_the_gamer

I could care less if people believe in Creaitonism.. And furthermore don't label.... Because in my mind this shouldn't be a Republican Democrat issue.. If kids want to believe in Creationism thats their business, afterall their parents can teach them all they want outside of school.. But when you have a official board specifically tryign to teach a specific religious view or bias.. There is a problem.

[QUOTE="Ontain"] it means your skills in sciences may be. if you can actually understand all the evidence to support evolution and still think Creationism is more valid then you're not a very good scientist.Stevo_the_gamer

The difference being is your argueing with a pseronal Liberty against a government ran institution.. What your supporting is a violation of the first amendment.

Your logic fails..

View on biology would have a huge problem if it were based upon medicine or other related fields.. And it could have a huge deal in Criminal justice if we are talking about their grasp in history..

Are we to accept a judge that may never believed or accepted the historical precidence the civil rights movement had?

In fact we have already had a few judges in the south make a full on mockery of it with things such as denying interacial marriages..

sSubZerOo

We're not.

Wat.

This is why we have checks and balances; bad eggs exist in every field.

The difference being is your argueing with a pseronal Liberty against a government ran institution.. What your supporting is a violation of the first amendment.

sSubZerOo

Are you sure about that?

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

The difference being is your argueing with a pseronal Liberty against a government ran institution.. What your supporting is a violation of the first amendment.

Stevo_the_gamer

Are you sure about that?

:| Yes the public education system is a government institution.. It has government precedence and standards..

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Your logic fails..

View on biology would have a huge problem if it were based upon medicine or other related fields.. And it could have a huge deal in Criminal justice if we are talking about their grasp in history..

Are we to accept a judge that may never believed or accepted the historical precidence the civil rights movement had?

In fact we have already had a few judges in the south make a full on mockery of it with things such as denying interacial marriages..

Stevo_the_gamer

We're not.

Wat.

This is why we have checks and balances; bad eggs exist in every field.

Checks and balances for local government in matters like this? Are you sure about that? Especially when each branch is just as bias as the other in a state government? Should we start allowing a state to have complete autonomy? Yeah your right that worked so well in the Reconstruction period after the Civil War where the South was left alone shortly after..

:| Yes the public education system is a government institution.. It has government precedence and standards..

sSubZerOo

Checks and balances for local government in matters like this?Are you sure about that?Especially when each branch is just as bias as the other in a state government?Should we start allowing a state to have complete autonomy?Yeah your right that worked so well in the Reconstruction period after the Civil War where the South was left alone shortly after..

sSubZerOo

Yes.

Yes.

The System does not end at the State Supreme Court.

States should follow the Law of the Land (Constitution).

Then =/= Now.

[QUOTE="Renevent42"] What are you blabbering about? Sons? I have kids myself...Stevo_the_gamer

Beat on what? And you know, not every person from the "older generation" believes that non-sense anyways.

Beat on what? And you know, not every person from the "older generation" believes that non-sense anyways.

Renevent42

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="Renevent42"]There's a difference between our debt and our budget deficit. We will never get out of debt (or at least get it back in line with GDP) unless we balance our budget...a 350 billion dollar reduction is 25% of our current deficit. That's a huge saving and a giant step in the right direction. "its funny how you are all for cutting military spending to get our countries finances under control but you are fine with continuing destructive spending policies as long as the military is cut" That's the weakest strawman argument I've seen in this thread...can you please show me exactly where I said anything like that?Renevent42

I never said anywhere I was fine with running a debt, I am in favor of getting back to a surplus and to start paying off our total debt. That particular comment is in reference to how most countries (and even a lot of businesses) are run. They run a debt as it increases the pace at which a country/company can grow. The problem is it's usually done at a certain ratio to total GDP/revenue and we have gone way out of whack with it.

Also, I stated exactly the opposite many times in this thread and agreed entitlement programs need to be cut too. Your argument is starting to degenerate into strawmans and other fallacies...

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="comp_atkins"] but it should still be done. along with major cuts to entitlements, along with increased taxes / or a reformed tax code which would have the affect of increasing government revenues... it is ALL needed.comp_atkins

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] i would need to see one hell of a good faith effort on the part of the government (cuts) before i backed a tax hike of any sort. surrealnumber5

Unfortuantely the bar would be set unrealistically high by most..

[QUOTE="Renevent42"]

Beat on what? And you know, not every person from the "older generation" believes that non-sense anyways.

Stevo_the_gamer

And they say liberals are the ones that are politically correct.

[QUOTE="Renevent42"]

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]
youre fine with running debt hell you just defended it in this post. it is not ok to run a debt it is really really bad to do so and it should not be tolerated.surrealnumber5

I never said anywhere I was fine with running a debt, I am in favor of getting back to a surplus and to start paying off our total debt. That particular comment is in reference to how most countries (and even a lot of businesses) are run. They run a debt as it increases the pace at which a country/company can grow. The problem is it's usually done at a certain ratio to total GDP/revenue and we have gone way out of whack with it.

Also, I stated exactly the opposite many times in this thread and agreed entitlement programs need to be cut too. Your argument is starting to degenerate into strawmans and other fallacies...

A business/government leveraging debt is not the same as running in the red. And the governement definetly is setup to leverage debt for growth. Also, check your facts...almost every 1st world country runs with some form of debt...for the explicit reason of growth.

This is going off on a tangent anyways, I never said I supported debt and I never once implied I only wanted to cut the defense budget and say the hell with everything else. I explicitly said otherwise multiple times throughout this conversation.

If you want to keep harping on this line of thought have at it but you are basically just talking to yourself at this point and not arguing against anything I said.

My position is clear:

I want to cut spending in MANY areas of government including defense and entitlements..in addition...I wouldn't be totally unsupportive of some sort of tax increase if need be either. I would of course expect the budget cuts to come first though, if the governement gets serious about addressing our debt problem then I wouldn't mind doing my part either.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="Renevent42"]

I never said anywhere I was fine with running a debt, I am in favor of getting back to a surplus and to start paying off our total debt. That particular comment is in reference to how most countries (and even a lot of businesses) are run. They run a debt as it increases the pace at which a country/company can grow. The problem is it's usually done at a certain ratio to total GDP/revenue and we have gone way out of whack with it.

Also, I stated exactly the opposite many times in this thread and agreed entitlement programs need to be cut too. Your argument is starting to degenerate into strawmans and other fallacies...

A business/government leveraging debt is not the same as running in the red. And the governement definetly is setup to leverage debt for growth. Also, check your facts...almost every 1st world country runs with some form of debt...for the explicit reason of growth.

This is going off on a tangent anyways, I never said I supported debt and I never once implied I only wanted to cut the defense budget and say the hell with everything else. I explicitly said otherwise multiple times throughout this conversation.

If you want to keep harping on this line of thought have at it but you are basically just talking to yourself at this point and not arguing against anything I said.

Are you really an accountant or were you just blowing smoke up our ass? When you borrow money the intent is to grow your economy/business larger than if you didn't have those funds. That growth in turns pays the interest and the following year you borrow more (in proportion to your revenues/gdp) and the cycle continues. This model is intended for moderate but steady growth and is used all over the place.

And I never said I think this is a healthy model...only pointing out how it works and that it's used everywhere.

Are you really an accountant or were you just blowing smoke up our ass? When you borrow money the intent is to grow your economy/business larger than if you didn't have those funds. That growth in turns pays the interest and the following year you borrow more (in proportion to your revenues/gdp) and the cycle continues. This model is intended for moderate but steady growth and is used all over the place.

And I never said I think this is a healthy model...only pointing out how it works and that it's used everywhere.

Renevent42

Wow...you totally went off on a tangent there didn't you lol. Why are you even telling me this? What does that have to do with any of my points?

[QUOTE="Renevent42"]

Beat on what? And you know, not every person from the "older generation" believes that non-sense anyways.

Stevo_the_gamer