Republican House Unveiled Proposed Cuts

[Luna Amore]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... ding-cuts/

The House Republicans are proposing the biggest reduction package in history, five times bigger than any before it. I'm really confused how anyone thought this was a good idea. Under this, over 100 programs would be completely canceled including AmeriCorps, Teach For America, and scholarships. The aim is to cut 100 billion, but my first thought was, couldn't you cut 100 billion from the defense budget alone? If I remember correctly, that went over a trillion last year.

Thoughts on this? Good, bad? Do you think Americans will support this? Will this die or will the Democrats compromise?

[Greed and Death]

They promised and they delivered. Also they know it wont get past the senate so intact, they will compromise to 1/4 that.

[Xomic]

One wonders why they don't just raise taxes instead.

[Rolamec]

One wonders why they don't just raise taxes instead.

Because it means less money for people to spend....did we not learn anything from the Great Depression, when FDR tried raising taxes what was it in 37? 39? And caused a double dip? Anybody? ANYBODY!

[Herskerstad]

100 billion is nothing when running 500 billion - 1,7 trillion dollar debts each year.

[Rolamec]

Not to mention, I'm happy that we are cutting stuff, but out of how much? I mean we have a $1.6 trillion dollar projected deficit, that's not the budget, that's the difference between how much we are getting in and how much we are spending. I mean Christ, this is like a 16 year old chick with a credit card making $100 a month and spending $500 or even more...I mean surely having a deficit, not a budget, a deficit of 10% of our GDP can't be good for our economy...

[Xomic]

One wonders why they don't just raise taxes instead.

Because it means less money for people to spend....did we not learn anything from the Great Depression, when FDR tried raising taxes what was it in 37? 39? And caused a double dip? Anybody? ANYBODY!

Uh huh. Yet you can cut and cut and cut theses social programs all you want and still not address the fundamental problem of the united states undertaxing. In fact, you could the vast majority of social programs and still be deep in debt.

[Rolamec]

Because it means less money for people to spend....did we not learn anything from the Great Depression, when FDR tried raising taxes what was it in 37? 39? And caused a double dip? Anybody? ANYBODY!

Uh huh. Yet you can cut and cut and cut theses social programs all you want and still not address the fundamental problem of the united states undertaxing. In fact, you could the vast majority of social programs and still be deep in debt.

I agree. I don't know if raising the taxes is the answer, or perhaps reducing them and closing the gap for those who don't pay (which is essentially the same thing).

[Farnhamia]

Uh huh. Yet you can cut and cut and cut theses social programs all you want and still not address the fundamental problem of the united states undertaxing. In fact, you could the vast majority of social programs and still be deep in debt.

I agree. I don't know if raising the taxes is the answer, or perhaps reducing them and closing the gap for those who don't pay (which is essentially the same thing).

What does "closing the gap for those who don't pay" mean?

[Rolamec]

I agree. I don't know if raising the taxes is the answer, or perhaps reducing them and closing the gap for those who don't pay (which is essentially the same thing).

What does "closing the gap for those who don't pay" mean?

Meaning there is something seriously flawed with only half of our country paying federal taxes, yet reaping the benefits from the other half which is paying..

[Farnhamia]

What does "closing the gap for those who don't pay" mean?

Meaning there is something seriously flawed with only half of our country paying federal taxes, yet reaping the benefits from the other half which is paying..

Perhaps, depending on definitions which I'm prepared to go into this morning, but I still don't get what it is you propose to do about.

[Rolamec]

Meaning there is something seriously flawed with only half of our country paying federal taxes, yet reaping the benefits from the other half which is paying..

Perhaps, depending on definitions which I'm prepared to go into this morning, but I still don't get what it is you propose to do about.

I'd say the rates should be cut, everybody pays a bit, even if the lowest income earner is paying 1% -it's something, but it remains progressive (ability to pay), as a flat tax would be unfair. In short, reduce the rates, and get rid of all deductions, breaks, credits, etc.

[Alien Space Bats]

Does anyone find it curious that their focus is on eliminating funding on regulatory enforcement in workplace and product safety (eg., FDA and FAA inspection), as well as those programs aimed at helping the poor become competitive in contemporary markets (WIC infant nutrition [think infant mental development], Head Start [think preschool education], Americorps, scholarships, etc.)?

Considering that cutting these programs will also take money out of the economy (by resulting in a reduction of government workers' salaries and/or layoffs), the argument that trying to make good the difference by increasing taxes on that top 2% seems remarkably hollow. Yes, some of those taxes taken would go into investment or product purchases if not taken; but (in addition to the loss of consumption spending by government workers and the poor) the reduction in human capital due to lost educational opportunities by the poor will also hurt the nation's economic position as well - and not just by keeping people from reaching their full productive potential, but by extending their future as persons who are essentially being carried by the system rather than being able to pull their own weight.

Indeed, increasing welfare dependency hardly seems to be a strategy well-suited to long-term deficit reduction, unless our long-term goal is to let people on welfare die. Is it?

[Farnhamia]

Perhaps, depending on definitions which I'm prepared to go into this morning, but I still don't get what it is you propose to do about.

I'd say the rates should be cut, everybody pays a bit, even if the lowest income earner is paying 1% -it's something, but it remains progressive (ability to pay), as a flat tax would be unfair. In short, reduce the rates, and get rid of all deductions, breaks, credits, etc.

Ah, okay, gotcha. Yeah, I suppose. It would certainly increase the need for more tax preparers.

[Packville]

Abolish the income tax, do away with country-club prisons, and hit billionaire crooks (like Ken Lay) with fines of the sort that ancient Rome imposed on criminals. As long as it doesn't take more than 75% of their ill-gotten gains, it will not violate their 8th Amendment protection against excessive fines. You could get enough from Bernie Madoff alone to avoid a deficit this year.

[Rolamec]

Abolish the income tax, do away with country-club prisons, and hit billionaire crooks (like Ken Lay) with fines of the sort that ancient Rome imposed on criminals. As long as it doesn't take more than 75% of their ill-gotten gains, it will not violate their 8th Amendment protection against excessive fines. You could get enough from Bernie Madoff alone to avoid a deficit this year.

I'm pretty sure Madoff doesn't have a trillion and a half, and that 75% might be a bit high...

[Farnhamia]

Abolish the income tax, do away with country-club prisons, and hit billionaire crooks (like Ken Lay) with fines of the sort that ancient Rome imposed on criminals. As long as it doesn't take more than 75% of their ill-gotten gains, it will not violate their 8th Amendment protection against excessive fines. You could get enough from Bernie Madoff alone to avoid a deficit this year.

I'm pretty sure Madoff doesn't have a trillion and a half, and that 75% might be a bit high...

And Ken Lay played the ultimate "get out of jail free" card. He died.

[Packville]

Abolish the income tax, do away with country-club prisons, and hit billionaire crooks (like Ken Lay) with fines of the sort that ancient Rome imposed on criminals. As long as it doesn't take more than 75% of their ill-gotten gains, it will not violate their 8th Amendment protection against excessive fines. You could get enough from Bernie Madoff alone to avoid a deficit this year.

I'm pretty sure Madoff doesn't have a trillion and a half, and that 75% might be a bit high...

As long as the punishment fits the crime, it isn't excessive. And if Madoff alone doesn't have enough, some of his partners in crime can make up the slack.

Another way to save money is to end the war on drugs, scrap the DEA altogether, and close about half of the federal prisons by granting a general amnesty to everyone convicted solely of non-violent drug offenses.

[Der Teutoniker]

100 billion is nothing when running 500 billion - 1,7 trillion dollar debts each year.

No, it's something. And you have to start somewhere.

[Innsmothe]

Cut the damned military budget, maybe it'll encourage a mor streamlined and impressive performance.

[Gauthier]

Notice most if not all the cuts are aimed at social assistance of one form or another.

[Ashmoria]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/11/house-republicans-unveil-dramatic-spending-cuts/

The House Republicans are proposing the biggest reduction package in history, five times bigger than any before it. I'm really confused how anyone thought this was a good idea. Under this, over 100 programs would be completely canceled including AmeriCorps, Teach For America, and scholarships. The aim is to cut 100 billion, but my first thought was, couldn't you cut 100 billion from the defense budget alone? If I remember correctly, that went over a trillion last year.

Thoughts on this? Good, bad? Do you think Americans will support this? Will this die or will the Democrats compromise?

The Department of Agriculture’s budget would see a 22% reduction compared with current spending levels: $88 million in cuts for Food Safety and Inspection; a $747 million cut in nutrition programs for women and children; a $241 million cut at the FDA.

what? you dont think that its right to let babies starve so that the rich can keep their tax cuts?

[Farnhamia]

Notice most if not all the cuts are aimed at social assistance of one form or another.

Just defending the American tax-payer. Saint Ronnie would be proud.

[Ashmoria]

Notice most if not all the cuts are aimed at social assistance of one form or another.

we are not supposed to notice that its CLASS WARFARE.

its only class warfare when the rich might lose a few dollars.

[Farnhamia]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/11/house-republicans-unveil-dramatic-spending-cuts/

The House Republicans are proposing the biggest reduction package in history, five times bigger than any before it. I'm really confused how anyone thought this was a good idea. Under this, over 100 programs would be completely canceled including AmeriCorps, Teach For America, and scholarships. The aim is to cut 100 billion, but my first thought was, couldn't you cut 100 billion from the defense budget alone? If I remember correctly, that went over a trillion last year.

Thoughts on this? Good, bad? Do you think Americans will support this? Will this die or will the Democrats compromise?

The Department of Agriculture’s budget would see a 22% reduction compared with current spending levels: $88 million in cuts for Food Safety and Inspection; a $747 million cut in nutrition programs for women and children; a $241 million cut at the FDA.

what? you dont think that its right to let babies starve so that the rich can keep their tax cuts?

Kids who can't pick the right parents don't deserve my sacred tax dollars for food.